Film, Media & TV1 min ago
The Mail's Unplesant (And Undeserved!) Moral Superiority Strikes Again.
114 Answers
This time Steven Glover tuts and admonishes over celebrity deaths -
http://
His nasty snippy moralistic tutting puff piece almost falls off its see-saw, so keen is he to condemn stars for their lifestyle on one hand, and then confirm that he doesn't know that it contributed to their deaths.
For the record Mr Glover as a fan to various degrees of everyone famous who has passed recently, I am not blinded by their wonderful art and influence on my life, to their frailties and failures as human beings, and the absuses of their bodies during their lifetimes.
But guess what, I manage to feel sorry without the need to tut like some pompous old buffer in a saloon bar holding forth about 'young people' like being young and stupid is a crime that personally offends me.
Yes, part of my idols' lives involved abuses that may have taken them early, but I prefer to think of the good they have done and the pleasure they have brought, and shelve their weaknesses for another day.
What a shame Mr Glover could not find it in himself to do the same.
http://
His nasty snippy moralistic tutting puff piece almost falls off its see-saw, so keen is he to condemn stars for their lifestyle on one hand, and then confirm that he doesn't know that it contributed to their deaths.
For the record Mr Glover as a fan to various degrees of everyone famous who has passed recently, I am not blinded by their wonderful art and influence on my life, to their frailties and failures as human beings, and the absuses of their bodies during their lifetimes.
But guess what, I manage to feel sorry without the need to tut like some pompous old buffer in a saloon bar holding forth about 'young people' like being young and stupid is a crime that personally offends me.
Yes, part of my idols' lives involved abuses that may have taken them early, but I prefer to think of the good they have done and the pleasure they have brought, and shelve their weaknesses for another day.
What a shame Mr Glover could not find it in himself to do the same.
Answers
To make the connection that these 3 dead stars, may have died early because of their excesses during their lifetime is not insightful or clever, because it is bleeding obvious. My main problem with Glover is not his self rightuous disdained, it is his moral bias and selective finger pointing. So unhealthy persuits tha Daily Mail readers may share, like...
14:40 Thu 29th Dec 2016
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //We should overlook these wonderfully gifted musician types being a bit druggy, eh. //
No-one has suggested 'overlooking' anything - which infers that you excuse bad behavior on the basis of creativity - which is nonsense, which could well be why no-one apart from you has mentioned it.
// Would you want your teenage daughter to hang out with people like this, or your teenage son as far as George Michael is concerned. //
My teenage daughters were all brought up with a well-developed sense of right and wrong, and the need to develop a personal moral code and live by it.
On that basis I would have had no problem with my daughters hanging out with 'people like this' - I assume you are just referring to Mr Michael's musicianship?
No-one has suggested 'overlooking' anything - which infers that you excuse bad behavior on the basis of creativity - which is nonsense, which could well be why no-one apart from you has mentioned it.
// Would you want your teenage daughter to hang out with people like this, or your teenage son as far as George Michael is concerned. //
My teenage daughters were all brought up with a well-developed sense of right and wrong, and the need to develop a personal moral code and live by it.
On that basis I would have had no problem with my daughters hanging out with 'people like this' - I assume you are just referring to Mr Michael's musicianship?
divebuddy - //^^^^ No, but looking at Michael's track record, is there anyway of knowing what depths of depravity he wouldn't sink to. //
Oh, you're not confining yourself to his musicianship.
Well, I'd rather they hung around with musicians, homosexual or not, than people like Stephen Milligan or Mark Oaten whose behavior exposed by the national news media cannot be repeated on a family-friendly website like this one.
Oh no, sorry, they weren't musicians, they were elected Members of Parliament - still, you have to tut about your depravity where you can find it don't you.
Oh, you're not confining yourself to his musicianship.
Well, I'd rather they hung around with musicians, homosexual or not, than people like Stephen Milligan or Mark Oaten whose behavior exposed by the national news media cannot be repeated on a family-friendly website like this one.
Oh no, sorry, they weren't musicians, they were elected Members of Parliament - still, you have to tut about your depravity where you can find it don't you.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - Well, that depends on the view you take -
The view you appear to take - George Michael is a homosexual drug-abusing musician, and as such, on the basis of any, or indeed all of those character traits, he must be looking out constantly for any young people (obviously boys preferably) to draw into his own twisted web of debauchery, and ensure that they join and imitate him in any of those activities, well the music is optional, but the rest is absolutely mandatory.
Or the view that I take -
George Michael is a musician who happens to be homosexual, and has taken drugs, but actually, that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that he feels the need to encourage anyone else to behave as he does, and certainly not against their will.
But then, I have probably met hundreds more professional musicians than you have, and befriended a large number of those, and remain unscathed, so maybe I just know a little more of what I speak on this occasion that you do.
I also notice that have chosen not to respond to my comment about the behaviors of Mr Milligan and Mr Oaten, who are not musicians but were elected MP's - but I would not suggest that they would be any more inclined to encourage others to behave as they did, than would Mr Michael.
The view you appear to take - George Michael is a homosexual drug-abusing musician, and as such, on the basis of any, or indeed all of those character traits, he must be looking out constantly for any young people (obviously boys preferably) to draw into his own twisted web of debauchery, and ensure that they join and imitate him in any of those activities, well the music is optional, but the rest is absolutely mandatory.
Or the view that I take -
George Michael is a musician who happens to be homosexual, and has taken drugs, but actually, that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination, that he feels the need to encourage anyone else to behave as he does, and certainly not against their will.
But then, I have probably met hundreds more professional musicians than you have, and befriended a large number of those, and remain unscathed, so maybe I just know a little more of what I speak on this occasion that you do.
I also notice that have chosen not to respond to my comment about the behaviors of Mr Milligan and Mr Oaten, who are not musicians but were elected MP's - but I would not suggest that they would be any more inclined to encourage others to behave as they did, than would Mr Michael.
divebuddy - //Oh, and your first answer (before you read the second bit) was nonsense as well. How can you say you'd be happy, when you are fully aware of the down side to Michaels. //
Because as I advised, my children know right from wrong, and I do not believe that taking drugs and being homosexual come with built-in behavior patterns that mean you must encourage everyone else within your social orbit to do the same as you do.
//It's like saying you'd be happy for your child to spend the weekend with Michael Jackson because of his musical ability and you will ignore the (very strong, to put it mildly) likelihood that he is a paedo. //
That comparison is as ludicrous as it it offensive.
I would not let my child spend time with Michael Jackson - not because it is, as you so delicately put it 'likely to be a paedo', but simply because none of my children have stayed with people outside the family that I and my wife do not know personally very well, and who do not have children of a similar age who are my children's close friends.
Musical ability and record sales are not on the scale I examine when checking out people to whom I am offering loco parentis.
Because as I advised, my children know right from wrong, and I do not believe that taking drugs and being homosexual come with built-in behavior patterns that mean you must encourage everyone else within your social orbit to do the same as you do.
//It's like saying you'd be happy for your child to spend the weekend with Michael Jackson because of his musical ability and you will ignore the (very strong, to put it mildly) likelihood that he is a paedo. //
That comparison is as ludicrous as it it offensive.
I would not let my child spend time with Michael Jackson - not because it is, as you so delicately put it 'likely to be a paedo', but simply because none of my children have stayed with people outside the family that I and my wife do not know personally very well, and who do not have children of a similar age who are my children's close friends.
Musical ability and record sales are not on the scale I examine when checking out people to whom I am offering loco parentis.
divebuddy - //Obviously, naming other people who aren't suitable chums for your children is neither here nor there, as far as judging whether George Michaels is suitable. //
Not for the first time, you have missed the point i am making which was - depraved behavior can be found in the Establishment just as much as it can in the world of popular music.
Not for the first time, you have missed the point i am making which was - depraved behavior can be found in the Establishment just as much as it can in the world of popular music.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Andy. This is all about George, not sundry MPs. You are still not facing up to a parents responsibility. You don't (as a responsible parent) expose your children to unnecessary danger, //
First of all, if I ever feel the need for a lecture on my parental responsibilities, let's take as read that you are rather a long way down the list of candidates I would approach for it.
//You wouldn't be happy for a teenage son to spend the weekend with George Michaels because you are only too aware of the sort of things he gets up to. Can you honestly deny that is true. //
That is an academic scenario - I don't have a teenage son, and I didn't know George Michael well enough for the situation to be considered.
But if your inference - if I take it correctly - is that because he is a homosexual with a drug history, and therefore must automatically be looking for any and all opportunities to corrupt a minor into either practice, then your approach is utterly contemptible, and shows an inability to see beyond 1970's homophobic stereotyping.
As far as your super in depth knowledge of musicians being so vastly superior that it puts you into the super Premiere League compared to me stumbling around in the Homebase Paint Southern League, division 4 I can only quote one Frank Zappa (who I expect you will acknowledge knows even more about it than you do).........
"Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read."
I did not state, or even infer that my knowledge of musicians is either 'super in depth', or 'vastly superior' - just that it is probably more extensive, nothing more than that.
If your quote from Mr Zappa's bottomless well of wit and intelligence - acknowledged with a rueful smile as potentially true by anyone who follows my craft -n was intended to insult me, then you really are going to have to try harder than that!
First of all, if I ever feel the need for a lecture on my parental responsibilities, let's take as read that you are rather a long way down the list of candidates I would approach for it.
//You wouldn't be happy for a teenage son to spend the weekend with George Michaels because you are only too aware of the sort of things he gets up to. Can you honestly deny that is true. //
That is an academic scenario - I don't have a teenage son, and I didn't know George Michael well enough for the situation to be considered.
But if your inference - if I take it correctly - is that because he is a homosexual with a drug history, and therefore must automatically be looking for any and all opportunities to corrupt a minor into either practice, then your approach is utterly contemptible, and shows an inability to see beyond 1970's homophobic stereotyping.
As far as your super in depth knowledge of musicians being so vastly superior that it puts you into the super Premiere League compared to me stumbling around in the Homebase Paint Southern League, division 4 I can only quote one Frank Zappa (who I expect you will acknowledge knows even more about it than you do).........
"Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read."
I did not state, or even infer that my knowledge of musicians is either 'super in depth', or 'vastly superior' - just that it is probably more extensive, nothing more than that.
If your quote from Mr Zappa's bottomless well of wit and intelligence - acknowledged with a rueful smile as potentially true by anyone who follows my craft -n was intended to insult me, then you really are going to have to try harder than that!
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - ///First of all, if I ever feel the need for a lecture on my parental responsibilities, let's take as read that you are rather a long way down the list of candidates I would approach for it. // You could do worse. One of my daughters is a qualified midwife, the other a qualified nurse. //
That confirms that your children have managed to rise above their father's appalling narrow-minded bigotry and made successful careers for themselves. The fact that your children are career women who I doubt share your repugnant views shows that they are who they are despite your parenting, not because of it - so my view remains unchanged.
//It's not just that Michaels is a druggy and homosexual. It's that's he a druggy whose druggy "incidents" hit the headlines and he's a homosexual who has sex with strangers (e.g. doesn't even know their name) as has been well documented with his Hampstead heath adventures and run in with cops in toilets. //
Promiscuous sex is far from unusual in the homosexual community, and drug taking is hardly 'rare' in modern society. These things are 'news' because George Michael was a high-profile pop star, they do not indicate that he is more or less likely to encourage others to do as he did - and why would they?
// You just can't bring yourself to admit that you have got this wrong can you. //
I don't understand what you think I have 'got wrong'.
MY OP hinges on the fact that George Michael's private life was anything but - and for some of the time, he had a significant part to play in that scenario.
But that does not excuse some sanctimonious piffling from the Mail about the possibility that his drug intake may have prematurely ended his life. Anyone who had even a passing interest in Mr Michael's career already knew that.
I knew it too - but it is not my place to condemn him, or excuse him, and if you read back through my posts, you will see that I have done neither.
So what exactly have I to admit i have 'got wrong'?
That confirms that your children have managed to rise above their father's appalling narrow-minded bigotry and made successful careers for themselves. The fact that your children are career women who I doubt share your repugnant views shows that they are who they are despite your parenting, not because of it - so my view remains unchanged.
//It's not just that Michaels is a druggy and homosexual. It's that's he a druggy whose druggy "incidents" hit the headlines and he's a homosexual who has sex with strangers (e.g. doesn't even know their name) as has been well documented with his Hampstead heath adventures and run in with cops in toilets. //
Promiscuous sex is far from unusual in the homosexual community, and drug taking is hardly 'rare' in modern society. These things are 'news' because George Michael was a high-profile pop star, they do not indicate that he is more or less likely to encourage others to do as he did - and why would they?
// You just can't bring yourself to admit that you have got this wrong can you. //
I don't understand what you think I have 'got wrong'.
MY OP hinges on the fact that George Michael's private life was anything but - and for some of the time, he had a significant part to play in that scenario.
But that does not excuse some sanctimonious piffling from the Mail about the possibility that his drug intake may have prematurely ended his life. Anyone who had even a passing interest in Mr Michael's career already knew that.
I knew it too - but it is not my place to condemn him, or excuse him, and if you read back through my posts, you will see that I have done neither.
So what exactly have I to admit i have 'got wrong'?
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - You are always keen to dish out the offence - referring in disparaging terms to day job, my writing job, and on occasions past, my mental health.
So if you can't take the same back, there is a simple lesson for you - don't dish it out.
If you want to report me, go right ahead, I stand by what I have said.
I think your views on homosexuality are bigoted and offensive, as is your comment that I do not take my parental responsibilities seriously, without any evidence whatsoever.
I respond about your fatherhood based on the offensive views you peddle on here regularly, and again on this thread.
By all means I am happy for my comments to stand and be read by anyone on here - are you?
So if you can't take the same back, there is a simple lesson for you - don't dish it out.
If you want to report me, go right ahead, I stand by what I have said.
I think your views on homosexuality are bigoted and offensive, as is your comment that I do not take my parental responsibilities seriously, without any evidence whatsoever.
I respond about your fatherhood based on the offensive views you peddle on here regularly, and again on this thread.
By all means I am happy for my comments to stand and be read by anyone on here - are you?
divebuddy - //Do I detect that by comparison your children are failures despite your wonderful, indeed fantastic parenting skills. //
No you do not - why on earth would you?
This has descended into a nasty argument, I suggest that in the spirit of the season we leave it there.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
No you do not - why on earth would you?
This has descended into a nasty argument, I suggest that in the spirit of the season we leave it there.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
The New Leader Of The Opposition Party/
News9 mins ago
Tv Radio Times 45 Prize Crossword...
Crosswords13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.