Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

It's his life,right?

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 6:10:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have been vaguely following the news of Tiger Woods. I mean, anyone could have seen that there was foul play involved before he confessed to cheating. My thing is how much this issue was played out. Celebrities are people before they are folks' role models, and many fail to understand this. I was having a conversation with a guy this morning, and he told me that being as though Tiger, or any other celebrity is in the lime light, than the public has the right to know about their personal lives. This kinda made me think, do we actually have a right to know certain personal business of people?

Most people are more concerned with other people's lives, because their life lacks any zest.

I was just wondering how you felt about this. Do we as the public have a right to know all the details of celebrities lives?...They are only people, and did not ask to be role models, but I guess they don't have a choice in that matter.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 6:34:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We don't necessarily have a right to pry, but there is a standard that exists and many people believe celebrities should live up to that standard.

I don't know personally; I find the idolatry of celebrities to be a worthless endeavour. I don't really want to spend my time looking into it, though I have at points been curious. I have a small theory, though.

Formerly in our hunter-gatherer days, we were always really close-knit and open to each other. It was important in a small community dependent upon the continued co-operation of members. I can imagine that those that were in the highest-ranking positions, and had the best reputations, were open about themselves. Maybe to gain trust, maybe to enhance that reputation, I don't know. But it seems plausible, yes?

So when we fast forward to today, that sense of community has long disappeared except outside of the closest familial relationships. Yet we still have these individuals that are considered the best of us. The ones with power, influence, and charisma. We want to know about them, know their personal lives, know their inner trappings, maybe because we just want to feel close, or maybe because we want to copy them - either way, it is a demand from us that they show themselves and their lives.

When they deny this, we get angry. Some might feel betrayed and shut out. We lose respect for them, or we try and force their lives into the open air. And we feel justified because we think that in order for them to even be in their position, they depended on us - so we're owed it. Leaders owe their followers a lot, no?

The psychology behind it is this: our community is gone, but the 'leaders' are not. We connect to these 'leaders' because we want that sense of openness and trust that were apart of the community before. When they shut us down, we feel angry. We demand it, and we feel justified.

Thats my theory, anyways.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 6:46:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree completely.

But perhaps that's because I really don't care if T.Woods is cheating on his wife. I do wish the media would not report on such completely unimportant events.

Further if I were him I wouldn't apologize to the public at all because he didn't harm the public at all. It's not his responsibility to be a role model, and he's not running around telling young people to be cheaters. The only reason children might be influenced b/c of his personal life is b/c the media is retarded.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 6:59:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 6:46:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I agree completely.

But perhaps that's because I really don't care if T.Woods is cheating on his wife. I do wish the media would not report on such completely unimportant events.

Further if I were him I wouldn't apologize to the public at all because he didn't harm the public at all. It's not his responsibility to be a role model, and he's not running around telling young people to be cheaters. The only reason children might be influenced b/c of his personal life is b/c the media is retarded.

Agreed completely. Apologize to his wife, perhaps, but not to me. I don't care who he does.

Expecting celebrities to be role-models is ridiculous. It's their job, no more.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:07:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Reminds me of Bill cheating on Hillary and the chaos it was to cause.

But really who would'nt cheat on Hillary? Just look at her :)

But ya I agree who cares if Tiger had an affair.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:13:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't care, but this affair is just speculation, last time I checked.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:16:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:13:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't care, but this affair is just speculation, last time I checked.

Nah man, the chick he was rooting came out with a voice message from Tiger about it and he has since admitted it and apologized and all that jazz.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:17:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:16:49 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 12/2/2009 7:13:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
I don't care, but this affair is just speculation, last time I checked.

Nah man, the chick he was rooting came out with a voice message from Tiger about it and he has since admitted it and apologized and all that jazz.

Went under my radar.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:23:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 6:34:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
We don't necessarily have a right to pry, but there is a standard that exists and many people believe celebrities should live up to that standard.

I don't know personally; I find the idolatry of celebrities to be a worthless endeavour. I don't really want to spend my time looking into it, though I have at points been curious. I have a small theory, though.

Formerly in our hunter-gatherer days, we were always really close-knit and open to each other. It was important in a small community dependent upon the continued co-operation of members. I can imagine that those that were in the highest-ranking positions, and had the best reputations, were open about themselves. Maybe to gain trust, maybe to enhance that reputation, I don't know. But it seems plausible, yes?

So when we fast forward to today, that sense of community has long disappeared except outside of the closest familial relationships. Yet we still have these individuals that are considered the best of us. The ones with power, influence, and charisma. We want to know about them, know their personal lives, know their inner trappings, maybe because we just want to feel close, or maybe because we want to copy them - either way, it is a demand from us that they show themselves and their lives.

When they deny this, we get angry. Some might feel betrayed and shut out. We lose respect for them, or we try and force their lives into the open air. And we feel justified because we think that in order for them to even be in their position, they depended on us - so we're owed it. Leaders owe their followers a lot, no?

The psychology behind it is this: our community is gone, but the 'leaders' are not. We connect to these 'leaders' because we want that sense of openness and trust that were apart of the community before. When they shut us down, we feel angry. We demand it, and we feel justified.

Thats my theory, anyways.

Mmm, not really Volkov. We are nosey about everyone's lives, not just celebrities. A quick look at a work place, social club, high school, circle of friends, whatever, will tell you this. We expect everyone to live up to our moral standards or we feel robbed because we do as everyone expects too :)
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:30:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:23:25 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Mmm, not really Volkov. We are nosey about everyone's lives, not just celebrities. A quick look at a work place, social club, high school, circle of friends, whatever, will tell you this. We expect everyone to live up to our moral standards or we feel robbed because we do as everyone expects too :)

Note I didn't limit it to celebrities, except in the sense that the thread is on the subject of celebrities. But, you are right.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 7:35:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:07:16 PM, wonderwoman wrote:

But really who would'nt cheat on Hillary? Just look at her :)

lol
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2009 8:48:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you are in a place you have a right to be you have a right to see your eyes open and see whatever you damn well please. If you're not trespassing, it's cool, celebrity or no celebrity.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:13:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 6:34:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
We don't necessarily have a right to pry, but there is a standard that exists and many people believe celebrities should live up to that standard.

I think that people have no life themselves have to pry into others' buisness.

I don't know personally; I find the idolatry of celebrities to be a worthless endeavour. I don't really want to spend my time looking into it, though I have at points been curious. I have a small theory, though.

I have been curious as well, I think we all have, but I think there needs to be some sort of cut off point. If we are raised with a healthy sense of self,than there would be no need to worship another human being who breathes the same air.

Formerly in our hunter-gatherer days, we were always really close-knit and open to each other. It was important in a small community dependent upon the continued co-operation of members. I can imagine that those that were in the highest-ranking positions, and had the best reputations, were open about themselves. Maybe to gain trust, maybe to enhance that reputation, I don't know. But it seems plausible, yes?

Powerful people really don't share much with the common man. They may say certain things that make us feel some sort of connection,but there is always a distance.

So when we fast forward to today, that sense of community has long disappeared except outside of the closest familial relationships. Yet we still have these individuals that are considered the best of us. The ones with power, influence, and charisma. We want to know about them, know their personal lives, know their inner trappings, maybe because we just want to feel close, or maybe because we want to copy them - either way, it is a demand from us that they show themselves and their lives.

We say they are the best of us because they have money?...Tiger is a great player, but most people who are critical of him, or any other celebrity gave him that power. We give people the power they have. At the same time, there should be a demand on individuals to be themselves , and not allow their whole existence rest on a fad, or something that one individual says should be done, and take that asa gospel.

When they deny this, we get angry. Some might feel betrayed and shut out. We lose respect for them, or we try and force their lives into the open air. And we feel justified because we think that in order for them to even be in their position, they depended on us - so we're owed it. Leaders owe their followers a lot, no?

We loose respect for them because we have no respect for ourselves. No one is obligated to make you, or anyone else happy. People set unhealthy expectations, and when they are disappointed they become upset, for something they themselves are deficient of...A HEALTHY SELF ESTEEM

The psychology behind it is this: our community is gone, but the 'leaders' are not. We connect to these 'leaders' because we want that sense of openness and trust that were apart of the community before. When they shut us down, we feel angry. We demand it, and we feel justified.

Well there should be a reordering of priorities..

Thats my theory, anyways.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:15:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 6:46:23 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I agree completely.

But perhaps that's because I really don't care if T.Woods is cheating on his wife. I do wish the media would not report on such completely unimportant events.

Further if I were him I wouldn't apologize to the public at all because he didn't harm the public at all. It's not his responsibility to be a role model, and he's not running around telling young people to be cheaters. The only reason children might be influenced b/c of his personal life is b/c the media is retarded.

I don't feel he should have to apologize for his infidelity to anyone but his wife. The media glorifies garbage while imporatnt things are ignored.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:16:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:07:16 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
Reminds me of Bill cheating on Hillary and the chaos it was to cause.

But really who would'nt cheat on Hillary? Just look at her :)
LMAO, she is a hurt on the eyes, look slike Joan Rivers with that plastic surgery ridden face....lol
But ya I agree who cares if Tiger had an affair.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:18:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 7:23:25 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
At 12/2/2009 6:34:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
We don't necessarily have a right to pry, but there is a standard that exists and many people believe celebrities should live up to that standard.

I don't know personally; I find the idolatry of celebrities to be a worthless endeavour. I don't really want to spend my time looking into it, though I have at points been curious. I have a small theory, though.

Formerly in our hunter-gatherer days, we were always really close-knit and open to each other. It was important in a small community dependent upon the continued co-operation of members. I can imagine that those that were in the highest-ranking positions, and had the best reputations, were open about themselves. Maybe to gain trust, maybe to enhance that reputation, I don't know. But it seems plausible, yes?

So when we fast forward to today, that sense of community has long disappeared except outside of the closest familial relationships. Yet we still have these individuals that are considered the best of us. The ones with power, influence, and charisma. We want to know about them, know their personal lives, know their inner trappings, maybe because we just want to feel close, or maybe because we want to copy them - either way, it is a demand from us that they show themselves and their lives.

When they deny this, we get angry. Some might feel betrayed and shut out. We lose respect for them, or we try and force their lives into the open air. And we feel justified because we think that in order for them to even be in their position, they depended on us - so we're owed it. Leaders owe their followers a lot, no?

The psychology behind it is this: our community is gone, but the 'leaders' are not. We connect to these 'leaders' because we want that sense of openness and trust that were apart of the community before. When they shut us down, we feel angry. We demand it, and we feel justified.

Thats my theory, anyways.


Mmm, not really Volkov. We are nosey about everyone's lives, not just celebrities. A quick look at a work place, social club, high school, circle of friends, whatever, will tell you this. We expect everyone to live up to our moral standards or we feel robbed because we do as everyone expects too :)

We want others to live up to our standards, but we don't live up to them ourself. It makes us sick to our stomach when people make mistakes, and we don't forgive them because we don't forgive ourselves for our own wrongdoings.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2009 8:20:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/2/2009 8:48:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you are in a place you have a right to be you have a right to see your eyes open and see whatever you damn well please. If you're not trespassing, it's cool, celebrity or no celebrity.

Let's be serious, when is paparazzi not trespassing? You are not a celebrity, so you don't have people camping out in our back yard.