[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..we are all students of life, Arista.....

Sure of Life


But some are only just Outta Nappys

[smeagol]

no not all people are equally valuable. i tried selling my then gf in morocco once and was only offered 2 camels and a goat for her. the last one before i got 6 camels and a emu

[joeysteele]

I consider all Human beings have worth and in different ways bring something to the World and others lives.
Of course there are people who do and can achieve greater status and success than others but as to being more valuabe, in some ways certainly yes, in possibly other ways no.

I lost a friend earlier this year who was mentally impaired and physically paralysed after a serious car accident, in which he lost both his parents too.
His humour, his determination to try to learn more and do as much as he can was something ,as I watched all his efforts,that was far more valuable than a lot I see in people who some in society and even authority would call the 'more important' people.

I put a value on all people, no matter their status or even great lack of it.
How they are and what they do and try to do as to reaching out to others is far more important and valuable to me as to other people.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I consider all Human beings have worth and in different ways bring something to the World and others lives.
Of course there are people who do and can achieve greater status and success than others but as to being more valuabe, in some ways certainly yes, in possibly other ways no.

Spot The Student Everyone



Joey
Hitler Was a Human



You sticking up for him?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Spot The Student Everyone



Joey
Hitler Was a Human



You sticking up for him?

arista,I really like you with a passion but with the greatest of respect, you must take all that is said in the full quotes of the post and not just a snippet from it.

If you read the whole of my post, I said I place value on all human beings for the way they are and what they do as to reaching out to others, clearly since you raise the name Hitler,it should be obvious to all that he is someone I would clearly not place any value on for his actions towards other human beings.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

arista,I really like you with a passion but with the greatest of respect, you must take all that is said in the full quotes of the post and not just a snippet from it.

If you read the whole of my post, I said I place value on all human beings for the way they are and what they do as to reaching out to others, clearly since you raise the name Hitler,it should be obvious to all that he is someone I would clearly not place any value on for his actions towards other human beings.

Yes I am a Shocking Editor

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I consider all Human beings have worth and in different ways bring something to the World and others lives.
Of course there are people who do and can achieve greater status and success than others but as to being more valuabe, in some ways certainly yes, in possibly other ways no.

I lost a friend earlier this year who was mentally impaired and physically paralysed after a serious car accident, in which he lost both his parents too.
His humour, his determination to try to learn more and do as much as he can was something ,as I watched all his efforts,that was far more valuable than a lot I see in people who some in society and even authority would call the 'more important' people.

I put a value on all people, no matter their status or even great lack of it.
How they are and what they do and try to do as to reaching out to others is far more important and valuable to me as to other people.

I totally agree joey, you put it very poetically and I appreciate your heartfelt post about your friend. It shows what perhaps I was trying to express, that it isn't so much about what you do but the hearts you touch that define you as valuable.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I totally agree joey, you put it very poetically and I appreciate your heartfelt post about your friend. It shows what perhaps I was trying to express, that it isn't so much about what you do but the hearts you touch that define you as valuable.

Thank you very much Kizzy and I agree with you, in what you are saying too as to the hearts you touch being something really valuable.

[Kizzy]

You're welcome Joey, I find the example given unacceptable.
I could understand if it had been between a doctor and a criminal, but it isn't and to me that's wrong.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Zee

I think your value as a person stems from what you give back to the world. That could be through charity, work, kindness, love, respect... call that +1... some people aren't physically capable of doing anything, call that 0... some people give back negativity, that's -1... so no, I don't think people are equally valuable, not inherently. Most people have the choice to do good with their lives and for whatever combination of reasons, they choose a path in life that either helps others for the most part or hurts others for the most part...

what about people who do work for charity but do all they can to avoid paying tax like the Bonos , jimmy carrs and phill Collins of this world and many more....al capone used charity as a morality car wash to try and make himself look good in public. behind closed doors he was of course a mass murderer
I am very weary of those who use charity to try and show off an image
take beckham he pays miniscule percent of taxes on his 100s of millions, yet when he donated part fo his wages from his paris football wages he was hailed a saint. truth is it was a tax write off

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

no. some people are better than others.

some people are abusive assholes.

and i mean real abusive assholes, not just people who are annoying, i mean seriously abusive assholes who are evil and who hurt other people for fun.

I agree with this.

[Ninastar]

there's always going to be better people than others, no matter what you do.

[Z]

Originally Posted by the truth

what about people who do work for charity but do all they can to avoid paying tax like the Bonos , jimmy carrs and phill Collins of this world and many more....al capone used charity as a morality car wash to try and make himself look good in public. behind closed doors he was of course a mass murderer
I am very weary of those who use charity to try and show off an image
take beckham he pays miniscule percent of taxes on his 100s of millions, yet when he donated part fo his wages from his paris football wages he was hailed a saint. truth is it was a tax write off

Perhaps his motives aren't exclusively borne out of a desire to give to charity, I don't know, but he's still doing some good in the world, you know? I mean it's not like I think people can be ranked on a scale, I just used that as an example of how people can be perceived through their actions; but I think if you are incapable of giving anything back to the world because the world has dealt you a bad hand, then by default you aren't contributing anything but neither are you damaging anything. You're out of the system, essentially. People are complex and most people are neither wholly good nor wholly bad; some fall onto the extremes of either side of the coin but most people are on a spectrum and I think if you make yourself valuable by doing your best in life to be a good person, that's all that can be asked of you.

[joeysteele]

May I just say, I don't think Redway meant offence at all in his opening post to anyone in particular.

I think he was just saying a general comment as to how others may judge or measure value on individuals.
I know of people who see the severely diasbled as having no worth, this Govt for instance for starters.

I really believe Redway was not stating a view that was his as to measuring value but just asking a question, sometimes it is an extreme example that provokes thought and gets the opinions flowing.
Redway is a really good guy and I am sure he meant no offence to anyone in the opening post.

I made my comment in which I higlighted a severely disabled friend of mine as an example of where I saw greater worth because of the disabilities. However I took no offence at the opening post question nor was I offended in anyway by it either.

I think the question brought about some good, strong and well thought out comments and that I firmly believe was the only intention from Redway and his opening post on the thread to gather others thoughts overall..

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Verbal

Imagine a world where disabled people are actually Doctors...just incase you don't get my sarcasm, there are disabled Doctors in the world....

One of the greatest minds in history is severely disabled and has to rely on other people for absolutely every aspect of his care. Edit: Professor Stephen Hawkings.

The average person with a disability does far far more than a regular everyday person who is perfectly healthy. I could list you scores of healthy people who are nothing more than a drain on society. I can't name you one disabled person who is.

Please, don't single disabled people out as being the weaker, disposable aspect of society. Because its simply not true.

quality post. people who continue their lives and strive to live a good life with all sorts of disabilities or in some cases with diseases are an absolute inspiration. beyond that a disability can also strengthen a person in other ways, whether that be in terms of the ways they think or problem solve or their strength of spirit and determination or the optimism too....Ive worked with people with all sorts of disability and found I infinitely more enjoyable, fun and rewarding than working with so called able bodied people. life is strange

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

May I just say, I don't think Redway meant offence at all in his opening post to anyone in particular.

I think he was just saying a general comment as to how others may judge or measure value on individuals.
I know of people who see the severely diasbled as having no worth, this Govt for instance for starters.

I really believe Redway was not stating a view that was his as to measuring value but just asking a question, sometimes it is an extreme example that provokes thought and gets the opinions flowing.
Redway is a really good guy and I am sure he meant no offence to anyone in the opening post.

I made my comment in which I higlighted a severely disabled friend of mine as an example of where I saw greater worth because of the disabilities. However I took no offence at the opening post question nor was I offended in anyway by it either.

I think the question brought about some good, strong and well thought out comments and that I firmly believe was the only intention from Redway and his opening post on the thread to gather others thoughts overall..

Joey just to say,I for one believe David Cameron had a severely disabled son,I don't think for one minute he'de have thought he was worthless,infact one of the best pictures I have even seen was one of him cradling his son,so I really don't think its a case of them not caring,they do get a lot of help,my mom looks after an old disabled gentleman and although she doesn't get much in payment ,he does get help with the items he needs and altering his bungalow etc.We are all valuable to society in some ways,except of course the ones I have stated otherwise on other posts.

[Ammi]

..I don’t agree that with any other example it would have made the thread any dfferent..would an ‘older’ person be less valuable than a younger person..etc etc, the list is endless and nothing intentional was meant by the example used by the OP, just something we do when we make ‘hypothetical human interest’ threads..use examples etc...I guess the frustration of the OP and understandably so is the side tracking of a use of that example used, rather than his genuine interest in views on the topic, which I imagine is useful to his subject studies....

..anyway, not wanting to side track anymore and staying with the topic and as I think I posted earlier...my first instinct would be to say that we are all equally as ‘valuable’..but of course we are not..some not only have very little value to this planet but actually remove value from it in the case of murderers etc...and even people who are extremely valuable in just general things they do to care/have empathy for people in their lives...I guess we would call them the ‘average person’...in a culling of the population situation or an extreme situation when it might have to be decided..they could find their value very much diminished...because that is when ‘practical/logical’ would have to overrule ‘civilised’....and all empathy/compassion..’human’ feelings would have to be put aside...pr made secondary...actually, slightly off topic again, I always find that interesting in apocalyptic or plane crash survival movies...how the dynamics/priorities of everything changes and people within the group..(especially as I'm a recent fan to The Walking Dead series..)...interesting topic, Redway...

[Niamh.]

Yes, I agree Ammi.

Also I think Matt made a good point earlier on as well :

Originally Posted by MTVN

I dont think people are objectively more valuable than others, its something subjective and people will have their own perspectives on how valuable others are based on their actions, their relationship with them etc

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes, I agree Ammi.

Also I think Matt made a good point earlier on as well :

..yeah, it is a good point because obviously we all have people who we personally hold as valuable to our own lives..it's strange because Redway's question along with another thread about 'are we civilised'...made me think a lot about an apocalyptic situation...yeah, I think we are absolutely 'civilised'..very flawed, obviously..what isn't flawed and the population/planet is so vast that there are many flaws...but maybe it's understandable with all the bad things that happen in the world, to feel sometimes that we're not 'civilised' but I think if you put us in an apocalyptic/survival situation, you would appreciate just how much we indeed are...do you know what I mean..?...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, it is a good point because obviously we all have people who we personally hold as valuable to our own lives..it's strange because Redway's question along with another thread about 'are we civilised'...made me think a lot about an apocalyptic situation...yeah, I think we are absolutely 'civilised'..very flawed, obviously..what isn't flawed and the population/planet is so vast that there are many flaws...but maybe it's understandable with all the bad things that happen in the world, to feel sometimes that we're not 'civilised' but I think if you put us in an apocalyptic/survival situation, you would appreciate just how much we indeed are...do you know what I mean..?...

I do, of course it could also go the Lord of The Flies route

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I do, of course it could also go the Lord of The Flies route

..there was another movie as well, I can't remember what it was called..(Nicholas Cage..)..where the planet was dying and 'other life' from another planet was taking children only to populate/repopulate on their planet, so every adult became 'worthless' in value...which to a very much lesser extent is the case now in medical/paramedic situations..children always have priority, which is as it should be...


...hmmm, but one of those children could be a future mass murderer...interesting...

[Kizzy]

I think the idea was borne from the thread created on the news item that a 25yr old student was killed on his last delivery of pizza.
There was a feeling that some murders are more tragic than others, and that's right to a certain extent.
I feel that is where the concept of some people being percieved as more valuable came from. I might be wrong, but it felt like it at the time.
It made me think whether our priorities are changing and if viewing people in terms of duty was civilised, is it a real attitudinal shift?

[Niamh.]

Well, again going back to what Matt said I think that it's all really subjective, like if an elderly woman is murdered and a young mother with 3 kids is murdered, which is worse? I mean obviously they're both tragic and very wrong but the younger mother is probably more valuable in the sense that she'll leave three young children motherless. It's not a nice thing to talk about like that though

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, again going back to what Matt said I think that it's all really subjective, like if an elderly woman is murdered and a young mother with 3 kids is murdered, which is worse? I mean obviously they're both tragic and very wrong but the younger mother is probably more valuable in the sense that she'll leave three young children motherless. It's not a nice thing to talk about like that though

..yeah, I agree, that's more were my thought come from..that people are deemed more 'valuable' to a lesser degree now and certainly in medical emergency situations, even though it's not a nice thought and then an extreme situation were 'value' would become a priority and we'd almost be 'graded'....it is an interesting thing because it's not something that we really want to think, is it...if it was our own grandparent etc...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, again going back to what Matt said I think that it's all really subjective, like if an elderly woman is murdered and a young mother with 3 kids is murdered, which is worse? I mean obviously they're both tragic and very wrong but the younger mother is probably more valuable in the sense that she'll leave three young children motherless. It's not a nice thing to talk about like that though

Is that not just stating the obvious though, a younger person with more life to experience and young children would for most elicit more empathy maybe?