The reason why I dislike this in general is that they make money by simply exposing their bodies, whereas others really try hard in life and don't get as far. Who do you think deserves more? A doctor who saves lives, or a model who, er... entertains lives? There's no justice.Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Ugh. That argument is so retarded - people deserve what other people are willing to pay them for their services. It's called the free market. You could say that a doctor who does boob jobs isn't worth the 500k/year he makes, but people pay him that. So don't blame the people who make the money - blame the massive amount of people that make that job possible. It's also just ridiculous to dislike a person simply because you don't think his job's worth that much money.The reason why I dislike this in general is that they make money by simply exposing their bodies, whereas others really try hard in life and don't get as far. Who do you think deserves more? A doctor who saves lives, or a model who, er... entertains lives? There's no justice.
You have a point, yet I cannot agree with you. The fact that people are willing to pay a determinate amount of money for a job does not mean that job is worth the money. If it were so, there would be almost no swindlers in this world. I can never think that what Paris Hilton does is worth more than, say, a doctor who saves lives. I even find it immoral. And what some talentless celebrities do can be, in my opinion, defined as a swindle towards common people. Do you think that if people were not o stupid to be interested in them, they would be making any money?
Again, a ridiculous argument. How do you define "worth?" The way you're defining it is "how much I value it." The only way to objectively define it is "how much, taking everyone into account, is it valued?" Your swindlers analogy is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. - swindlers lie about what they're selling.You have a point, yet I cannot agree with you. The fact that people are willing to pay a determinate amount of money for a job does not mean that job is worth the money. If it were so, there would be almost no swindlers in this world. I can never think that what Paris Hilton does is worth more than, say, a doctor who saves lives. I even find it immoral. And what some talentless celebrities do can be, in my opinion, defined as a swindle towards common people. Do you think that if people were not o stupid to be interested in them, they would be making any money?
<i>You</i> may not value what an actor or other celebrity does very much, but evidently a lot of other people do.
EDIT: Actually, it's not even a matter of values. In a celebrities case, it's more like an investment. A actor, in effect, gets paid by every single person in the world that goes to watch his movie, because he gets paid according to how much revenue he'd generate. A doctor, on the other hand, is only paid by the patients in his area. More people "make use" of an actor, because a movie generates more revenue than a single doctor. But again, why does it matter to you what someone else is making?
It's on the parameters we use to define what's "worth" that we don't agree. What's "worth" in my system of values is not what most people appreciate. It's what's is more useful, gives more emotion, spreads more universally positive values and so on. Of course, I'm talking about a worth that can't be valued in terms of money here, because most of the times people take it for granted or aren't willing to pay for it. And many could disagree with me, like you do. But this is my opinion.
Any value without a concrete application (i.e., money) is not objective. You're just restating the premise "what I personally value more." "Useful" presupposes the question - to whom and for what? It's subjective. Emotion is obviously subjective. "Universally positive values" is something nonexistant; it depends on your personal idea of "positive."
Ok, let's use your definition. A single actor touches far more peoples' lives than a single doctor, therefore "spreads more emotion" goes to the actor. A single responsible athlete can spread more "universally positive values" (of which there are no such thing, but that's another subject) than a single doctor, therefore that point goes to the athlete.
We need Eyes on The World back.
there was a picture here
Let's ban Old Manus for proposing such ridiculously and radically great ideas.
This may fail
there was a picture here
Celebrities are also well known for wearing fur. Many models who join these campaigns will later go on to wear fur down the catwalk. They'll jump on whatever bandwagon they can if they think it makes them look good at the time, or/and a lot of money can be made from it.
Being a model doesn't mean you're dumb. But depending on what work a model does they will take money to advertise products they don't use. Which I personally think is very tacky. And models that bare alot of flesh are supporting the exploitation of women.Also, saying models have zero talent just because they don't take up an office job is also ignorant. Anyone with a high IQ would realise that taking up a job that requires you to get paid large amounts of money for doing very little work while travelling the globe and doing the odd charity stint can't be a completely bad life. Is it stupid to live a good, easy life? Just because someone doesn't work hard doesn't make them stupid. Sure, a lot of models out there might be dumb, but I've seen dumb people in every walk of life and I don't go pinpointing them.
Is it so preposterous to think that people should just be themselves?
...umm...... maybe?
Maybe if I post twice in this thread then my celebrity points will be increased.
Such thoughts are blasphemous.
....Yes, yes it is.
Owen made this sig. R.I.P.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
