Film?
- Thread starter narmfon
- Start date
Kayla
sarNie Adult
:wacko: :wacko:
Dude Mai, now that's what I call a trained dog.
Well since we were talking about morals, I figured if a dog has it, why is it that some human being lacks it. I don't think the Sia guy properly trained Film, if so, he wouldn't wag his tail like this. It's either the tail or the
h34r: (shut up kayla)
I don't know Nat. Maybe he's afraid Sia might take him hostage and make him wear pink bunny outfits. LOL :lmao:
Okay, I'm getting delirious now. I need to go to sleep. :blink:
Dude Mai, now that's what I call a trained dog.
Well since we were talking about morals, I figured if a dog has it, why is it that some human being lacks it. I don't think the Sia guy properly trained Film, if so, he wouldn't wag his tail like this. It's either the tail or the
h34r: (shut up kayla) I don't know Nat. Maybe he's afraid Sia might take him hostage and make him wear pink bunny outfits. LOL :lmao:
Okay, I'm getting delirious now. I need to go to sleep. :blink:
No I'm saying being "moral" isn't relevant to his job. You look up a job description of being a movie star and not lying to the public isn't one of them. Those situations you described aren't exactly analogous to what I'm saying. First what you described are all criminal acts and are not on par with the particular "crimes" Film has committed. There's quite a distinction between morals and ethical. What you described is unethical. I'm talking specifically about morality.
A lawyer is someone who defends, and explains the law. I'd expect them to be a law abiding person and intelligent and articulate. I could care less if the man was an adulterer.
A physician's job is to help people or at the very least "must do no harm." I'd say molesting a child was doing harm wouldn't you? That interferes with how he's expected to perform his job. So what if he's gay, lies about it, or uses a woman as his beard, or dumps his pregnant lover? If I had cancer and he could cure it yeah who cares?
A teacher has 50% of a kid's time when they're up and about and when they're at their most impressionable and some say vulnerable. Their job is to teach, and guide, so yeah you'd expect them to have some values. That's in the job description. That's why they have extensive background checks on teachers. If you have a criminal record or a felony, well chances are you're not gonna get hired. Same thing for a lot of other careers. That's why you have background checks because certain attributes are "required" for the job.
Now why don't they do background checks on performers? Because most people don't see it as relevant to the job. What's relevant? Talent, ability and looks. Someone could be the nicest, honest person you know, but that doesn't mean I want to watch them on t.v. And if you're hideous looking? You're not going to get a job as an actor or singer now are you? Why? Because looks is one requirement of being an entertainer. Looks however is not for being a teacher, or cop or whatever.
A taxi driver being drunk? Drinking interferes with driving therefore it effects his job. Besides drinking isn't actually a sin is it?
Yes Film is a liar, a user, a selfish idiot, greedy, money-grubbing social climber, a downright despicable human being if you think so. Maybe he's even a crappy entertainer. I could say and judge all I want on his looks and abilities. He still doesn't owe me anything but entertainment.
Maybe in Thailand its a little different because its a "conservative" society and you think of celebs as role models. If being a role model comes with the job description and expectations there, by all means judge him on his morals.
A lawyer is someone who defends, and explains the law. I'd expect them to be a law abiding person and intelligent and articulate. I could care less if the man was an adulterer.
A physician's job is to help people or at the very least "must do no harm." I'd say molesting a child was doing harm wouldn't you? That interferes with how he's expected to perform his job. So what if he's gay, lies about it, or uses a woman as his beard, or dumps his pregnant lover? If I had cancer and he could cure it yeah who cares?
A teacher has 50% of a kid's time when they're up and about and when they're at their most impressionable and some say vulnerable. Their job is to teach, and guide, so yeah you'd expect them to have some values. That's in the job description. That's why they have extensive background checks on teachers. If you have a criminal record or a felony, well chances are you're not gonna get hired. Same thing for a lot of other careers. That's why you have background checks because certain attributes are "required" for the job.
Now why don't they do background checks on performers? Because most people don't see it as relevant to the job. What's relevant? Talent, ability and looks. Someone could be the nicest, honest person you know, but that doesn't mean I want to watch them on t.v. And if you're hideous looking? You're not going to get a job as an actor or singer now are you? Why? Because looks is one requirement of being an entertainer. Looks however is not for being a teacher, or cop or whatever.
A taxi driver being drunk? Drinking interferes with driving therefore it effects his job. Besides drinking isn't actually a sin is it?
Yes Film is a liar, a user, a selfish idiot, greedy, money-grubbing social climber, a downright despicable human being if you think so. Maybe he's even a crappy entertainer. I could say and judge all I want on his looks and abilities. He still doesn't owe me anything but entertainment.
Maybe in Thailand its a little different because its a "conservative" society and you think of celebs as role models. If being a role model comes with the job description and expectations there, by all means judge him on his morals.
I still dont get ur point, cause you're contradicting urself :loool:jeanie said:
I'll just point one thing out to you. It's not just in Thailand that celebrties are considered role models. :loool: it's here too :loool: not to say that Film is my idol. But he has a lot of kids looking up to him. Even film said himself he is a "role model" he is an "idol" :loool:
my point is, dont tell us what the definition of celebrity is and use that as ur defence na, cause as much as most of us dont look up to celebrities as role models, there are some that do. That's what celebrities are, a public figure, not only to entertain, but also as a spokesperson, a role model.
Personally I'm not judging him on the fact he's a role model, cause I never viewed him as one. I'm judging him like I'm judging any other human being. He's human is he not?
And since you defend him by saying that morals is not part of his job, here's some news for you :loool:
Definition of a celebrity
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/celebrity
but since you used the defence that being a "role model" isnt part of the job describtion.... I couldnt resist but to enlighten you :loool:
Your point is it's ok to leech off someone, just as long as ur not a public oficial. Its' wrong to leech off someone and be ungrateful no matter who you are and where you come from. Dont be judging people by the cover na. Lawyers and doctors dont have gold skin, they make mistakes too
Definition of a celebrity
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/celebrity
I'm not saying as a star Film has to be all this, I could careless if he's a doctor, he could be a drug dealer, his actions are still WRONG, no matter what his occupation is
but since you used the defence that being a "role model" isnt part of the job describtion.... I couldnt resist but to enlighten you :loool: Your point is it's ok to leech off someone, just as long as ur not a public oficial. Its' wrong to leech off someone and be ungrateful no matter who you are and where you come from. Dont be judging people by the cover na. Lawyers and doctors dont have gold skin, they make mistakes too
My point was to your earlier argument. You used examples of unethicality. I'm saying that's not the same thing as morality. You're expected to be ethical on a job, you're not expected to be moral.
That's why I asked the question earlier, why do people put celebrities on a pedestal? What have they done to warrant it? They look good? They sing good? Act good? All very shallow of course. If that's why, then why do you need them to be paragons of virtue when that's not the reason you looked up to them in the first place? If they come up short then its certainly your own fault for believing in a pretty package.
ETA: Ok where in that does it say you have to be moral? I never said he wasn't wrong. Did you miss my descriptions of him as a human being? I said he didn't owe me anything except entertaining.
No no Mai, you completely missed my point obviously. To make it clear, he's wrong, he's immoral and sinful but its still irrelevant to his job. That makes him a bad human being. But does that make him a bad singer?
That's why I asked the question earlier, why do people put celebrities on a pedestal? What have they done to warrant it? They look good? They sing good? Act good? All very shallow of course. If that's why, then why do you need them to be paragons of virtue when that's not the reason you looked up to them in the first place? If they come up short then its certainly your own fault for believing in a pretty package.
ETA: Ok where in that does it say you have to be moral? I never said he wasn't wrong. Did you miss my descriptions of him as a human being? I said he didn't owe me anything except entertaining.
No no Mai, you completely missed my point obviously. To make it clear, he's wrong, he's immoral and sinful but its still irrelevant to his job. That makes him a bad human being. But does that make him a bad singer?
Kayla
sarNie Adult
He doesn't owe you anything but entertainment, but he owe the Sia guy a couple of million bahts and an apology.
And why are we discussing this topic? Cause he's an entertainer. And why is he a public figure? Cause he's a celebrity.
And why should he have gratitude towards someone who helped him? Because he's human!
Being an entertainer is his job, your action as a human being justify your morals.
And why are we discussing this topic? Cause he's an entertainer. And why is he a public figure? Cause he's a celebrity.
And why should he have gratitude towards someone who helped him? Because he's human!
Being an entertainer is his job, your action as a human being justify your morals.
Let's try this one last time and if you don't get it well then you'll never get my point.
Say Beethoven did everything Film did. Does that take away from his symphonies or composing abilities? Einstein dumped his pregnant lover and their 3 little kids on the side of the road with no money, clothes or food. Does that take away from his theories or intellect?
Say Beethoven did everything Film did. Does that take away from his symphonies or composing abilities? Einstein dumped his pregnant lover and their 3 little kids on the side of the road with no money, clothes or food. Does that take away from his theories or intellect?
dang, film is ew..I don't think he's gay. he could be bisexual or even a regular man but just doing whatever to get money.
that sia guy isn't all great either. like someone said earlier that no one forced film to take the sia's offer, same goes for sia. no one forced him to give all his money to film (btw, what does that sia guy do he is loaded!)-it's all his choice, he should know better. if i was him, I would blame myself for being dumb.
in the end, it's a fair game. sia loses some money and film gets revealed
that sia guy isn't all great either. like someone said earlier that no one forced film to take the sia's offer, same goes for sia. no one forced him to give all his money to film (btw, what does that sia guy do he is loaded!)-it's all his choice, he should know better. if i was him, I would blame myself for being dumb.
in the end, it's a fair game. sia loses some money and film gets revealed
sunny_gyrl
dee oNe aNd oNlee sUnNy!!!
woW tats ALOT of imfomatiOn yOU knOe....cOme'on yOu even gOt the card tOo...lol
No obviously you don't get my point because my point has nothing to do with your point. I understand your point. Film is wrong. You have a right to judge him. That's your 2 main points right?Mai said:
Maybe you lacked an understanding of my original post that you responded to. In my original post I didn't argue with anyone, it was a statement. I didn't defend Film which you seem to think I'm doing and I'm not saying you don't have a right to judge him which you also seem to think I'm saying. I said I don't CARE to judge him. Why? Because he doesn't owe ME anything and its irrelevant. ME, I, all first person pronouns. Not you or anyone else. Then I explained why I said that, to which YOU responded with nonsensical analogies. I refuted your responses to me, not your original premise. Your opinions are your opinions and you have a right to them and frankly you can't argue over opinions. Subsequent posts after my original one was designed to clarify MY stance, not on Film. Film was not my issue. I don't care about the guy, I've never even heard of him until the scandal broke. That was all in my first post.