tasha99

tonyc3742

If charity is a private affair, then why do you care so much about how much Rowling or Bono or Gates is giving? Seems to me it's only private when it's you, but when it's one of those damn rich people, well, they should have to justify their purchases and 'give back' at a level determined satisfactory by you.

Hmm...so You need DVD's to satisfy some "psychological need". [What psychological need is only satisfied by owning "Elf" or "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within"?] What if Bono has a "psychological need" that appreciates a quality example of complex engineering like a Mercedes?
'Art appreciation'. And of course the 'gray area' in that is that virtually *any* creative work can be termed 'art'. Why, even JK Rowlings books are a form of art.

The only justification someone needs for an 'extravagant mansion' in my mind is, "I can afford it, and I wanted it." I don't claim or want to be the moral arbiter of how everyone else spends--or uses--their money that they earned from producing something [again, assuming it's spent on legal things, not huge amounts of cocaine or something.]

I haven't heard many of them say they couldn't do more, or trying to justify their extravagant homes. Virtually everyone could do more--even you. You could rent or borrow dvd's rather than buying them, and use that extra money to 'help' people. After all, even if you 'need' dvd's, do you 'need' 750 of them?

pdinosaur

i really think that's over simplfying things. i would agree with filmmaker in that dvds are a means of filling a different kind of need.

Josh H

And so can sports cars and mansions. It's a gray argument.

I'll say it again. Rich people can buy whatever they want with their money and I have no problems as long as they give well too.

They don't, an no one should IMO, have this obligation Filmmaker thinks they have to give the majority of their expendable income to charity.

Filmmaker

It is private in terms of making claims; however, I can evidence what these celebrities buy that could have been (IMO) better spent saving lives instead of going to waste as a public representation of wealth. In other words, I don't need or even want to know who celebrities contribute to, nor do I intend to tell anyone where my charity dollars go; to make public claims of such strikes me as a most despicable form of bragging--I simply seek to make the claim that if I see you on "Cribs" with ten Mercedes around back, then I accuse you of valuing things and the appearance of status more than saving lives or meaningfully bettering the world. That's all.

Frankly, I read this as cattiness; I'll decline to take the bait.

It doesn't equate. I can only enjoy films on DVD; VHS is disappearing and, for what titles are available, pan-and-scan destroys the inherent artfulness on display. LaserDiscs are dead. There is no other format that will meet my needs for less cost. Bono can appreciate fine engineering all he wants, but if he chooses to buy a $75,000 car when the same basic funcion of the car can be performed by one at $15,000, then he's made a value judgement that he ranks fine engineering above the life and well being of another individual(s).

I think you're drifting far off-course here; I'm not challenging readers/appreciators of her books, I'm challenging her willful distribution of her own wealth. Stay on target.

Well, I guess you're a better man than me then. What's the point of a statement like this? You've stated your case, I've stated mine. Why try to press the case that somehow your view is more "evolved" than mine?

I don't know anyone who has more than 10 DVDs (sad but true) and I rewatch to a degree that would make renting far less financially sound than just buying outright. As far as the number I own, each film offers a unique experience. Lastly, and let me drill this home because you flat out seem unwilling or unprepared to recognize the point I've made multiple times. If I have $20 spending money (and I'm often lucky to have that) at the end of the month and I "blow" it on a DVD, I daresay I've still committed less of a "sin" against the poor than a multi-millionaire buying a $5 million palace with 17 rooms they'll never even visit.

lysander

I haven't read all the other posts, so this may be repetitive, but I'm trying to get my post count up.

At least she did something to get her money. She created something. If society deems it is something so great that they are willing to pay for it, then she has earned it.

As opposed to rich kids who inherit fortunes. Those are the ones I despise-



mainly out of jealousy.

benedict

John D.Rockefeller Jr said: ".... every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty".

See also, commentaries on the concept of "noblesse oblige":

benedict

Striving, desperately, to maintain the literary context........ Jack London in "Burning Daylight".

Josh H

I don't think either is a "sin" against the poor. The millionaire may be donating millions in addition to buying the palace, so it balances out.

And again, people have no obligation to live like middle class people and donate the rest of their wealth. Donate well and they can spend the rest on what they want.

It's great to help others, but people also have to help themselves and not rely on wealth redistribution to the degree you are naively advocating.

Filmmaker

Fair enough, but isn't this discussion really boiling down to the "I don't agree with you" "well I don't agree with you" "well, that may be but I still don't agree with you" point? We've all stated our positions clearly enough...now we're just spinning our wheels. I don't know about you but I'm getting bored. Live you life as you see fit; do you really need my approval???

Filmmaker

I'm sure your specious form of math is a comfort to the untold villages that could have been saved if said celebrity had bought a house that legitimately met his needs for several million less. I'm aghast that you dare accuse me of naivete (a move, by the way, of which I don't approce; disagree with me all you want, but you can pocket your insults and presumptions of my character and intelligence), then follow it with a statement like this.

Oh and lastly, my previous post still applies. I think we've killed any progress in this discussion.

pdinosaur

I would ask, if i donate 25% of my income, but spend 50% on true extravagances (bentleys, outrageous mansions, etc), am i donating well?

i would say no.

DodgingCars

Wow.

tonyc3742

"I daresay I've still committed less of a "sin" against the poor than a multi-millionaire buying a $5 million palace with 17 rooms they'll never even visit."

This to me says it all, that you think someone spending money in a way they want is a 'sin' against the 'poor' who somehow could all be Saved and Live in Happiness if only the rich person gave another million dollars. And of course the fact that you're trying to justify your purchasing of dvd's is very revealing as well.

Renting versus buying: Blockbuster Online, unlimited rentals, 16 bucks a month. If your 750 dvd's cost an average of 10 bucks each, you could get BBO for 468 months for that.

The Rowlings books-as-art comment: You buy dvds because they're 'art'. Someone makes money. If those people who make that money don't turn a sufficient percentage of their income/assets into charity, then by choosing to purchase their goods, you're part of the problem as well, you're merely helping them buy their 17 room mansion.

If you see me on Cribs with ten cars or whatever, accuse me of whatever you want. Public claims of charity you term as 'bragging', and yet, haven't most of your posts here included some phrasing as to how good and dutiful you are with how much you give to charity, or the reverse, that if someone *else* doesn't prove it with everything he buys, then he is 'sinning'. Maybe Bono did buy a 75k Mercedes, but maybe he donates 10 million a year. Are you begrudging him the purchase of the car? If so, then again, the argument can easily be made that *any* luxury should be forgone, to donate to charities. Yes, he could buy a Kia instead of a Mercedes. You could rent a dvd instead of buying them. Have you ever eaten out? Think of the poor children who could have been fed on that Value Meal! Hell, I assume you have a computer--you have a computer and internet access, when millions of people around the world don't even have clean drinking water?!?

If you're going to hold the rich [ie, wealthier-than-you-or-me] to this bizarre standard where they are 'sinning' by actually spending their money on themselves rather than donating every extra farthing to charity, you need to apply the same standard to yourself. And if you are going to say that people shouldn't buy things they don't "need", the same applies.

Should people give to charity? Sure. How much and what they give--money, time, knowledge, labor--is up to them and their conscience.
Should people *have* to give to charity? No. Forced charity is not 'charity', it's theft. Or taxation. Well, same thing.

Is it any of your business how much Bono or Rowling gives to charity? No, since just as you state, it's also none of my business how much you give. It's also none of your business what else they buy with their 'extra' money that they don't 'need', just like it's really none of my business what you buy.

Is it anyone's business to decide how much one person [other than you, of course] 'needs'? Unless you're Karl Marx or a dictator, no.

Back ontopic: Does she 'deserve' to be a billionaire [assuming she is]? Sure, why not. She worked to produce something that people wanted and were willing to pay for.

Filmmaker

You insult me with your misconstrued spin on what I said. I'll decline to pursue it further.

Revealing of what? I've defended how art appreciation contributes to an individual's mental and emotional health; it has real merit unto itself. There is no other cheaper format whereby to enjoy films than DVDs, so what ugly truth have I revealed about myself. Again, I realize that money spent on DVDs could be put to better, less self-serving, use, but I've said many times that I am guilty along with those celebrities agaisnt whom I'm making accusations. THE ISSUE IS A MATTER OF DEGREE! If I let a child die by buying a DVD, Mr. Celebrity kills villages. Dear God, please won't you grasp that.

That's a lot of work for faulty math because it doesn't take into account the rewatchability factor (which, even being "unlimited", is limited by units allowed at any given single time for rent). Add to that the fact that I find Blockbuster to be perhaps the single most unethical business in America at this point, and I'll pass (though I realize you'll just change the business to Netflix or somesuch, but I have to argue 'em as you give 'em). Even if we take your mathmatical argument as accurate at face value, it still doesn't address the matter of degree I mentioned above.

I find that to be an especially weak argument. Just as I don't believe in the philosophy of holding people accountable for "the sins of their fathers", I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to be held accountable for how a person spends the revenue they take from that individual buying that person's wares. People are responsible for their own actions--if there's any great truth to life that has become obsured and ignored in the modern age, it is this.

I say again and again and again that a) it is a matter of degree and b) everyone, middle class to celebrity, can and should understandably have a "line in the sand" where their charity must end, but you're trying to ignore that and posit the theory that, since charity vs. income/want vs. need can be deconstructed down to the nth of an nth degree, why even acknowledge or validate the issue at all, and I think that's faulty, even destructive, thinking. It boils down to "I can't fix the world, so why even bother?"

Interesting--you will not allow me to have my own feelings of conscience regarding the state of the world and my fellow Man's contributions or lack thereof to it?

It is none of your business because I believe discussing one's own contributions to charity is crass and unsavory and self-aggrandizing. People are still free to judge me according to what I take from the world versus what I give to it, however.

Sound like a man desperate to legitimize purchase of a $75,000 car. Why do you so desperately seek my approval of your lifestyle choices?

Mordred

I'm just thinking of the starving children in Ethiopa lying in the dirt by the side of the road under the hot sun while they slowly die of dysentary and wonder if they think you need 750 DVDs.

I'm guessing you can figure out where I'm going with this.

For the record, I'm quite confident the children wouldn't have a problem with me owning 200 DVDs as it's such a small number.

pdinosaur

um, it's getting out of hand here.






fun smilies!!

Filmmaker

One...last...time...dear...God.

If you can show me a way where I can meet my need for film appreciation for measurably less money than via DVDs in the same manner that I illustrated that a $15,000 car can do the same basic function as a $75,000, then please quit pissing around the bush and do so. If you are not even prepared to agree that art appreciation fills a need every bit as much as a want, then we have a fundamental disagreement and our debate will have nowhere to go from there.

tasha99

Your public library or Netflix. Or taped off tv. If you reply that having to wait for a rental is too big of an inconvenience, I have to wonder at your sincerity. Surely a little inconvenience is worth a child's life.

(BTW, I'm being facetious. Equating 750 DVD's with a need is ludicrous, but I don't begrudge you your having them; I just begrudge you your self-righteousness. Your DVD collection is not any different from Bono's Mercedes, though I'm guessing the 750 DVD's represent a much larger percent of your net worth than Bono's car does of his.)

DodgingCars

I'd say you don't have any real need for film appreciation. It's a ridiculas argument to say that owning DVDs is needed for mental and emotional health.

And if you want to keep arguing degrees, then let's go with the fact that there are people with far less than you -- who could argue that you are living far too well and could live as humbly as they are. So maybe Bill Gates could save a village by not buying a ferarri, you can save a man by not buying a DVD, and Joseph in India can give his neighbor a days worth of food by not buying that bicycle and walking to work instead.

The point is, we can all live with less and to be all self-righteous and judgemental about how others live seems very hypocritical when you don't seem to be living that humbly yourself.

Josh H

What "donating well" means is fairly subjective. I'd say that ratio is fine in my eyes. People should be able to enjoy the money they've earned on their own. Donating 25% of money one earns to help others is extremely generous imo.

I don't mean to be cold, but we live in a fend for yourself world, and I have not problem with that. I think we have some obligation to help others, but not to an extent that you're donating most, or even half, of you expendable income that you earned to charity.

Josh H

True, and I say they have some obligation to donate.

But people also have an obligation to fend for themselves, survival of the fittest and all that.

I think the level of charitable contributions are pretty decent now, especially to places like Africa. The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.).

Filmmaker

His car, his multiple homes, his extensive vacations, his private studios, hotels, airplanes, etc. etc. etc. Pardon my French but give me a fucking break. Bono and other such celebrities live in a world where they will never need for ANYTHING. I, in the meantime, live paycheck to paycheck with the occasional perk of a DVD or trip to the movie theater to break up the monotony of working my ass of for instantly vanishing paychecks. I'm not asking for you to cry for me, Argentina, and I realize I'm a man of some wealth to most Africans, but if you have any decency, you can't possibly equate my situation on any scale with a celebrity's...

Filmmaker

Then we have a fundamental disagreement; you go your way and I'll go mine.

Ergo, the rich man carries a weighter responsibility than I.

If my DVD collection (the vast majority of which was purchased at only 60% of retail value) in a starter house with regular cable, an old TV, a stereo receiver without rear speakers, a parent-loaned computer on a sale-priced offering of 50% off DSL with two economy cars and a money-sucking baby with more bills coming in than funds that can usually go out puts me outside the class of "humble", then bring me more wine, cheese and women. It's good to be the king! If you are going to call me out as a hypocrite, you fail because I've already admitted my own guilt in this matter. If you're going to equate the level of my guilt with a celebrity's, then frankly, I'm rather sickened by such willingness to justify the gross waste of wealth that almost uniformly takes place at that level of income. But hey, what more can I say? None of you are bringing anything NEW to the discussion; you keep beating the same drums in some desperate need to either a) secure my approval of your lifestyle choices (which you aren't going to get, and might I add it's rather sad to need approval from some stranger on an online forum) or b) spotlight me as a judgmental jerk (to which I'd say, very well--how else to change the world but to judge it and volunteer alternatives--if you don't dig it, then tell me to kiss your ass and move on)...

Josh H

Thta's fishy to me. I don't see how one can get up to 750 dvds if they're TRULY living paycheck to paycheck. I'm a poor grad student, got my first DVD player for X-mas in 1998 when I was a freshman and colloge, and have always been pretty much paycheck to paycheck, and have only accumulated 180 some DVDs due to financial limitations.

But of course you may have put them on credit cards, thus paying interest on them that could have gone to charity.