Tuesday, 07 July 2009
-
The Significance of One Life Over Another
They both died on the same day. One was a Lt. fighting in Afghanistan and killed by an explosive. The other was a celebrity known by most Americans. Here is the link: Link
Is the death of this man
more newsworthy than the death of this man?
-
recommend
- recs 9
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to TheTheologiansCafe's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in TheTheologiansCafe's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Custom Module
HTML Inserted Here
About this Entry
Custom Module
HTML Inserted Here
Comments (129)
the man that fought! i knew him! he graduated from my school a while back.
No
No. A life is a life.
I KNEW THEM! **in my drunken comas**
"Was the death of this woman more newsworthy than the death of this man?
... I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention....
More newsworthy, yes. Â More noble, no.
No, but I really didn't think Michael Jackson's death was all that impressive. How many celebrities die being linked to drugs? As opposed to how many people die doing the honorable thing? I hate the media.
No.
No.
No!!
No. They are both horrible losses, each for different, significant reasons. I'm sad to know that one gets more light than another, we should definitely pay tribute to our military (even speaking as a Canadian, to Americans) and to what they do, to keep us from harm.
From a media standpoint, yes.
No it's not, and it saddens me that one will get more attention to the other.
On another note, why do I get the feeling this is going to turn into a series of rants about Micheal Jackson?
@EmYtaYLoRxX8 - ohmigosh really??
No, not at all. They are both equally important.
@Ayliana87 - BECAUSE IT IS! >=D
When all of the world knows of #1 over #2, yes. More newsworthy, yes. More significant, no.
Newsworthy? Yes. Significant? No.
come on, theo. you know everyone who doesn't want to look like an ass is going to say no.
so i'm going to be the rebel: michael jackson is much more important and overshadows the death of the lieutenant. EAT IT.
No, a life is a life. But it saddens me that MJ's death, while tragic and worthy of mourning, is so over-the-top glorified, and so few even know of the young man's sacrifice. Or for the number of men and women dying in combat that aren't spoken about or mentioned. I am tired of the media and have been for a long time.
Each death is tragic. We all knew about Michael Jackson, so the news was all over it. He was a great man and deserved it. The man that died fighting in the war's death was no less important, it just wasn't covered as much because we don't know him. He still should have gotten more attention though, for sure.
A person is a person. MJ only gets more news because he was well known.
@Ayliana87 - @haloed - @meanii - @sammiexdoll - @LostInTheLyrics - @Innuendo__X - @x_Butterflies_and_Hurricanes_x -
While a soldiers life may be more noble, are you all saying the death of every single soldier that dies in the line of duty should be aired on the news for weeks? Or are you saying that there should be almost no news on Michael Jackson?
It is more news worthy because more people knew of him. That does not make it more important, but it does make it more newsworthy.
However it depends how you answer my first two questions.
well apparently the media and public thought so.
but a life is a life. and one is not more important than the other.
both are sad. both are a tradgedy. they were both someone's son, and probably someone's brother, cousin, grandchild, and all that jazz. and Michael Jackson's children won't get him back, and neither will that solider's family. so like i said, both sad.
Also, thank you to the man fighting in Iraq. Thank you.
Every life is equally important in a cosmic sense.
But we can't expect the media/public to see it that way.
I don't see it that way in the general scheme of things, though I know that's how it is.