SPAMYAMAMA@mailinator.com wrote:
> This is not an Oprah issue. It is an issue of society.
Correct
> As Oprah is a well-known philanthropist, she can be regarded as doing
> her share to help the less fortunate, so why target her?
I'm not targetting her, I am targetting anyone who spends that amount
of money on a mobile phone.
> As a
> billionaire, she has probably spent a lower percentage of her income on
> her cell than many other people.
But that doesn't make it morally justifiable
> I wonder if you would feel the same if
> it were a $1.3m piece of jewellery, rather than a phone.
It is different, hence the reactions that these sort of extravagances
generate, for example if it had been a diamond encrusted fax or toilet
flush lever.
> Or perhaps
> your objections are stronger because Oprah is socially influential, and
> this seems a poor example to others.
When people set out to achieve a high profile and particularly when
they pontificate over social issues they must then assume a
responsibility for setting a good example. My own opinion is that I
find it offensive when people spend that sort of money on tarting up a
mobile phone.
> It is also impossible to set arbitrary barriers of taste and expense. I
> like silver, you like gold, maybe Oprah likes diamonds. Who is right?
There are certain standards that are often unknown to newly rich
people, but then they have always fallen foul of them in the past and
this is just another example.
> I have an expensive bicycle, but people who criticise me don't keep in
> mind that I have no car...
Then they haven't appreciated your circumstances and the utility that
you get out of it. If you started to gold plate it and encrust it with
diamonds ...?
> If you object on principle, then the real question is - should such
> ridiculous items be available at all in our society when people
> elsewhere are suffering miserably?
Of course they will be available, it is just a matter that people who
buy such vomit inducing trinkets just don't think that they are setting
themselves up for ridicule.
> Perhaps you also object to people
> earning unimaginable amounts of money, when others work much harder and
> are almost starving.
I don't object to people 'earning' vast amounts of money, I do object
to obscene amounts of money being thrown at people. In the UK we have
Jade, a former contestant on a 'reality' (there's a misnomer if ever
there was one) show. She is fat, stupid, loud mouthed and ignorant yet
has stupid amounts of money being thrown at her. She is given more for
one contract that the average person 'earns' in an entire lifetime.
In the UK a surgeon earns about £40,000 a year, a nurse about
£15,000, a teacher about £18,000, a mediocre footballer about £1
million, Kate Moss £10 million!
> If so, then it means that you are against
> free-market capitalism.
No, you cannot make that assumption, it is erroneous. I reserve my
right to criticise and I have exercised that right.
> No problem there, but be clear about the real issue. It's pointless
> saying 'that $1m would feed everyone in Darfur for six months', it's
> different sets of money - and not even just a question of money.
It's a question of moral integrity. OK I have no problem with people
being rich, I have no problem with people earning vast amounts of
money. I do find it infuriating that the poorest members of our society
are so stupid as to buy the magazines and the merchandise promoted by
the 'celebs' and feel that they are being exploited but there is
not a lot one can do about that.
> Remember also that one of the features of capitalism is that the
> richest people live differently, spend differently,
Agreed
> ... and have completely
> value systems than you or I.
But we all have different value systems whether rich or poor.
Those who lavish vast amounts of money on such trinkets open themselves
up for criticism particularly when they have the audacity to then
lecture to us and urge us to give our hard earned cash to good causes.
There are always going to be grey areas in rich people's spending
habits particularly when they have a high profile. My point is that if
someone sets out to have a high profile and pontificates to me about
social and moral issues and why I should give money to this that or the
other cause they can expect to get a good blasting if they do things
like this.
Regards and happy cycling, it just so happens that over the next few
months I will be looking to spend quite a lot of money (for me anyway)
on a bicycle as I have just got the triathlon bug.
Linear Mode
