(no subject)
Over the weekend somebody shot up a local restaurant and killed three people, two adults and one 8-year-old girl. This morning's paper had a quote from the local police chief about how we have to track down and bring to justice the "evil person who killed that innocent little girl" or some such. Excuse me, but three people were killed, you know. Don't adults count?
During tragedies, a lot of people seem to ascribe much higher value to children than to adults. It pisses me off sometimes. We're all human beings, and aside from those who have ceded their basic rights (by, for example, committing violent crimes), tragedies like this are equally sad no matter who the victims are. And if you wanted to make a rational case for differential value, rather than an emotional one, I'll bet you'd find it easier to elevate the 30-year-old with a career, a spouse, and kids. But playing the who's-more-valuable game is just stupid.
During tragedies, a lot of people seem to ascribe much higher value to children than to adults. It pisses me off sometimes. We're all human beings, and aside from those who have ceded their basic rights (by, for example, committing violent crimes), tragedies like this are equally sad no matter who the victims are. And if you wanted to make a rational case for differential value, rather than an emotional one, I'll bet you'd find it easier to elevate the 30-year-old with a career, a spouse, and kids. But playing the who's-more-valuable game is just stupid.
no subject
Well, I think this would depend on what criteria you used and how you weighted them. Fori nstance, what if you gave future potential a heavy weighting?
That's just a quibble, though. :) In general, I agree with you. But I also think this holds the in other direction. Many people excuse parents' being able to do whatever to their children (beat them, deny them harmless and pleasant things, scream at and belittle them) because they say children are less important than adults. They aren't. People are people.
(no subject)