Queue on 15/4/2008 at 14:49
*stumbling back into the thread--having a bit of a look around*
Holy shit. This got interesting!
It's funny, but it appears that by mentioning "Pratchett" this has taken on a whole new tone. Pratchett is not one of the "faceless" afflicted with a disease that is, currently, pathetically under funded when it comes to research; it's almost as if companies spend more time and effort cranking out the next medication to help one sleep (do what I do--drink) as opposed to pouring needed funds into research that could really cure something. But--so be it, that's a different subject.
Pratchett is someone, especially around this lot, that people know of, or even have a personal connection with. And, it's this recognition that is in a way unfortunate: people are more prone to taking an interest when they can relate to an individual. If I had of come on and said, "Hey, my grandfather is suffering from Alzheimer's, or cancer, or terminal hemorrhoids, or whatever, and here's a web-site to help fund research if you so choose to be involved," not many people would have thought much of it--because he would be one of the faceless. As a society in whole, we take an interest in the "famous." Right or wrong, that's just the way it is.
Now, is mentioning an effort to help raise funds for a disease--one which a famous author is afflicted with--in behalf of an individual a bad thing? In my mind, no. That research will benefit everyone. Am I just another "nerd" rallying around an individual with fan-boy worship, dribbling, "Please save my favorite writer?" No, and I'd love to have you say that to my face. I respect Terry Pratchett for the work he does, and enjoy his novels immensely (finding them to be the only fantasy novels worth a damn, as they have evolved from light-hearted fantasy to blistering social satire with Kafkaesque undertones). But, this is not just about whether or not I read Pratchett, or am interested in his plight because he is an artist. I respect all artists--of which, by the way, Pratchett is by definition--just as I, for the most part, respect all people. Everyone should get a chance, until one opens their mouth and removes all doubt that they are a complete ass. This is an opportunity to give a little cash, where it desperately needs to be given. And, if one is doing so because of a small connection to an individual, wonderful!
To be honest, I truly didn't know that there was an Alzheimer's research trust, nor how miserably underfunded the research is (frankly, I really didn't think much of it at all) until I started reading about the disease after seeing the email regarding Pratchett. Is that shameful? Well, in the end, I learned something I didn't know about, and passed that information along--that's the wonderful part of being human, the ability to learn, reason, and share (not just sitting around playing with myself and flinging feces like the rest of the apes). The only thing shameful is that I never bothered to take the time to look into information until "the connection" with an individual was made.
But, is now posting that information I learned disingenuous on my part, as I never thought much of it myself in the first place?
fett on 15/4/2008 at 15:04
Quote Posted by Queue
But, is now posting that information I learned disingenuous on my part, as I never thought much of it myself in the first place?
Obviously. You're also an ass (apparently) because you haven't posted threads about every other single disease with which mankind is afflicted, but has NOT yet been diagnosed in a famous person. I bet you wouldn't give a moments thought to cancer victims unless Angleina Jolie had it!
Your motives are clear. You don't give a shit about people suffering from Alzheimers! You just want to kiss Terry Pratchett's ass! You animal!!! :mad:
Queue on 15/4/2008 at 15:14
*hanging my head in shame*
Damnit, fett, you caught me. I am an ass! I have sinned! My boy, I've forsaken my boy!!
Queue on 15/4/2008 at 15:20
Quote Posted by fett
Art is subjective. I just dropped a beauty of a terd and I consider it art. And I'm right.
BTW--was it shaped like the Virgin Mary? You could sell that sucker for a fortune on eBay.:thumb:
Stitch on 15/4/2008 at 15:49
Quote Posted by Mr.WaeseL
And yeah, I think it's silly that people start donating to alzheimer's just because a fantasy author becomes sick. It's false altruism fed by selfishness (they just want more books to come out), and all those people couldn't give a crap about Alzheimer's X amount of time ago when Terry Pratchett wasn't diagnosed yet.
While you have a glimmer of a point, there are two things wrong with it: (1) the original intent is kind of beside the point when the end result is charitable, and (2) You're fagging up an Alzheimer's thread.
fett on 15/4/2008 at 18:28
While we're at it, there's a possibility that people actually value Pratchett as a person, for his wit, intelligence, and biting cynicism that most pop culture figures lack. These characteristics extend far beyond his writing, or his 'persona' as a famous person. I would argue that helping to fight Alzheimer's on his behalf is a not only selfish, but stems from a deeper desire to see the intellectual bar raised in pop culture.
SubJeff on 15/4/2008 at 20:08
Yeah, but you're just playing games with that one.
The truth is TP having Alzheimer's will (probably) ultimately help all sufferers in the future. But if those people who are giving now, and only because of him, really cared they would have been giving all along.
The irony is no funding will help him now because it takes years to make a difference and Alzheimer's has been pretty refractive to treatment despite masses of investment. There are entire companies set up to find treatments for it and diseases with a similar pathogenesis and almost nothing they produce is of any clinical use. It would require a massive breakthough for anything to make a difference. Not that it doesn't happen; about 7 years ago now a new targeted drug came out for a certain type of Leukemia that was, in my mind, so beautiful in it's simplicity (and pretty effective) that it's given me hope for cancer cures in general. The stuff we use for Alzheimer's is really expensive and of limited value. There isn't going to be a "cure" for a long time, sadly.
Thirith on 15/4/2008 at 20:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The truth is TP having Alzheimer's will (probably) ultimately help all sufferers in the future. But if those people who are giving now, and only because of him, really cared they would have been giving all along.
That depends 100% on what you mean by "really care". Do I believe that those giving money because of this "really care" about Alzheimers? Probably not. Do I believe they really care about Terry Pratchett? Yes. And I think it's absolutely legitimate to care about someone whose works have given you hours and hours of enjoyment. Since Mr Waesel isn't really making much sense in his posts, and when he is, he's just revealing himself to be more of a dick, can I ask you, Subjective Effect: what do you consider wrong or reprehensible or silly or in any other way negative about this?
SubJeff on 15/4/2008 at 21:20
I don't think it's wrong or reprehensible. I think the sentiment is a little insincere if you really boil it down but if it gets money to a good cause I don't see the harm.
Thirith on 15/4/2008 at 21:36
I'm still not sure I see what is insincere about it, though. In order to be insincere, they would have to claim to be doing something that they aren't in fact doing. It would seem to me that you're making an assumption of what they think they're doing and then judging them against what you think they're doing, which to me is too filled with perhapses and maybes and possiblys to warrant much of a judgment. In fact, it's all so vague and hypothetical that it gives me a headache.
