What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do you value American lives over the lives of others? (1 Viewer)

Do you value American lives over the lives of others?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 48.7%

  • No

    Votes: 29 38.2%

  • Not Sure

    Votes: 10 13.2%
  • Total voters
    76
AAABatteries

AAABatteries

Footballguy
I've just noticed a lot of people on both sides of the aisle say something like - "let's just hope no (more) Americans die while we leave Afghanistan."  I totally agree with this sentiment but I would extend it to "let's just hope no more people die while we leave Afghanistan."

It made me curious how many people value the life of an American over the lives of non-Americans.  All things being equal (nobody who is sane supports ISIS/terrorists).

I've always been kind of perplexed this line of thinking.  I'm actually very patriotic, love the USA, proud to be an American, love the Fourth of July, think people need to be respectful of the Flag and our Military personnel, on and on.  I think it's the responsibility of our leaders and our military to protect our people abroad.

But this is something that always struck me as odd.  I grew up in a Christian home, going to church most of my life - there's nothing in there about Americans being superior to other people.  I was taught God loves us all equally.  I don't understand why someone would value an American life over any other life.

 
Dickies said:
All things being equal, I don’t value American lives over others, but I do think our government should value American lives first. 
Click to expand...


Absolutely and I tried to make that point in my OP but maybe didn't state it well.  They should absolutely do that - it's their job and duty.

 
djmich said:
The government serves the people, if the people don’t value American lives more highly why should the vehicle of the people 
Click to expand...


Because that's their job/duty in the roles they are in.  As an American who is not in govt./military I've not committed to protecting anyone.  I mean, I don't want any Americans to die but I don't want any Afghans to die either.  Again - all things being equal.

 
djmich said:
The government serves the people, if the people don’t value American lives more highly why should the vehicle of the people 
Click to expand...
This thread feels like a stick of dynamite in a nitro factory but....here we go. 

Your comment holds a LOT of value that needs to be recognized. We don't have to say we value "us over them" but let's be realistic; this is like asking us if we like our kids better than our sister's.  Its a fine life to differentiate. 

But to your statement: this is our government and OUR government exists SOLELY to defend and promote our rights as citizens. And I would expect no other person from any other country to say anything different. And I would respect that without harboring any ill will towards anyone who said it. 

 
AAABatteries said:
Because that's their job/duty in the roles they are in.  As an American who is not in govt./military I've not committed to protecting anyone.  I mean, I don't want any Americans to die but I don't want any Afghans to die either.  Again - all things being equal.
Click to expand...
Where is that written (law or constitution)?  Because his point was that they are representatives that should be carrying out the will of the people. That’s what a republic is. If we collectively don’t think that anymore (we do). The law should be changed. 

 
This is way too complicated of an issue to be answered with yes/no/not sure.  Another perspective would be that a person might value all lives the same but feel that as a country we should be protecting our citizens, who pay for that protection with their taxes, civic actions, and in other ways that aren't coming to me at the moment.

 
I went with not sure.

If I had two doors that each had a person behind them but could only save one, and nationality was the only information I'm given, I'd save the American.

Same scenario but this time I'm given a list of relevant information about each person. It's not a lock I'm picking the American.  It's a factor weighted on the scale, but I'm not sure where it ranks.

 
djmich said:
The government serves the people, if the people don’t value American lives more highly why should the vehicle of the people 
Click to expand...
This is an interesting post and. I’m having trouble articulating my response to it.

I would guess the majority of Americans do value American lives over others. If the majority of Americans valued non-American lives more, I suspect we would see drastically different foreign policy.

Also, I don’t value non-American lives more than others, but I also do not value them less. As such, given that our government serves our people, it should value them more, but shouldn’t only value the lives of Americans. 

 
John123 said:
This is way too complicated of an issue to be answered with yes/no/not sure.  Another perspective would be that a person might value all lives the same but feel that as a country we should be protecting our citizens, who pay for that protection with their taxes, civic actions, and in other ways that aren't coming to me at the moment.
Click to expand...
So far it sounds like most (or all) in here agree that the country - government, military, law enforcement - should protect our citizens.  I more was talking about folks as individuals.

 
tonydead said:
Where is that written (law or constitution)?  Because his point was that they are representatives that should be carrying out the will of the people. That’s what a republic is. If we collectively don’t think that anymore (we do). The law should be changed. 
Click to expand...
As for where it’s written - not sure but doesn’t the President or other elected officials take oaths to protect the citizens?  Maybe I’m making that up but I do think most agree that a function of government is to protect its citizens.  I do get the point though - maybe that would make the folks answering No to the poll poor choices to serve in those capacities. Never thought of that before but it’s an interesting point.

 
AAABatteries said:
Absolutely and I tried to make that point in my OP but maybe didn't state it well.  They should absolutely do that - it's their job and duty.
Click to expand...
We had a poll around here 10 12 years ago.   Would you save your dog or a total stranger.    Dogs won.    

 
djmich said:
The government serves the people, if the people don’t value American lives more highly why should the vehicle of the people 
Click to expand...


If enemies of America believe they can kill one of our citizens with no repercussions, then what's going to stop them from killing more of our citizens.

Ancient Rome figured this out real quick. If you killed a Roman citizen, then woe upon you and your village and your tribe and your people.

In order for everyone here to find safety at home for their children, there must be a clear message to the rest of the world that if you kill one American, that you will be punished in disproportionate levels for it.

Those 13 servicemen who were killed, without any retaliation, it only makes every child of every FBG member here less safe. Many of you take it for granted that your children are safe. If the United States had consistent and devastating attacks upon it's own soil, many people here would feel different.

I'll take partisanship out of it here. Amy Klobuchar is the one legitimate Democratic POTUS contender who would be a complete and total warhawk. She wouldn't care if she got reelected or not. As soon as the first American died in Afghanistan, she would have carpet bombed the entire country into a parking lot.

This is not just about the Taliban, it's about China. The CCP isn't looking for a figurative sense of dominance. They want to wipe the United States off the board. Carpet bombing Afghanistan sends a clear message to China. If you go to war with us, we will hit your civilian population until we grind them all to dust. China is a bully. America is a bully. Bullies only respond to getting punched in the face. Bullies only understand the language of violence.  There's a time to talk at the negotiating table, and then there's a time to have a conservation with bullets.

You can have some Americans die fighting the Taliban, or you can have exponential that many, painfully more so, that will perish in a brutal no holds barred fight with China.

American lives are more valuable because of the message it sends if they are slaughtered or slaughtered and avenged.

People come and go. People live and die. However the principle behind how those people live must be defended at all costs. When it comes to a matter of principle that speaks to the entire world, one's people are necessary until they become expendable. All of you are needed, until you become expendable.

That's the deal.  That's how it works.

 
Max Power said:
If nationality is the only data point you have, you aren't going to save your own countryman?
Click to expand...


No.  Yes.  Maybe.

I wouldn't not save them because they were American - but it would not be a factor in my decision.  If I truly had no other data point, then its a coin flip.

I view myself, and everyone else, as a citizen of the world.  I place no importance on where you happened to be born, or where the current lines in the sand are drawn.  We are all on this rock together, and all have the same starting value to me.

 
Depends....I value the lives of some americans...depends.

I value the lives of our allies..In most cases

I do not value the lives of our enemies 

 
tonydead said:
Its tribalism and perfectly normal. You defend family first, then your tribe.  It's been that way for the entirety of human existence.  Its ultimately in your best interest.  
Click to expand...


well put and I think a lot of people will say yes ... but when they support open borders and all that, the answer really is no :(

 
Sinn Fein said:
No.  Yes.  Maybe.

I wouldn't not save them because they were American - but it would not be a factor in my decision.  If I truly had no other data point, then its a coin flip.

I view myself, and everyone else, as a citizen of the world.  I place no importance on where you happened to be born, or where the current lines in the sand are drawn.  We are all on this rock together, and all have the same starting value to me.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with this idea, it just isn't pro-American.

 
God.  Family.  Country.  Everyone else

I'm atheist so the God part doesn't apply, that the other two are my order.

Agree though that there are lots of other factors that influence things.  I'd save Mother Theresa before Ted Bundy, and my cat before both.

 
Max Power said:
Nothing wrong with this idea, it just isn't pro-American.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  I am not "Pro-American", nor, am I "Anti-American".  I did vote "no" in the poll above.

I always find it odd when people "value" someone based on the randomness of where they were born.  I find it more amusing when the person making that call labels themselves as a "Christian" (Not suggesting anyone here has done that, just that I find it amusing when it happens).

 
Rich Conway said:
SoBeDad said:
Sinn Fein said:
Now ask, if you can only save one, whether you would save an American Bulldog or an Afghan Hound?
Click to expand...
Details and context are important. Mother Teresa or Ted Bundy.
Click to expand...
To each their own, I suppose, but those would be two pretty weird names to name your dog.
Click to expand...


djmich said:
God.  Family.  Country.  Everyone else

I'm atheist so the God part doesn't apply, that the other two are my order.

Agree though that there are lots of other factors that influence things.  I'd save Mother Theresa before Ted Bundy, and my cat before both.
Click to expand...


We're going to need to know the cat's name before we can weigh in on this.

 
I intentionally didn't have options like "Yes, and I'm a Conservative/Liberal", "No, and I'm a Conservative/Liberal" because I don't see this as a sides issue and didn't want the discussion to devolve.  However, I would be interested to see the breakdown as I think it's not solely across party lines like many other issues we discuss.  So far, I'm not surprised by the results.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Centrist who is open to non-Trump Republicanism.

As an individual on a specific, personal basis.....I'd value the life of the person I thought needed my help more (i.e. if I'm put in a position to help save an American 20 something old dude or an Ethiopian child....I'll try to help the child first).

Since that would probably never happen....in general terms...I fall back to the tribalism of country.

 
Voted "no" because I view nationality as such a small factor in the decision that it'd probably only sway me in a situation where all things weighed equally (including a myriad of other factors). And, since such is a very likely impossibility (even within the construct of this impossible hypothetical), I concluded I could safely vote the way I did. 

For example, and assuming the construct of the hypo where I'd have to choose one person's life, over another, here is an unexhaustive list of factors I'd consider before nationality in no particular order: 

- Positive skills/education that can be utilized for the public good (e.g. is the non-citizen a doctor, scientist, etc.).

- age (e.g. I'd save a 20 year old non-citizen's life over a 75 year old American life all things being equal)

- whether the person had kids

- whether the person had a criminal record that contained crimes against children or crimes of moral terpitude (and the other didn't)

- whether the person was a Phillies/Eagles/Flyers fan 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
I, too, am curious as to what consitutes an "enemy." 
Click to expand...
Let's start with all terrorist organizations and countries that harbor them.  Next, let's move on to all fentanyl and/or drug cartel organizations and countries that harbor them.  Then lets do the same for human trafficking.   

That's my top 3.

 
Personally, I don't.  A life is a life as far as I'm concerned.  That goes for nationality of a person as well as the morality of a person.  I never want to see a person dead or think person A deserves to live OVER person B.  I've never understood that kind of shortsighted though.

 
The Commish said:
Personally, I don't.  A life is a life as far as I'm concerned.  That goes for nationality of a person as well as the morality of a person.  I never want to see a person dead or think person A deserves to live OVER person B.  I've never understood that kind of shortsighted though.
Click to expand...
If two people were falling off a cliff and you could only save one.

They are identically the same, except one person abuses their child.

You think it would be shortsighted to save the person that doesnt abuse their child?

 
tonydead said:
Let's start with all terrorist organizations and countries that harbor them.  Next, let's move on to all fentanyl and/or drug cartel organizations and countries that harbor them.  Then lets do the same for human trafficking.   

That's my top 3.
Click to expand...
I cant truly believe we have to define an enemy.  What a weird thing to ask.

It was asked only to be argumentative.  That's all.  That's why I didn't answer.  No desire to do that silly debate,

 
supermike80 said:
I cant truly believe we have to define an enemy.  What a weird thing to ask.

It was asked only to be argumentative.  That's all.  That's why I didn't answer.  No desire to do that silly debate,
Click to expand...
Though in the spirit of the original question.   We don't know who would be a member of a terrorist organization.  So yeah…is someone from Pakistan or Afghanistan less valuable of a life because of their country’s policy on terrorism?  Are they an enemy?  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Reviewing Candice Owen's Black Lives Matter Documentary - "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" (10/25/22 20:11 PST)
Replies
13
Views
707
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
876
jon_mx
J
Jayrod
The Schism - an American Tale
2 3 4
Replies
169
Views
4K
cockroach
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top