AL Teen Missing in Aruba

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

A lot of people think that one life is less of a loss than another. That's why some stories are more sellable than others. Nancy Grace, et al only go based on what the viewers want to hear about.

What it takes is seeing patterns in what people say and looking at what is embedded in what people say (i.e. "she was so pretty" or "she would've been something"). You can not go by what people literally say because most people want to see themselves as nice people who would never think and say that some lives are more valuable than others.

I have to say, I haven't ever heard someone say that she would be less of a loss to the world and her loved ones if she hadn't made good grades or been pretty. That includes people that are genuinely angry that her case has gotten so much attention over the years. I do not assume that because someone comments that she was pretty or smart that they don't give a shit about kids who aren't pretty or smart.

The majority of the world isn't composed of people who are blond and attractive and had great grades in high school and were well liked by peers. Do they really believe that people who are attractive and smart are more valuable than those that aren't?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I have to say, I haven't ever heard someone say that she would be less of a loss to the world and her loved ones if she hadn't made good grades or been pretty. That includes people that are genuinely angry that her case has gotten so much attention over the years. I do not assume that because someone comments that she was pretty or smart that they don't give a shit about kids who aren't pretty or smart.

Once again, this isn't about you. This is a general discussion of the trends and patterns that are observed in victimology and have been applied to cases such as Holloway's.

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Do they really believe that people who are attractive and smart are more valuable than those that aren't?

Generally speaking, yes.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Once again, this isn't about you. This is a general discussion of the trends and patterns that are observed in victimology and have been applied to cases such as Holloway's.



Generally speaking, yes.

Correct, my post was not about me, it was about having never heard someone express that they think one person is more valuable than another. I am responding to your posts, and right now there is no "general discussion of the trends and patterns that are observed in victimology and have been applied to cases such as Holloway's". There are only your posts on the topic, and the responses to those posts. If you think they aren't applicable to the discussion you want to have, you can always just not respond to them.

I have a hard time believing the majority of people, average people, truly believe those that achieve a more stereotypical success in life are more valuable as human beings. That's basically saying they think these people are more valuable than they themselves are. I think people in general are too self absorbed to truly believe that.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I have a hard time believing the majority of people, average people, truly believe those that achieve a more stereotypical success in life are more valuable as human beings. That's basically saying they think these people are more valuable than they themselves are. I think people in general are too self absorbed to truly believe that.

You're demonstrably wrong here.

Of course people (in general) believe that successful people are better, more valuable, etc. Just because we don't often put a specific valuation on those people doesn't mean it isn't a value issue (although we do - see: life insurance for literal value, and eBay sales of memorabilia for another form of value).

For other examples, look at sales of books by individuals who people view as successful, deference to "figurehead" success stories (see: Warren Buffett), celebrity weddings and funerals, and proven increased pay and opportunities for attractive people.

People are self-absorbed to the point of wanting to associate themselves with these people who they view as having increased value.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You're demonstrably wrong here.

Of course people (in general) believe that successful people are better, more valuable, etc. Just because we don't often put a specific valuation on those people doesn't mean it isn't a value issue (although we do - see: life insurance for literal value, and eBay sales of memorabilia for another form of value).

For other examples, look at sales of books by individuals who people view as successful, deference to "figurehead" success stories (see: Warren Buffett), celebrity weddings and funerals, and proven increased pay and opportunities for attractive people.

I am talking about worth as a person, not name recognition, monetary value, or fame. Worth as a human being.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I am talking about worth as a person, not name recognition, monetary value, or fame. Worth as a human being.

If you don't feel those two things are inextricably tied together, you're living on a fantasy planet of your own creation.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you don't feel those two things are inextricably tied together, you're living on a fantasy planet of your own creation.

Easy tiger. No need to be rude. I do not feel they are necessarily tied together. I do not think that because someone is famous, they are more valuable than I am as a human being. They are more attractive, wealthy, and famous, but that doesn't make them a better person than I (or anyone else). I also do not believe I am the only person on the planet that thinks this way.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you don't feel those two things are inextricably tied together, you're living on a fantasy planet of your own creation.

They are inextricably tied together which goes back to my very first post.