parents not suing

[DizBelle]

I thought it meant there was no way to place a value on the child's life (or make anyone feel better about it with money they would feel guilty spending) so all they could do was make sure the family wasn't still paying off the horrible trip afterward.

(But after reading more, I'm lost and think maybe I was wrong.)

You're closer than anyone. More accurately, I never made any statement at all about the value of a life. I only made statements about the value of a trip. I never equated the two or made any comparisons of the two.

 

[TLSnell1981]

So parents of adopted children and step parents love those children differently. I didn't realize that.

I believe a stated ...parent and child.

 

[mnrose]

You're closer than anyone. More accurately, I never made any statement at all about the value of a life. I only made statements about the value of a trip. I never equated the two or made any comparisons of the two.

Actually, you did. You said "I put value on a trip. Not on a life." So, based on THAT statement, trips are something you place a value on. Lives are not. If you meant something else, you should clarify.

Also, I was not a parent until I was 41. Until that point, I naively "thought" I understood the bond between parent and child. I was so very, very wrong. Very. I'm going to politely suggest that since you are not a parent, you back off your claim that it is "the same" as other bonds. I was you once. I know where you are coming from. It's hard to hear that you don't understand something which seems so common sense. But, believe me when I tell you, you don't understand. (And, also to be clear, it matters not one twit how you become a parent...birth, surrogate, adoption....that's all the same in the bond, but to pretend that it is "the same" as a close friend, etc is just absurd.)

 

[DizBelle]

Actually, you did. You said "I put value on a trip. Not on a life." So, based on THAT statement, trips are something you place a value on. Lives are not. If you meant something else, you should clarify.

Also, I was not a parent until I was 41. Until that point, I naively "thought" I understood the bond between parent and child. I was so very, very wrong. Very. I'm going to politely suggest that since you are not a parent, you back off your claim that it is "the same" as other bonds. I was you once. I know where you are coming from. It's hard to hear that you don't understand something which seems so common sense. But, believe me when I tell you, you don't understand. (And, also to be clear, it matters not one twit how you become a parent...birth, surrogate, adoption....that's all the same in the bond, but to pretend that it is "the same" as a close friend, etc is just absurd.)

It looks like what we have here is a issue in how the post was read. What I posted was "I put a value on a trip. Not on a life." This was a comment on a previous post that I made. I had quoted someone that quoted my original post. This was not a comment on my view of the world.

My post was making statements about the value of a trip. It was not making statements about the value of a life. FTR - I haven't made any statements about the value of a life.

 

[fly girl]

I was the one who you replied to with the comment in question.

I agree with you on one point, you didn't place a monetary value on a life. I think we just don't understand your rationalization.

Like I said before, a life was lost. The value of the trip is inconsequential. No parent (or any family member) is thinking about the ruined vacation at a tragic time like this.

I honestly think most of us just can't see your point because you can't separate this event in two ways. The life comes first. And it appears you are putting the vacation in front of that. I'm sure you aren't meaning to do that, but it reads that way.

 

[DizBelle]

I was the one who you replied to with the comment in question.

I agree with you on one point, you didn't place a monetary value on a life. I think we just don't understand your rationalization.

Like I said before, a life was lost. The value of the trip is inconsequential. No parent (or any family member) is thinking about the ruined vacation at a tragic time like this.

I honestly think most of us just can't see your point because you can't separate this event in two ways. The life comes first. And it appears you are putting the vacation in front of that. I'm sure you aren't meaning to do that, but it reads that way.

I'm not sure how it's being read that way but I never suggested the trip comes in front of a life.

Can we at least all agree that just because people may think differently than you, it doesn't mean they are a bad person?

 

[PollyannaMom]

Also, I was not a parent until I was 41. Until that point, I naively "thought" I understood the bond between parent and child. I was so very, very wrong. Very. I'm going to politely suggest that since you are not a parent, you back off your claim that it is "the same" as other bonds. I was you once. I know where you are coming from. It's hard to hear that you don't understand something which seems so common sense. But, believe me when I tell you, you don't understand...

Part of me agrees with this. As a parent, I have trouble understanding how anyone could not feel as attached to their child as I do to mine. But some historical reading I've been doing this summer has me wondering if for some people (or some times) my feelings really weren't typical.

I still don't actually understand a different sort of parent-child relationship (and I don't think I ever will) but I'm less likely to believe it doesn't exist, or that everyone will eventually feel like me.

 

[fly girl]

I'm not sure how it's being read that way but I never suggested the trip comes in front of a life.

Can we at least all agree that just because people may think differently than you, it doesn't mean they are a bad person?

It read that way to me because you kept placing value on the trip that was ruined, and a future trip. The loss of life was never addressed as being important. All the conoslation was purely on the vacation!

I never said you were a bad person. I don't think anyone on here said that. We are trying to see your point.

But you repeatedly boasted on being pragmatic, like you were better than the rest of us shlups who feel we need more.

 

[DizBelle]

I'm sure someone is going to read something into this that isn't there but I'm going to post it anyway.

Suppose you lost someone in a car accident. The car is totaled. Are you all suggesting that the car is inconsequential in this scenario? Are you not going to pursue compensation from the insurance company for the loss of the car? Do you think that the people that own the car loan are just going to forgive it since you lost someone? No, they're not. If the loss of the car is inconseuqential, then you're not going to file the claim for the totaled car and you're just going to continue making the car payments month after month for a car you no longer have.

Please note - the loss of life is a completely separate issue and not addressed here at all. However, the other losses are also part of life and have to be dealt with.

 

[DizBelle]

It read that way to me because you kept placing value on the trip that was ruined, and a future trip. The loss of life was never addressed as being important. All the conoslation was purely on the vacation!

I never said you were a bad person. I don't think anyone on here said that. We are trying to see your point.

But you repeatedly boasted on being pragmatic, like you were better than the rest of us shlups who feel we need more.

I never "boasted" and never said pragmatic was better. I will only state that it is a different way to approach life. I believe I only stated once that I was probably more pragmatic than most (now twice). And I only mention it a second time because you brought it up. I'd hardly call that boasting.

The loss of life was never addressed at all. That doesn't mean I don't think it's important. It just means I didn't address it.

I don't think you can assume anything about someone by what they DON'T say. You are assuming that I don't value life because I didn't address it in my posts. Not a valid assumption at all.

 

[pryncess527]

I'm sure someone is going to read something into this that isn't there but I'm going to post it anyway.

Suppose you lost someone in a car accident. The car is totaled. Are you all suggesting that the car is inconsequential in this scenario? Are you not going to pursue compensation from the insurance company for the loss of the car? Do you think that the people that own the car loan are just going to forgive it since you lost someone? No, they're not. If the loss of the car is inconseuqential, then you're not going to file the claim for the totaled car and you're just going to continue making the car payments month after month for a car you no longer have.

Please note - the loss of life is a completely separate issue and not addressed here at all. However, the other losses are also part of life and have to be dealt with.

Not inconsequential, but also not important enough to be among my first 10 or 20 concerns. I think that's what most people found odd (not you-are-a-bad-person-odd, just curious and baffling) that you felt compelled to comment on the loss of trip value and not address the loss of life. It left the impression that the trip is more important, because it's the thing you felt was important enough to address . . .

And then, FWIW, you compounded the befuddlement by acting like the person who referred to a "parent-child bond" could only be referring to a birth bond, when no mention of genetics was made.

 

[SirDuff]

I never "boasted" and never said pragmatic was better. I will only state that it is a different way to approach life. I believe I only stated once that I was probably more pragmatic than most (now twice). And I only mention it a second time because you brought it up. I'd hardly call that boasting.

And, again, I don't view your approach as pragmatic (definitely a second trip cannot be argued to be pragmatic). Covering repatriation and funeral costs would be pragmatic. Not arguing that pragmatic is good/bad, rather, that I don't see your choices as pragmatic.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I'm sure someone is going to read something into this that isn't there but I'm going to post it anyway.

Suppose you lost someone in a car accident. The car is totaled. Are you all suggesting that the car is inconsequential in this scenario? Are you not going to pursue compensation from the insurance company for the loss of the car? Do you think that the people that own the car loan are just going to forgive it since you lost someone? No, they're not. If the loss of the car is inconseuqential, then you're not going to file the claim for the totaled car and you're just going to continue making the car payments month after month for a car you no longer have.

Please note - the loss of life is a completely separate issue and not addressed here at all. However, the other losses are also part of life and have to be dealt with.

That's not really a fair comparison. No debts are left to WDW after the fact right?

 

[wilkeliza]

I'm sure someone is going to read something into this that isn't there but I'm going to post it anyway.

Suppose you lost someone in a car accident. The car is totaled. Are you all suggesting that the car is inconsequential in this scenario? Are you not going to pursue compensation from the insurance company for the loss of the car? Do you think that the people that own the car loan are just going to forgive it since you lost someone? No, they're not. If the loss of the car is inconsequential, then you're not going to file the claim for the totaled car and you're just going to continue making the car payments month after month for a car you no longer have.

Please note - the loss of life is a completely separate issue and not addressed here at all. However, the other losses are also part of life and have to be dealt with.

In either situation you go after both. You don't separate the loss of the car from the loss of a life when you go to court and after the insurance company of the person who caused the accident.

Also in some accident cases people do have to continue to make car payments on a totaled car even if someone dies. That is why it is a good idea to have full coverage insurance so if it happens you can at least get money to get a new car even though you are still making payments on the totaled one.


The issue with your original statement is that you completely ignored the fact that someone died. When someone dies and it is someone else's fault you usually have to put a price on the life. We don't like to place value on a life but after an accident you kind of have to especially if it makes it to court. In this situation it didn't make it to court and for all we know there was no settlement we just assume there was one.

Either way when an accident happens you can't separate all the losses when you think of compensation.

 

[gwynne]

And, again, I don't view your approach as pragmatic (definitely a second trip cannot be argued to be pragmatic). Covering repatriation and funeral costs would be pragmatic. Not arguing that pragmatic is good/bad, rather, that I don't see your choices as pragmatic.

This.

 

[fly girl]

I never "boasted" and never said pragmatic was better. I will only state that it is a different way to approach life. I believe I only stated once that I was probably more pragmatic than most (now twice). And I only mention it a second time because you brought it up. I'd hardly call that boasting.

The loss of life was never addressed at all. That doesn't mean I don't think it's important. It just means I didn't address it.

I don't think you can assume anything about someone by what they DON'T say. You are assuming that I don't value life because I didn't address it in my posts. Not a valid assumption at all.

NEVER did I say you didn't value a life. I even made sure to put the way I was reading it wasn't how you truly felt.

I do find it weird that you chose to not mention a lost life in this discussion, but that doesn't mean I don't think you don't value it.

Come on.

I was trying to get you to go back and read what you wrote in hopes of understanding why we kept asking questions.

Backfire!

And sorry, your pragmatic posts felt like a brag. How you can be rational and sensible in times of severe chaos. Duly noted you didn't mean for it to read that way.

 

[DizBelle]

In either situation you go after both. You don't separate the loss of the car from the loss of a life when you go to court and after the insurance company of the person who caused the accident.

Also in some accident cases people do have to continue to make car payments on a totaled car even if someone dies. That is why it is a good idea to have full coverage insurance so if it happens you can at least get money to get a new car even though you are still making payments on the totaled one.


The issue with your original statement is that you completely ignored the fact that someone died. When someone dies and it is someone else's fault you usually have to put a price on the life. We don't like to place value on a life but after an accident you kind of have to especially if it makes it to court. In this situation it didn't make it to court and for all we know there was no settlement we just assume there was one.

Either way when an accident happens you can't separate all the losses when you think of compensation.

I didn't completely ignore it. I just didn't post about it. Again, don't assume anything by what is not posted.

How someone deals with the loss of life is a very personal thing and I didn't want to comment on it.

I think I'm going to bow out of this one. I keep getting misunderstood and my posts misread and I don't think I'm getting anywhere.

Parting words: Different thinking is not necessarily bad thinking. It's just different. Respect goes two ways. I respect all of your thoughts on this issue. They are your thoughts and feelings and perfectly valid. I would hope you would do the same. But I'm not feeling that. Oh well...

 

[Poohforyou]

It looks like what we have here is a issue in how the post was read. What I posted was "I put a value on a trip. Not on a life." This was a comment on a previous post that I made. I had quoted someone that quoted my original post. This was not a comment on my view of the world.

My post was making statements about the value of a trip. It was not making statements about the value of a life. FTR - I haven't made any statements about the value of a life.

So when you write something that someone construes as misleading it's the reader's fault but when someone writes something that you construe as misleading it's the writer's fault? Interesting.

 

[wilkeliza]

I didn't completely ignore it. I just didn't post about it. Again, don't assume anything by what is not posted.

How someone deals with the loss of life is a very personal thing and I didn't want to comment on it.

On a discussion board it is usually best not to leave any room for assumption. It isn't just one poster who was rubbed the wrong way by your statements so they were not clear enough.

To clarify the reason why it seems you ignore the loss of life is because in each situation you only mentioned recovering what monetarily was lost. In the real life situation that was being discussed and your hypothetical there is no way to actually separate the loss of services/car and the loss of life. They both go hand in hand so you can't comment on one with out at least mentioning that you have no scope to comment on the other so don't know what would have been sufficient for the other. I understand you probably meant that it is very hard to put a value on a loss of life so you don't know if 1 million or 2 or 3 or 4 would help ease that pain but continuing to focus on the cost of the car or the cost of the vacation as making you whole comes off as ignoring the big picture. If that was your intent then that is the clarification people wanted.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

So when you write something that someone construes as misleading it's the reader's fault but when someone writes something that you construe as misleading it's the writer's fault? Interesting.

I was thinking the same thing.