I don't usually do shit like this, but I liked this so much that I had to share. This comes from Scott Adams' blog. You should check it out. I really wish I could write like him.
"Every time there’s a military conflict, someone points out that many of the victims were NOT adult men. The theory is that a tragedy is way more tragic if anyone other than adult men get killed. If you throw a woman or a minor or a puppy into the mix then we all have a reason to be sadder and madder.
I totally agree with the view that some tragedies are more tragic than others, depending on who is involved. But I do demand efficiency. That’s why I propose ranking the value of all types of people so I can more easily judge how sad I should feel when they get killed.
For example, if 400 villagers are buried in a mudslide, I’d like to know how many of them were drunks, assholes, nags, dickheads, crooks, or males, just to pick a few examples. I wouldn’t feel as much pressure to feel bad about that portion of the village. In the best case scenario, the victims would all be adult men with no special talents. That’s barely even a tragedy. We adult males have our uses to be sure, but society agrees that it’s not such a big deal when someone kills us.
I think that the main reason there are so many wars is that most of the soldiers are adult males. If all wars had to be fought exclusively by second graders or contestants from the Special Olympics, no one would ever start a war because the results would be too tragic."