SubJeff on 14/4/2008 at 22:50
Whilst I understand what you're saying about contributing to causes I must disagree with your point. It certainly may be hypocrisy to tut at this kind of thing if you don't make any such contributions (and it may not be, because if there are extenuating circumstances that stop you from making any contribution - then what?). But let's pretend that someone gives ALL of their disposable income to the same charity and lives on the bare minimum.
Is their criticism then justified? Would there be something wrong with Pratchett's actions then?
Mr.WaeseL on 14/4/2008 at 22:54
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I got the impression that it's the usual, understandable :rolleyes: at this type of thing. Some celebrity gets a disease that already affects thousands of people and suddenly it's all in the news. Anything that gets people funding research is a good thing in my opinion but it's the nature of these things that seems a little distasteful because a. it's arguably so superficial and b. would said celebrity have given a crap if they weren't afflicted?
Meh. I'll let him speak for himself now on.
This is what I meant. The nerds comment was thrown in because anyone who cares enough about his books (which were funny, don't get me wrong) to start a donation drive against alzheimer's is one, I hope no one here feels offended.
I r not gud with words.
SubJeff on 14/4/2008 at 23:05
Ha ha. You just confirmed what they all thought so, yeah, I reckon there will be some offense taken.
Jason Moyer on 14/4/2008 at 23:07
I have to admit if there were an Arthur C Clark Memorial Keep People From Dying Because They're Old fund or a Douglas Adams Fight For People Who Keel Over At An Early Age For No Apparent Reason charity I'd send some cash.
fett on 14/4/2008 at 23:22
Quote Posted by Mr.WaeseL
This is what I meant. The nerds comment was thrown in because anyone who cares enough about his books (which were funny, don't get me wrong) to start a donation drive against alzheimer's is one, I hope no one here feels offended.
I r not gud with words.
Yeah, caring about stuff like literature, art, or music is so
shallow.
I think probably I'm also selfish because if making a donation would
actually give Pratchett a few more years to keep cranking out books that I enjoy, I'd do it.
The truth is, we all admire artists, musicians, painters, etc. enough to be concerned when we find out they're in trouble. It's because we enjoy what they do, we don't want it to end, and we've also formed an illegitimate bond with them because they've created something that affects us on some level.
My god man. Why should anyone apologize for appreciating the contributions (pop/pulp or not) of another human being enough to want to give back when their
life is at risk? It's nerdy or stupid just because they write pulp fiction? I suppose it wouldn't therefore be sad or pathetic if this was a "legitimate" writer that inspired contributions?
Mr.WaeseL on 14/4/2008 at 23:57
Quote Posted by fett
Yeah, caring about stuff like literature, art, or music is so
shallow.
I doubt anyone thinks the Discworld novels are 'art' though.
Quote Posted by fett
I think probably I'm also selfish because if making a donation would
actually give Pratchett a few more years to keep cranking out books that I enjoy, I'd do it.
I doubt it will, unless you are exceedingly wealthy.
Quote Posted by fett
The truth is, we all admire artists, musicians, painters, etc. enough to be concerned when we find out they're in trouble. It's because we enjoy what they do, we don't want it to end, and we've also formed an illegitimate bond with them because they've created something that affects us on some level.
My god man. Why should anyone apologize for appreciating the contributions (pop/pulp or not) of another human being enough to want to give back when their
life is at risk? It's nerdy or stupid just because they write pulp fiction? I suppose it wouldn't therefore be sad or pathetic if this was a "legitimate" writer that inspired contributions?
I disagree with you on this but I can see how you would feel that.
The Phenomenon on 15/4/2008 at 00:10
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Whilst I understand what you're saying about contributing to causes I must disagree with your point. It certainly may be hypocrisy to tut at this kind of thing if you don't make any such contributions (and it may not be, because if there are extenuating circumstances that stop you from making any contribution - then what?). But let's pretend that someone gives ALL of their disposable income to the same charity and lives on the bare minimum.
Is their criticism then justified? Would there be something wrong with Pratchett's actions then?
No, of course not. The rights and wrongs of Pratchett's actions are completely seperate of what other people do (duh?). Person in question would just not be as much of a hyppocrit, ie they practice what they preach ;)
It is rather semantic, but you know, you could say that any resources you have not spent directly on your survival is selfishness not to use in directly assuring the survival of other people. I think this is absurd, but it follows along the same line of logic. Anyone on this forum I assume spend money on computer games (entirely unnecessary expense), instead of feeding starving people all over the world. Its pretty easy to appeal to this notion emotionally, but it doesn't make it valid.
Which is way I think its stupid to assume the position that a person who becomes ill and then starts spending money on finding a cure is some form of selfish asshole that should have been doing it all along.
Quote Posted by Mr.WaeseL
I doubt anyone thinks the Discworld novels are 'art' though.
What art is and isn't is more or less the most subjective consideration there is, making these kind of assertions more or less worthless.
fett on 15/4/2008 at 00:22
Am I actually going to say this?
Art is subjective. I just dropped a beauty of a terd and I consider it art. And I'm right.
You've still not answered the question. What makes a person, famous or not, "worthy" of having donations given in their name to fight X disease? Since Pratchett doesn't meet your criteria, I'd be interested to know who does, or what that criteria may be. It seems to be based on your subjective opinion of whether their work is 'art' or not.
The Phenomenon on 15/4/2008 at 00:28
Quote Posted by fett
Am I actually going to say this?
Art is subjective. I just dropped a beauty of a terd and I consider it art. And I'm right.
You've still not answered the question. What makes a person, famous or not, "worthy" of having donations given in their name to fight X disease? Since Pratchett doesn't meet your criteria, I'd be interested to know who does, or what that criteria may be. It seems to be based on your subjective opinion of whether their work is 'art' or not.
Seemed to me like he believes this person should have anticipated their disease and started donating money to research before they were diagnosed ;p
SubJeff on 15/4/2008 at 01:29
Or perhaps he's lamenting the lack of real altruism. Did you ever think of that?
