Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

donkey-caves who hurt dogs -> glorification of celebrities -> Mellissia's infatuation with Bieber -> What Sirius station your listening to...

Huh. I leave Dakka for 2 days and someone decideds to bring out the heavy drugs. Not fair man, not fair.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Mellissia's infatuation with Bieber

What?

Are you high or something? I listen to a wide variety of music, from rap to rock to jazz to orchestra to even country music, but I don't listen to boy bands.

CT GAMER wrote:
We are debating why these types feel that their status allows them to be donkey caves to others and act like they are above needing to be a decent person with humility and a sense of social grace. Why they feel that if they do somethign horrible that if they cry about it and launch a t-shirt line that somehow everything is now all right...

Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.

Popularity didn't stop being a factor when high school ended, the stakes just got larger.

Amaya wrote: a one dimensional ball hog

Is that one of those flaming be-winged, huge-arse demonic things that old goobers stand on a bridge against and exclaim that "you shall not pass"?

Well, the "you shall not pass" thing certainly SEEMS to apply.

Melissia wrote:
Are you high or something?

I wish, but you guys have boggarted the stuff, apparently

I listen to a wide variety of music, from rap to rock to jazz to orchestra to even country music, but I don't listen to boy bands.

I poke because I care. Kinda.

Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.

This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.

dogma wrote:


Because they are, and it is. It isn't a matter of feeling, its a matter of social and financial status. You want the same abilities? Make more money, and climb the social ladder.

Again, plenty of people with money/status are NOT donkey caves.

I appreciate your ability to generalize and give a free pass to such behavior, but we are talking about the behavior of specific individuals.

We have gone around in circles a number of times now, so lets just agree to disagree since you feel people are jusified to be dicks and I don't.

Unfortunately for the donkey caves they have plenty of people like you to prop them up.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.

I imagine about as many people know of John Ward as know of David Hume.

CT GAMER wrote:
Unfortunately for the donkey caves they have plenty of people like you to prop them up.

I believe you mean "fortunately".

That being said, I won't be propping up Michael Vick because that shirt is hideous. I'll watch him when he plays (If he plays this season, he may have broken his thumb*.), but that's as far as I'll go to "support" him. I simply don't have the energy for the outrage.





*He was replaced by Kafka. Seriously, can a backup have a better name?

dogma wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This only being true if you have a rather narrow view of importance. Of course it's valid from the point of view that you should be able to profit from your own importance, but otherwise all proof goes to show that people that lived a 'popular' life aren't, from a social or historical point of view, 'important'. Best proof of that being that the most effective way of becoming known is to write a book, while the least effective way is to become an actor.

I imagine about as many people know of John Ward as know of David Hume.

It's probably telling that I have no fething clue who is John Ward. But the 'writing a book is more effective to become important/popular than being an actor' is actually statistically based by the analysis of about 40% of all written data scanned by google. Acting is the worse means at becoming popular/important because your popularity decreases faster than any others, and is harder to obtain once you've passed an early age.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/what_we_learned_from_5_million_books.html


Edit : The sculptor?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's probably telling that I have no fething clue who is John Ward.

John Ward.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
But the 'writing a book is more effective to become important/popular than being an actor' is actually statistically based by the analysis of about 40% of all written data scanned by google. Acting is the worse means at becoming popular/important because your popularity decreases faster than any others, and is harder to obtain once you've passed an early age.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/what_we_learned_from_5_million_books.html

So you're saying that acting is a bad way to become a long-term search result?

I did start by saying that you could extend popularity beyond short term. You've claimed that popularity was the reward of those with exceptional qualities, and that it was the natural order of the world that such individuals would be granted more power/leeway/what-have-you. If you go beyond tabloid popularity, this stops being true, and those that we usually relinquish to the backstage of popularity then usually becomes the more important. It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance. If it's the natural way of things, then it's because humans are naturally victims of sophistry.

And what would be popularity, in your own account, if not frequent search results? One way or another, it's always about asking through a certain medium how often 'x' comes up. Personnaly I question more the result that puts authors on top of the list whitout questionning if the fact that only books were analysed could've had an influence. On the other side, it's an Harvard research, so I assume that should have at least a minimum of integrity

Kovnik Obama wrote:It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance.

Not really. Being dead and important isn't nearly as interesting, or difficult, as being alive and important. Becoming important after one has died doesn't really require much effort. Being famous/important while you are still live is a totally different beast. Being important when dead is a very passive act, and really is determined by a bit of luck (if your writing is lost your out) and for people who are still alive to champion you. If Marx had been a bit more important while he still lived maybe a few of kids wouldn't have starved to death. I'd rather be moderately important while alive than greatly important while dead, it is much more fun.

Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.

It's also to be noted that being an author, even in life, is still shown as being statistically more effective than being an athlete. Its just that after death your popularity still increases at the same ratio as in life.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.

I think you know better then to confuse what is said in one thread with everything that is going on in the world. Just becuase dakkites wanted to obsess over those elements of celebrity doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Its just that after death your popularity still increases at the same ratio as in life.

At best you just increase the chemicals in the ground and air, as you are dead, and not actually doing anything. Other people are doing things with what might have been left, but the dead person isn't doing anything.

Meh. Not gonna argue that, except that for some, posthumous popularity might be enough.

On top of things, if your dead and popular, Aleph might decide to resurrect you ...?

Kovnik Obama wrote:You've claimed that popularity was the reward of those with exceptional qualities, and that it was the natural order of the world that such individuals would be granted more power/leeway/what-have-you. If you go beyond tabloid popularity, this stops being true, and those that we usually relinquish to the backstage of popularity then usually becomes the more important.

True. But they also tend to be dead. That condition has a way of cramping the style.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's a pretty bad usage of 'important' that puts Kobe Bryan ahead of Marx, for instance. If it's the natural way of things, then it's because humans are naturally victims of sophistry.

Yes, they are. What of it? Kobe Bryant is more important than Marx, and less important than Greenspan.

Marx isn't a public figure, his work is important to scholars, but that's basically it. There aren't many of us, both by design and circumstance.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
And what would be popularity, in your own account, if not frequent search results?

That's a good barometer.

Oh well. I can't really argue this since it's probably true that most people see themselves as more impacted by athletes than by writers.

''see themselves'' being the operative words.

God I'm such an elitist. And I love it.

Ahtman wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Well, from the premise of this thread, if you aren't a manwhore, a murderer, a rapist or a dog molester, being alive and important isn't either very interesting.

I think you know better then to confuse what is said in one thread with everything that is going on in the world. Just becuase dakkites wanted to obsess over those elements of celebrity doesn't mean they are the only ones.

I would say that it's usually a good example of the exact opposite of what people "out there" think.

CT GAMER wrote:

I'll say again: Instead of putting out a t-shirt line prolaiming "redemption" maybe get involved with animal rescue or some other charity work.

You mean like he does?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_Michael_Vick_gave_money_to_charities

Maybe do some research before before you start with accusations? Might help your arguments in the future.


And obviously I know not all people with money are jerks. Probably not even a majority. But when you suddenly have millions thrust at you, it tends to go to your head. Why do you think almost 90% of lottery winners are broke within 5 years? Money can change people very easily. Been doing it since it was invented.

And without really knowing too many professional athletes, I dont think any of us are really in a position to say how they act. None of us know how they are off the field.

This may cause a gak storm, but I'll say it anyway since this obsessive love with animals is getting a bit annoying.

Yes, I believe that the saying you can judge a person/society on how they treat their pets/animals is accurate and anyone who willingly abuses animals has problems, but c'mon it was dogs! It wasn't like he was running around shooting people, raping, beating his wife, stashing child pornography, or running a sex trafficking ring.

What Vick did was wrong, you can even say its terrible, but its not nearly as bad as its made out to be. It was stupid, immature, and ignorant, but I can't honestly say it was evil and I don't think he should be demonized the way he has been.

Internet rage cannons engaged, target locked, countdown in 5...

Damn right it'll cause a gak storm! It'll bring about the mother of all gak storm, nay, the mother of all melon-fethers of gak storm down on you, Moses-parting-the-Red-Sea style. Just dogs... fuuuuu... How fething sick do you have to be to hang dogs?

That guy should never have been allowed to play in professional sports ever again. Hell, Cujo could go to town on him and I would'nt even care.

Well I think my cold hard cash-o-meter is a better way of deciding importance personally.

If Kobe Bryant or Vick pay $3 million a year in tax, then he is super fething important.

Money talks.. it achieves things, words are just air. How can he be less important than some hippy who talks nice but doesn't actually do anything?

We had to agree on the economical system before money ever existed. Using words. Marx's words influenced the economical systems of 5-6 generations, now. He (or the beleif he spawned) caused wars all across the globe.

Jesus didn't have money, or many goods in comparison to our average households. I'd say Vick or Bryan are downright insignificant in comparison.

Money is but one form of power. The most insignificant and temporaly limited form of power.

You keep comparing the dead to the living.


I also wonder if part of the issue is understanding a difference between importance and influence.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Jesus didn't have money, or many goods in comparison to our average households. I'd say Vick or Bryan are downright insignificant in comparison.

Money is but one form of power. The most insignificant and temporaly limited form of power.

Absolute nonsense. The past has gone, only the now REALLY matters. If your kids are starving to death, do you want bread now, or are you counselled by the fact they were full in the past?

Jesus doesn't matter a fething jot to a mother with a starving child if she has any sense. A moron might take some solace from the (incorrect in my view) assumption that Jesus might save the kid souls while she allows them a miserable death, but a sensible mother gets to looking for food, not praying for it.

In the now, If Kobe Bryant donates a million dollars to 100 starving families, that matters.

Ask them what they prefer. Knowledge of Jesus deeds or $10,000 dollars to feed the kids.

Like most preaching, what you said was basically a grand nonsense, It sounds nice and deep and meaningful, but its just wind, because I know what every single one of those families would pick.

Ergo, its not insignificant, its very very very important.

They're both important. In practical terms, of course money and food are critically important now. In terms of influencing society, history (including wars and religious pogroms including millions of deaths) the biggest philosophers, like Jesus and Marx, have had massive influence and importance. In the larger scheme of things, those 100 starving families are a drop in the bucket.

Mannahnin wrote:In the larger scheme of things, those 100 starving families are a drop in the bucket.

Wouldn't that depend on which influencial dead people you study and which living important people you follow? A hardcore Objectivist wouldn't give two gaks about 100 starving people and the bigger picture is whatever serves their interest. A devout Buddhist wouldn't believe in a bigger picture, or the future or past, just the now. And so on and so on.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing; we may be talking past each other a bit.

If the ideas of one writer or philosopher are instrumental in (for example) kicking off a war, which affects the lives of millions in a substantial way, is that of greater or lesser impact than donating a large quantity of money to help people? You'd probably have to donate trillions to equal the impact.

Amaya wrote:This may cause a gak storm, but I'll say it anyway since this obsessive love with animals is getting a bit annoying.

Yes, I believe that the saying you can judge a person/society on how they treat their pets/animals is accurate and anyone who willingly abuses animals has problems, but c'mon it was dogs! It wasn't like he was running around shooting people, raping, beating his wife, stashing child pornography, or running a sex trafficking ring.

What Vick did was wrong, you can even say its terrible, but its not nearly as bad as its made out to be. It was stupid, immature, and ignorant, but I can't honestly say it was evil and I don't think he should be demonized the way he has been.

Yes it is as bad as it's made out to be, the dog has a very similar nervous system to our own, it's learning capability is on par with a 2 year old child. He did not 'put them down', he beat them, cut them, kicked them and then strangled them or drowned them. A good many psychopathic killers of human beings start on their road via animal cruelty. It shows a need to inflict needless suffering and pain.

I have kept a dog, anyone who has will know how that feels and know the absolute devotion that animal will show you. Dogs adore you unconditionally, I felt a great deal of paternal protection towards mine. I loved my dog.

I deeply loathe those who inflict suffering on the innocent, dogs, like the vulnerable in our own society, are innocent. I have hunted and killed animals for food and have always striven to ensure I end the life of that animal as swiftly as possible and painlessly as I can and then I eat it. Killing needlessly is distasteful to me and inflicting pain and suffering on another lifeform for no good cause is repellent.

According to how I view the world, yes, what he did was evil.

mattyrm wrote:
Absolute nonsense. The past has gone, only the now REALLY matters.If your kids are starving to death, do you want bread now, or are you counselled by the fact they were full in the past?

If I killed your children yesterday, does that mean it doesn't matter to you now? Sophistry is a dangerous game to play with a philosophy major.

Jesus doesn't matter a fething jot to a mother with a starving child if she has any sense. A moron might take some solace from the (incorrect in my view) assumption that Jesus might save the kid souls while she allows them a miserable death, but a sensible mother gets to looking for food, not praying for it.

Not enough imagination. The teaching of Jesus might (and should) get that mother the food she needs. He influenced billions of people into adopting a set of morals which highly value charity. Not only might he (by far extension) have saved those children, but he might have saved way more than 100 starving families, in the end.

In the now, If Kobe Bryant donates a million dollars to 100 starving families, that matters.

Yes. In the now. It's why I mention the scope and the span, which matters more. How many families have used christian charities over the last 2000 years? How many people have been hospitalised in christian hospitals?

Like most preaching, what you said was basically a grand nonsense, It sounds nice and deep and meaningful, but its just wind, because I know what every single one of those families would pick.

Refering to Jesus, in this case, isn't preaching. It's a simple cultural fact ; the Bible is the most influencial book in the last 2 millenia. It influenced the laws, morals and culture of just about every western countries, if not all of them. The millions Bryan and all athletes will have ever paid in taxes will never amount to gak all in comparison to the very real, very tangible influence that book has had.