Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does the modern world have no room for forgiveness

Page 4 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Jan 2021, 2:27 pm

Dear_one wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
But with Darwin you at least know what your debating about.


We are not debating about evolution, we are discussing how one person can raise a question that then becomes interesting for many. Debates evolve. Within a year, the originator of a new term can find themselves being "corrected" over its definition.


What are you talking about? I didnt say we were "debating evolution".

I said: if you wanna debate Darwin you know what you're debating.

What question did the original poster raise exactly?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Jan 2021, 2:29 pm

NaturalEntity wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Famous people tend to have their privacy violated on a regular basis.

Actually, according to my boyfriend who has a friend who used to work in Hollywood, many entertainment celebrities -- and their agents -- deliberately allow their privacy to be "violated," as a publicity stunt, to keep themselves in the news and thus advance their careers through popular name recognition. Indeed a lot of the interpersonal drama that goes on in Hollywood and gets reported in tabloids -- the divorces, remarriages, affairs, and quarrels -- is deliberately publicized, and sometimes deliberately fomented in the first place, by the celebrities' agents. (For example, my boyfriend's friend once deliberately fomented a quarrel between two rappers -- which eventually led to one of the rappers murdering the other, although this was not the original intent.)

But I certainly agree that violation of the privacy of people who aren't entertainment celebrities is a big problem these days. (By "these days," in this case, I mean the era of mass Internet access and social media.)

That's fascinating to hear. I never knew this before seeing this post.


Even the law gives less protection to the privacy of celebs, and folks in the public eye, then it does to regular folks like us. If you have striven your life to get into the public eye then its only fair that you get less protection from the public eye- is the reasoning.



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

16 Jan 2021, 3:49 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
NaturalEntity wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Famous people tend to have their privacy violated on a regular basis.

Actually, according to my boyfriend who has a friend who used to work in Hollywood, many entertainment celebrities -- and their agents -- deliberately allow their privacy to be "violated," as a publicity stunt, to keep themselves in the news and thus advance their careers through popular name recognition. Indeed a lot of the interpersonal drama that goes on in Hollywood and gets reported in tabloids -- the divorces, remarriages, affairs, and quarrels -- is deliberately publicized, and sometimes deliberately fomented in the first place, by the celebrities' agents. (For example, my boyfriend's friend once deliberately fomented a quarrel between two rappers -- which eventually led to one of the rappers murdering the other, although this was not the original intent.)

But I certainly agree that violation of the privacy of people who aren't entertainment celebrities is a big problem these days. (By "these days," in this case, I mean the era of mass Internet access and social media.)

That's fascinating to hear. I never knew this before seeing this post.


Even the law gives less protection to the privacy of celebs, and folks in the public eye, then it does to regular folks like us. If you have striven your life to get into the public eye then its only fair that you get less protection from the public eye- is the reasoning.


It's been like that for years. Celebs are public figures. The actions and behaviours that results in someone becoming a public figure varies considerably. A celeb is the obvious one but so is being in government, being a leader in a field of science, being a notorious criminal or just being wealthy. Earlier it was mentioned that wealthy people should get no privacy or forgiveness as being wealthy is somehow related to criminal activity. I don't really understand how that is fair but all other public figures are legally fair game within reason.



Last edited by Nades on 16 Jan 2021, 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

16 Jan 2021, 4:06 pm

NaturalEntity wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Famous people tend to have their privacy violated on a regular basis.

Actually, according to my boyfriend who has a friend who used to work in Hollywood, many entertainment celebrities -- and their agents -- deliberately allow their privacy to be "violated," as a publicity stunt, to keep themselves in the news and thus advance their careers through popular name recognition. Indeed a lot of the interpersonal drama that goes on in Hollywood and gets reported in tabloids -- the divorces, remarriages, affairs, and quarrels -- is deliberately publicized, and sometimes deliberately fomented in the first place, by the celebrities' agents. (For example, my boyfriend's friend once deliberately fomented a quarrel between two rappers -- which eventually led to one of the rappers murdering the other, although this was not the original intent.)

But I certainly agree that violation of the privacy of people who aren't entertainment celebrities is a big problem these days. (By "these days," in this case, I mean the era of mass Internet access and social media.)

That's fascinating to hear. I never knew this before seeing this post.


Apparently that is a thing. Christin Stewart would complain about that- she couldnt hangout with her male costar without the director of Twilight leaking it to press and exploiting it.

Gosh...your friend should have gotten those two rappers in on the staged "feud", and saved a life!



Dear_one
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2008
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,721
Location: Where the Great Plains meet the Northern Pines

16 Jan 2021, 4:17 pm

It is interesting that entertainers and politicians act like groupies to each other, probably fascinated by alternate routes to fame, and also looking for opportunities to piggyback on each other.
One reason for the focus of publicity is that many people live vicariously through the lives of others, even fictional characters on TV. The functional part of that is that we may learn how to be more successful ourselves. It is better than absorbing philosophy from Andy Capp cartoons.
It may not be 100% fair for the rich to be shorn of privacy rights, but neither is it 100% fair for them to be hoarding, instead of helping their fellow humans in desperate straits. We should at least be assured that they are not enriching themselves by things like skimming payrolls, a recent huge scandal in Australia. It is obvious that the trade union and environmental protection people who turn up dead are being killed to benefit the rich, so privacy should be rolled back until such crimes are usually solved, at the very least.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

16 Jan 2021, 4:29 pm

And I can't forgive a social system that incorporates institutionalised gang-stalking to intimidate, humiliate, gaslight someone merely for being highly susceptible to hypnotic suggestion.
That sort of perversity is unforgivable, in my book. 8)



Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1935
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: wales

16 Jan 2021, 4:42 pm

Dear_one wrote:
It may not be 100% fair for the rich to be shorn of privacy rights, but neither is it 100% fair for them to be hoarding, instead of helping their fellow humans in desperate straits. We should at least be assured that they are not enriching themselves by things like skimming payrolls, a recent huge scandal in Australia. It is obvious that the trade union and environmental protection people who turn up dead are being killed to benefit the rich, so privacy should be rolled back until such crimes are usually solved, at the very least.



But how rich does one need to be to jusyify spying on them in the off chance they murder someone or cook the books in some way? It's like Minority Report. Shouldn't removing their privacy only be done on genuine suspicion of crime and not because they happen to be wealthy?

How do you know they're hoarding too? Heck I hoard houses but I blame everyone else for letting me. Perhaps wealth people have the same mentality as me.