[FWB]

[quote="Tool-back":1773e]im saying a lot of them had spouses who were earning the income, and when they died the other had nothing.... if a wifes husband was there, he was the only working one in the family as she stayed home with the kids, then it happens, what is the wife to do with her young kids?[/quote:1773e]

Well you're making a few assumptions that:

a) They were all male breadwinners who died
b) They were all married
c) They all had kids
d) They all had their other-halves sitting at home doing nothing

That's assuming quite a lot. The family in LA is in the same situation, probably worse. Those working in the WTC were probably covered by life insurence and their spouses/families would've got a nice pay out. The poor families in the poverty areas of the country have no such luxery.

I think I'm more and more inclined to believe that this is a knee-jerk reaction, fuelled by American society's obsession with suing and its therapeutic solution: the emotivist ethic.

[quote:1773e]I think they should definitly be compensated, and as you said with the LA thing, that was aimed towards a person, and the WTC was aimed towards the US, thats what makes it sdo different.[/quote:1773e]

Do you value the symbolic idea of the US above a human life? I accept that it certainly is seen to be more important by most people. That's where I'd disagree with you. The US means little without human beings/life, the ideas do not exist, they are just socially constructed. I view that LA person's life just as important as any of those in the WTC.