Are Family People Really More Valuable?

[Jesus H Christ]

I just listened to skeptoid podcast #22 about Flight 93 and was really shocked when Brian said "it was first and foremost a human tragedy, in which a lot of valuable family people were lost"

The notion that "Family People" are more valuable than other people is new to me. I'm a single guy and I'd like to think my life is just as valuable as a married guy.

I get that I live in America and we're all about "Family Values" and everything from tax deductions to insurance premiums seems to be biased towards "Valuable Family People", but I guess I've never heard anyone just blurt it out the way Brian did.

It was really creepy hearing Brian say that. :boggled:

...Richard

[fuelair]

Excellent point - and I am married!

Just people!!

[sleepy_lioness]

We get it all the time here in the UK too - for instance, politicians always claim to be helping 'hard-working families'. As a singleton this annoys me.

[mattdick]

Wow, you really misinterpreted that. I think Brian's entire point was that those people lost on Flight 93 were members of families, hence would be missed by those families.

That you might not have a spouse or children doesn't stop you from being in a family; I'm almost 100% sure you were born of a mother and father. They could be dead, I suppose, but even then, a "family" of friends is not too much of a stretch.

I think you have to really work hard to try to be offended by that. You can't have thought Brian wrote that script and thought it would make sense to distinguish dead husbands from dead single men can you have?

[Jesus H Christ]

Wow, you really misinterpreted that. I think Brian's entire point was that those people lost on Flight 93 were members of families, hence would be missed by those families.


Brian's statement is clear and non ambiguous, there's really no room for interpretation. He's speaking of a tragedy, made more so because of the loss of Valuable Family People.

I think you're interpretation is quite a stretch and assumes facts that are not present in his statement.

It's not really a terrific insult, it's just Brian's viewpoint on humanity and the relative worth of the various members of the human race. Seriously, think about it, are *all* humans equally deserving of life? Is it possible that some humans are more worthy than others?

Brian's belief is that people with spouses and children who depend on them are more worthy of life than other people. This is clearly his opinion and that is not a fact that can be disputed.

Perhaps Brian is correct, perhaps the loss of Valuable Family People hurts society more than the loss of single people. It would be easy to craft a convincing argument to defend Brian's point. On the other hand, the possibility that single people can later marry and have children is there and that fact should increase their worth substantially.

I'd say most people share Brian's views on this matter. It's not a big deal.

Whoop! Whoop!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Brian's statement is clear and non ambiguous, there's really no room for interpretation.
So quit interpreting it. He said (quoting to your OP) "...a lot of valuable family people were lost". Taken literally, this means nothing beyond family people were lost and family people are valuable. It is your interpretation that brings in the idea that family people are more valuable than others. Nothing of relative worth is in his words; the comparison is all in your mind.

[aggle-rithm]

Brian's statement is clear and non ambiguous, there's really no room for interpretation. He's speaking of a tragedy, made more so because of the loss of Valuable Family People.


He might have meant that it was more tragic because the people who died had dependents who counted on them for support, thus producing a hardship beyond just the death of the person.

Not that no one would miss a single person, but such a person has no one depending on their support.

[mattdick]

Brian's statement is clear and non ambiguous, there's really no room for interpretation. He's speaking of a tragedy, made more so because of the loss of Valuable Family People.

Okay, fair enough. Now tell me what about his statement implies "family" means "spouse and children" and not "parents and siblings".

[mattdick]

If the only distinction he is making is between people who have family depending on them for financial support, then I think we can all say that the tragedy is compounded. I would argue that for a single person, the tragedy is that friends and family will be aggrieved, while for a person who supports others, the tragedy is that friends and family will be aggrieved and someone who needs support financially will not be getting it anymore. In those terms I could understand the statement.

I don't think that's what he meant, but if you want to stretch it that far I think it's a reasonable interpretation on your part and I think it's also pretty supportable.

[Polaris]

I'm almost 100% sure you were born of a mother and father.

You never know, once in a while somebody is egg-hatched:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c306/JackieChiles/richardson25cn.jpg

[Jesus H Christ]

So quit interpreting it. He said (quoting to your OP) "...a lot of valuable family people were lost". Taken literally, this means nothing beyond family people were lost and family people are valuable. It is your interpretation that brings in the idea that family people are more valuable than others. Nothing of relative worth is in his words; the comparison is all in your mind.

Incorrect.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Incorrect.
Your argument is nearly as persuasive as your namesake.

[vita10gy]

So quit interpreting it. He said (quoting to your OP) "...a lot of valuable family people were lost". Taken literally, this means nothing beyond family people were lost and family people are valuable. It is your interpretation that brings in the idea that family people are more valuable than others. Nothing of relative worth is in his words; the comparison is all in your mind.

One could argue it doesn't even go that far. It could simply be saying that family people were lost and that people, in general, are valuable.

[Puppycow]

Brian's statement is clear and non ambiguous, there's really no room for interpretation. He's speaking of a tragedy, made more so because of the loss of Valuable Family People.

I think you're interpretation is quite a stretch and assumes facts that are not present in his statement.

It's not really a terrific insult, it's just Brian's viewpoint on humanity and the relative worth of the various members of the human race. Seriously, think about it, are *all* humans equally deserving of life? Is it possible that some humans are more worthy than others?

Brian's belief is that people with spouses and children who depend on them are more worthy of life than other people. This is clearly his opinion and that is not a fact that can be disputed.

Perhaps Brian is correct, perhaps the loss of Valuable Family People hurts society more than the loss of single people. It would be easy to craft a convincing argument to defend Brian's point. On the other hand, the possibility that single people can later marry and have children is there and that fact should increase their worth substantially.

I'd say most people share Brian's views on this matter. It's not a big deal.

Whoop! Whoop!

Wait a minute. Do you have life insurance? You are currently single and without dependants I assume. I am married with kids and have life insurance, but if I were single and without dependents I would not purchase such insurance.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that I place a certain extra value on my own life, and so do my dependants, because I have dependants. This is not to suggest that I wouldn't value my life if I was single, but I do take a few extra precautions. And there are times when I wish I could go back to a life with less responsibility and more freedom. But, we make choices and we live with them.

[LTC8K6]

This was kind of an unspoken and unwritten rule when I was in the Army...I was single and had no problem with it. I considered myself "more expendable" than those who had wives and children. Fortunately, it never came up, but the single men would have gone into danger first under this rule, and I recall no one who disagreed with the idea.

I am taxed out the wazoo compared to a married man, too...

[evolution disbeliver]

I wish I could (& I probably can, but wont) quote all the previous posts in this thread. But Brian is a journalist and he was using the correct terms to commnicate the story. From the arguments in this thread one would conclude that the overwhelming majority of posters just want something to argue about. This thread proves that! Because this subject was one of the absolutly ridiculous things to argue about. (Not to mention the fact that I had to throw in my 2 cents has just brought me in to it as well.) I digress...
This thread was more entertaining than what you see or on TV or radio any more.:D:D:D
Perhaps the powers that be could wipe this thread out, so it doesnt take up space on the server arguing over something as ignorant as this.

[arthwollipot]

Well, thanks for that, ED. We all appreciate your valuable contribution to the discussion.