Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by ma2t, Jan 1, 2005.
Why the double post?
Duh.....two is better than one?
I guess that's true.
HONG KONG: A Hong Kong women's tennis exhibition tournament featuring Russia's Maria Sharapova and American Serena Williams will donate US$64,000 from ticket sales to victims of the earthquake and tsunami disaster, organisers said yesterday.
US$10m. That's 10 Million dollar out of one man's pockets.
Oh and Deuce, before you embarass yourself some more saying it's done for publicity reasons you might want to consider this -- one of his bodyguards (along with two of his children) died in Phuket.
I still think both Federer and Roddick ought to donate all the prize money they earned at the Thailand Open just a few months ago. Federer probably won around $80,000 for winning the final and Roddick probably earned around $50,000 for being the runner-up. I think it would be a nice gesture for them to donate it all back to the tsunami relief effort in Thailand. I mean, most of that money originally came from the Thai people anyway through ticket sales. They could sure use that money now.
They might donate a portion, but it's up to them. Why should they give up their earned prize money? A small portion would be a great gesture.
I feel that it will help that Maria's donation was made public. This may encourage other tennis stars to join in and help out as well which means more money to the cause and more relief for those suffering. She may be doing it for self promotion but it is still beneficial that it was made public. I also find it hard to find fault because someone craves the spotlight and attention. It does not really harm anyone and she cannot really change who she is. She was born the way she is. Not sure if i explained this well
Bismark - I used the words of others only because I didn't wish to get caught up in a petty name calling contest with you - I wished only to show how easily your perspective can be seen as being grossly inaccurate by the other half. I've no need to hide behind any words of others - I've typed an infinite number of my own words in this thread - surely enough for even you to comprehend my position on the matter that you wish to avoid by trying to place the entire focus on me, and what you perceive as being my personal faults. Now go back to your 'psych 101' booklet and find how it defines persons such as yourself who practice this particular type of irrelevant cowardice.
Here's one more for you - just for laughs... "Phocion took it right when, upon being applauded by the multitude, he asked,'What have I done amiss?'" ~ Francis Bacon.
I can accept and disagree with the perspectives of others in this thread who, for whatever reason, cannot see that attention, status, greed and selfishness play very large roles in the lives of the 'rich and famous'... Except for the manipulative ass of the first degree who goes by the name 'oh please'. For you, manipulation is a very natural outgrowth of what you typically - and predictably - perceive as your own intelligence. This is blatantly worse than arrogance and obnoxiousness combined, and is a character flaw of among the most wretched I have ever observed in the species.
Deuce, I completely agree that attention, status, greed, and selfishness play large roles in the lives of the rich and famous. However, I do not feel that this has anything to do with them being rich and famous. These things play a large role in the lives of common people as well, and there is nothing that can be done about this "problem." It is just human nature, and unless humans are wiped out and replaced by perfect robots, which I do not believe are possible, there is no solution to the bigger problem.
By now, a typical Deuce rant. The champion of the have nots.
I think you're just envious of these people. Whenever you post your views on wealth and capitalism, your words are absolutely DRIPPING with bitterness and resentment (at your current living conditions or whatever...). You obviously need to blame SOMEONE for what you see is the poor state of society.
By "roles" do you mean the VEHICLES responsible for the rich and famous becoming...rich and famous, or are you suggesting that these are common character traits among the rich and famous that are manifested AFTER they achieve their successes? Do you even know what you're talking about, or do you come by your information by watching celebrity TV?
Have you EVER stopped to consider that the negative characteristics that you list are common among people of ALL economic classes? Not only do the "rich and famous" NOT have a monopoly on greed and selfishness, they aren't even the primary practicioners/proponents of such behavior. Some of them are just more skillful in parlaying greed into a good living. But not necessarily all of them.
Have you EVER considered that some people become rich and famous by exercising not greed or any of your other simplistic terms, but iron discipline, brutally hard work and talent? Itzhak Perlman didn't become "rich and famous" by being greedy, and he isn't greedy now. He's just a damned fine fiddle player, and he got there by hard work. Don't punish him for his hard work, for which he reaped his just rewards.
Again, we see Deuce making BLANKET condemnations on a group or groups of people with whom he has absolutely no first hand experience or knowledge. "Rich and Famous" isn't a monolithic group or a standard personality trait. People who fall under that description achieved their success in many different ways, and to paint them all in such simplistic terms as "greedy" or venal is just as ignorant and simpleminded as categorizing poor people as "lazy", "stupid", "government handout chasers", etc. Not everyone who is "rich" is a Kenneth Lay or Ivan Boesky.
If you consider yourself an astute social observer, and I think you DO, then you can do a lot better than the quasi-socialist crap that you spew on these boards every couple weeks or so. The issues that you BARELY touch on are a lot more complicated than your empty generalizations.
Another attribute of 'cynics' is that we tend to be more optimistic about the human condition, and its potential, than do the majority. It is in fact from this eternal optimism, and not from the traits earlier outlined by the misguided 'bismark', that are born the criticisms for which 'cynics' are known.
I believe it is entirely possible for people to be less selfish, Steve. Pointing out the unacceptibility of selfish behaviour is, I believe, one step toward that realization.
As to the 'rich and famous' being no more selfish, greedy, etc. than the rest of us - I disagree. I believe that, with very few exceptions, the amount of selfishness, ego, and greed an individual possesses is in direct proportion to their popularity and/or their position of 'power'. While the seeds of greed may exist within just about every human, it truly flourishes when fame is achieved. This is due to the 'power' which comes with the fame. The rule of 'the more one has, the more one wants' plays a major role, as well. And so, suddenly three yachts is 'not enough'... 4 Ferraris is 'not enough'... etc.... Status becomes one's way of achieving much needed self-esteem - and status on this planet is unfortunately derived from material - or, how much money and how many expensive toys one possesses.
And the same 'rant' from me is greeted by the same 'rant' from you, Phil...
No, the issues are not at all complicated.
One who does not measure success by the dollar understands this.
You'll never convince me that Athlete 'A', or Hollywood Actor 'B', or Musician 'C' works, or has worked, 2,458 times harder than the sweat shop worker in Vietnam, or than the guy cleaning toilets at the local shopping mall whose family lives on Kraft Dinner. And so, the celebrity making 2,458 times more money than these others is entirely and absolutely out of proportion with anything and everything which even remotely embodies equality.
"It is fouler and uglier to have too much than to have not enough." ~ Thoreau.
You have three yachts, or four Ferraris, or a 44 room mansion (or two), while others are starving (usually just a stone's throw from the aforementioned mansion), then you're greedy and selfish. Simple.
And, far from envy, I actually pity those who are 'rich and famous'. I wouldn't wish monetary riches or fame on my worst enemy. Ok... maybe on my worst enemy... but, before you ascribe to me the elements of jealousy and/or envy, YOU should know both WHAT and WHOM you are talking about. And it is obvious to me (as I do know myself) that in this case, you do not know either.
C´mon, stop that crap!! The tsunami victims need help, not people who discuss who should be giving how much and for what reasons. The promotional effect for a celebrity who donates money is short-lived, and I don´t care if they use this as a vehicle as long as they do something. If they go public they may motivate others to do the same. So please don´t hammer people who try to help in any way.
By the way, waht did y'all donate????
LOL. Another Deuce's brand of Self-Justification! Nice try. Feel sorry for you though.
OK...OK, I concede....you win. You're the Champion of all Cynics. No one is more cynical than you. You are the cynical-est (duh...is there such word?) of all cynicals. When people ask "Is there a cynic around?".....You will yell out "The King is here!" There, happy now?
Anyway, hop along and watch Robin Leach's reruns of "Lifestyle of the Rich & Famous". That should certainly pep you up for your next debate. Good day.
Deuce that is where we disagree, I do not believe you can fix human nature.
I try to think twice before judging people because all humans are basically searching for happiness. The thing is that happiness is different for every person. For a person such as Maria happiness for her is being in the limelight and having a lot of attention. Other people may find happiness in killing other people, and end up in jail. I feel sympathy for these people because they cannot help being who they are but they are punished for it, although there is no question they must be punished because they are dangerous. I also feel bad for mentally ill or insane people because some people can just be tortured by their mind making life almost unbearable most of the time.
If you are going to look at a person's alterior motives, every single person who donates has an alterior motive. A person who donates anonymously may seem to be doing it for the sake of doing a good thing and may actually believe that, but the reality is that they are doing it because it makes them feel good about themselves. Everyone has selfish motives all the time, it just depends how you look at it.
Even though a person has selfish motives when donating, it is still a good thing to do in my opinion. Life is a struggle and I get through by focusing on the positive for the most part. I can see where you are coming from, Deuce, but I guess I am more of an optimist so we are not going to agree on this, but it is still interesting talking about it.
And yet when it comes to the minds and motivations of the rich and famous, who's ascribing what to whom? Who went there in the first place?
Further, you're simply in possession of an unsophisticated mind, completely lacking in nuance. It shows in how you think, whom you quote, and the fact that you quote them at all. Which would be fine if you wouldn't beat your drum which such desparatation. Then it just's sad.
You're getting your ass handed to you. To the point that I feel pity. So I'll give you a tip: upgrade your quote book. Steal from college freshman reading lists (Kant, Aristotle) instead of high school (Thoreau). You'll at least *appear* educated, then.
And lest we forget, despite how much Deuce needs the attention: people are still suffering (many, many). Please do what you can, however you can, for whatever reason you want.
Can I get an Amen? Where's da love people? Where's da LOVE?
Michael Schumacher donated $10,000,000.00. Does it really matter to any of those people in need why he did?
oh please, your arrogance and obnoxiousness (and vocabulary) rivals that of university professors. And your manipulative capacities and techniques are akin to those of politicians and lawyers, and are just as vile. Those of your ilk will no doubt receive this as a flattering compliment.
You are as transparent as a thin sheet of glass (and about as shatterproof), and are the very definition of a '****-ant'.
And for those who think that there aren't a whole sh!tload of corporations and individuals who are reeping well calculated and significant financial profits from the tsunami disaster, methinks your sunglasses are about 17 shades too dark.
Anyone but you would take that as a compliment. I remember a similar thread where you touted your achievements as a social worker (how's that for self-promotion?) before somebody questioned your lack of training for such a job. And what did you do? You dismissed academic training and professionals in the exact same manner.
Care to tell us more about your experience in charity matters Deuce, or will you keep blaming others for your shortcomings?
There was an article in the Times today on this exact subject BTW. It might give you a clue on how to approach similar subjects in the future. That is if you want to be heard.
Why should we listen to any organization that is so arrogant as to describe itself as "the paper of record?" From a so-called "expert" who's done nothing more interesting than write some book entitled Rambam's Ladder: A Meditation on Generosity and Why It Is Necessary to Give. I mean, look at this:
"That is where celebrity giving - and its accompanying fanfare - comes in to play a crucial role. Far more people spend their evenings plopped in front of the television than studying ancient texts for moral guidance. Celebrities may not exactly be the prophets of our age, but they have a strong grip on people's imaginations, and on their wallets. We have grown accustomed to responding to their pleas to buy their CD's, watch their movies, appreciate their personalities and even their talents. We copy the way they dress, reconfigure our bodies and faces (usually in vain) trying to mimic the way they look. So despite, or because of, their aura of glitz and glamour, they can provide a moral example for us to follow when they do something good."
David, you are one of the (thankfully) few who is cut from the same dirty cloth as 'oh please'. I had written this for a previous E mail, but decided against including it. Since you have persisted, however, I felt that I would give you the benefit of my doubt that you are an honorable individual.
My advice - which you will naturally contradict on 'principle' - is to look elsewhere for your role models.
Also, if you knew of what you speak, you would know that the people with whom social workers, street workers, youth workers, etc. work much more often than not form a significantly stronger relation with the workers who have little or no academic 'training' than with the 'professionally trained'. This is simply because genuine caring cannot be taught via a book and/or classroom. 'Training' often becomes not a help, but an obstacle to genuine caring. The people with whom we work are very well aware of this, and so are most often much colder and less open with the official 'professionals' than with the non-professionals.
The article you linked to, nonetheless, I'm sure is somewhat interesting, containing some elements with which I would agree, and some with which I would not. If this makes me 'wrong' in your eyes, so be it.
Somehow, I think I can live with your disapproval.
Separate names with a comma.