Getting long in the tooth?
Are you saying that not everyone drinks from the fountain of youth like I do?

In the USA, an ambassador is a person appointed by the President to officially represent the President. An ambassador performs a job that a non-ambassador doesn't perform. The salary and title of an ambassador have nothing to do with why an ambassador's murder is newsworthy.

Are you trying to downplay the murder of an ambassador?

a position for which they agree to be appointed,, for a minimum of 120000 a year

its their job , risks and all

just like a police or fire mans job puts them in danger

,,, If they were volunteering to do it that may even make me more impressed with it

as it stands, I still say they are no more or less signifiant than any other american with a job,,,,


of course the title has to do with it, the title informs the world of what 'position' he has in relation to others positions,,,

no, IM trying to emphasize the murders of innocent and unexpecting people all over the world who are 'murdered' and never heard about,,,

Apologies if I seemed a bit down in my last post. I don't wanna bring anyone down. That is how I truly feel though about that. I've heard of the term 'Lifer', so I wondered if it meant someone who takes lots of risks in life? Not sure. I could have it wrong. Could be a surfer.

Oh. OK. Just as long as you don't object to the murder of an ambassador being talked about by the media. I see no reason to object to the murder being talked about.

Life is cheap. Thousands die every year in stupid ways and no one cares. We only care when they die in some extreme way, like in a building hit by airplanes or in an exploding building, or shot by a crazed gunman while eating popcorn.

Even before we had car seats more children died in swimming pool accidents than car accidents. But, the makers of car seats had a good lobbyist.

no, no objection to the talking

objection to the priorities,, maybe

actually a good point

I am personally less saddened when people die from a 'natural' cause like old age or a long battle with illness (in which the end of the suffering gives cause for a type of gratefulness)


than when they are snuffed out by the hands of another or by another person's immediate negligence or premeditated or unnecessary intent,,,,

I suppose it can be argued that some lives are of greater value than others and I'd agree. But we spend billions on defense and nothing on safer bathtubs. Makes me wonder if maybe the money goes to defending something other than American lives.

it seems you are asking straight forward questions, but you are not. the "if" on the first part: i am just guessing a personal (someone close to you) loss would "rank" higher than any other. The why part; because it is personal. Other deaths than the personal ones; in all of my travels and meeting and greeting people, I have found that most people value life, most all life. Why? because they can relate to it, they are alive and do not want to be dead. there are some that are not in this category, but they are few.

Our "culture" does not revere some lives more than others, I do not accept this as a given.

I do not think that the theater goers thought about the possibility of dying, at least no more or less than they normally do on any given outing.

"We" do not make that decision for our "culture", another item I do not accept as a given. It seems you are referring to the media, if so, that is a VERY small representation of our "culture", and they do it for money; it is their job.

the last question: of course. duh. did that need to be asked? Do you really think so poorly of your fellow man, of your "culture", as to think they/we are weighing out the lives of strangers based on media coverage of them? is there an agenda in that question? I suppose there might be the odd person whose death has no meaning, but I would think that to be so rare as to not need consideration in this particular question.

It would seem you are put out by the media coverage of death, not by the way people feel about it.

the media coverage, I believe, is a response to the cultural reaction to it

when people dont watch, it doesnt air,,, so there must be SOMETHING to those decisions

There is a cultural reaction, alright.
People tend to be horrified by certain deaths, such as the murder of an ambassador by terrorists after the ambassador asked for additional security. People want to know why the ambassador was denied his request for additional security.
When a babysitter murders the children whom she is babysitting, then people want to know what made the babysitter go crazy.
In both cases, the deaths were not expected because the victims were supposed to be safe from harm.

babies in their own home in america, safe from harm

an ambassador in enemy territory,, not safe from harm


my brother is likewise in an unsafe region right now, IM sure if he died, it would be just as tragic, but nowhere near the outrage publicly


in any case, Im sure the details will come out, beyond that he requested five extra security personnel and didnt receive them

An ambassador is supposed to be safe from harm no matter where the ambassador is. That is why the murder of an ambassador is shocking.

no american can consider themself 'safe from harm' dealing with alqueda,, which was his paid job


but thats a matter of personal opinion that isnt worth the debate

his death is tragic, I hope those who attacked the consulate causing those four deaths will be captured and dealt with

I hope all families of the four deceased americans, will find closure and justice,,

He wasn't there to deal with al-Qaeda. He was paid to deal with the government of Libya.

Anyway, people have strong reactions to deaths that are considered unlikely to happen.

not exactly... with the advent of the internet this too has changed. there are a certain percentage of Americans that tune to their favorite local or national news, but the net is different, i read many many many news stories (so hits rise) but do not approve of most. i do not "like/dislike" ever. these same stories are picked up and carried to a multitude of forums, many of which dissect and debate their merits. the media coverage is a direct result of the advertisers, not so much the public. they air the stuff before it is rated. if you watch the news, and you are among the Nealson sample, you are not asked if you like every story, or every aspect of each story. just are you watching that channel. the media presented something, and it was noted; it does not negate the taking of any other life or the value of any story not aired. they do not concern themselves with the news but with the dramatic presentation of what they chose to report on.

Maybe i live in a unique area, but here, people were devastated upon hearing the news about the theater deaths. people are tuned in and saddened by any local servicemen harmed or killed. but heck... here the whole town shows up at the high school football game! the media definitely does not reflect the feelings of the locals.

i do not feel it is an either/or case. i just do not agree that because the media pushes one story over another that Americans value one death/life more over another. it seems as though that is a huge leap in logic to me.

Every life is valued by someone...somewhere. Does that make us any less nonchalant?

You decide.

simple, and astute

I expect my relatives in high risk careers, like police/firemen/homeland security, or careers that require them to work in volatile areas of the world,,,,,

to be more 'likely' to succumb to harm,,, I would be equally devestated by such an event, yet not as surprised or shocked,,,

a kid walking from school, people at an office job, mcdonalds customers,, those types of deaths would shock me more,, although I would have the same empathy for their loved ones who suffered their loss...