Paris Hilton: The Death of America

[PrettySquareGal]

I have found in my study of history that civilization has always played host to snobs and dullards that have been pushed artificially to promenance in societies. "Hollywood" and all that emcompasses, is simply another passing phase of human history. I don't take any of too seriously.

But don't you think Hollywood used to be truly glamorous? Back when the ladies could work the camera and crowd with real beauty, grace and acting skills? Now we have special effects and surgically enhanced people that still lack charisma.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

She can change her clothes, her hairstyle and her boyfriend each day, (and if she wore underwear, she could change that too) but that facial expression rarely changes. Funny stuff!

OMG that's hilarious. thanks for posting it.:clap

bk

 

[Sefton]

Paris Hilton and co. certainly aren't doing anything new. They didn't invent public indecency...they aren't the first Americans to be greedy or spread their personal lives across the stage for any interested spectators...these things have existed for a long,long time. However, anybody who seriously thinks that by using a relativistic arguement to bring our current social situation into an equal status to behaviors of the past is only fooling themselves. We don't just notice them more now because we have the internet and cameras everywhere . The past wasn't perfect but there is no way that todays celebrities are behaving in public anywhere near to the way they did even 40 years ago. 40 years ago it was considered shocking for a woman to be divorced and to raise children on her own. We've improved (maybe evolved?) on that attitude some. Now actresses can appear at public awards wearing nearly nothing. Nothing wrong with the human body...I like looking at a nice dish as much as the next guy...but come on...aren't there some things that shouldn't be on constant display? The basic natures of humans don't change much but what we consider acceptable for public display does (unless you belong to the ACLU...but that's another thread....

 

[Solomon Kane]

It is a sad comentary on society, that a whore would be idolized.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It is a sad comentary on society, that a whore would be idolized.

I believe that's the first libellous comment of the thread. Excellent.

bk

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

However bad Paris Hilton is (and she is indeed bad) she pales in comparison to Pamela Anderson. I can't even stand watching the commercials for that "Stacked" show. How anybody could find her in the least attractive is utterly beyond me. I feel like shouting "The emperor has no clothes!" every time I see her on TV it is so bad. Heck, even beyond the obvious physical and mental aspects you are talking about some serious hepatitis C action. Yuck,

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Heck, even beyond the obvious physical and mental aspects you are talking about some serious hepatitis C action. Yuck,

And we have libel number 2 (actually, maybe not). Keep 'em coming gents. This is fun.

bk

 

[Wild Root]

However bad Paris Hilton is (and she is indeed bad) she pales in comparison to Pamela Anderson. I can't even stand watching the commercials for that "Stacked" show. How anybody could find her in the least attractive is utterly beyond me. I feel like shouting "The emperor has no clothes!" every time I see her on TV it is so bad. Heck, even beyond the obvious physical and mental aspects you are talking about some serious hepatitis C action. Yuck,

YES!!! THANK YOU!!! I'm with you 110%!!!

Has any one here seen photos of her with out her make up on? You'd swear she looked 80+! You know, Pam wasn't so bad in the early stages of her career but, as you know, good goes bad all to fast. I never really found her attractive my self but, I'd say she had more of "IT" then Paris H. it's the football watching beer swigging Neanderthals that find her really attractive.

Yes, who else out there can we not stand in movie land?

=WR=

 

[Section10]

Bear swigging? Was that libel #3?

 

[Solomon Kane]

Where to start? Most celebrities are self centered, pompous, wretches. They are of loose morals, nay, no morals, and double standards.

 

[Solomon Kane]

Bear swigging? Was that libel #3?

 

[Quigley Brown]

Where to start? Most celebrities are self centered, pompous, wretches. They are of loose morals, nay, no morals, and double standards.

Don't talk that way about Erroll Flynn.

 

[Wild Root]

You know, I spelled SWIGGING not SWINGING. Can't a guy make a typo with out the whole +$%@# world comming down on him? Geeeeeeeeeeez.

=WR=

 

[Solomon Kane]

My humble apologies, t'was in jest.

 

[jamespowers]

And we have libel number 2 (actually, maybe not). Keep 'em coming gents. This is fun.

bk

Uh, legally speaking counselor, these are both public figures who open themselves to public scrutiny. In the US the laws are such that a public figure has a much higher level of proof that the accusations against them are completely false.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff

Now using these in reference to Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson, who can you figure that any of these elements were met for Libel? Getting a jury to award either of these nuts a decison would meet with riotous laughter.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Wild Root]

Bear swigging? Was that libel #3?

BEER Then. Sorry!

=WR=

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well said, Joseph. Interesting that someone here claims that you're being relativistic. At this very moment, in another thread, folks are giving their own morally relativistic argument: that U.S internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII "seemed like a good idea at the time," so let's not judge the act by "today's" standards. What they fail to consider is that it didn't seem to be a good idea at the time to everyone. Those in power, be they a few or a majority, do not have a monopoly on moral virtue. The few who opposed internment in WWII were right back then as much as they are now.

Korea, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, and others I've omitted - sounds like we've been going to war pretty continuously for the last three or four generations. Oh, sorry! "Police actions."


As compared to exactly when? When precisely were American's not greed-driven, for example? As for complacent and careless, the 1920's could probably give us a pretty good run for first place, just to confine ourselves to the 20th century.


What morals? Whose dignity? What principles? Let's be specific. What do human beings do in the United States in the 21st century that are any more immoral or lacking in dignity or principles than what Americans ever did? I think we will find that we certainly didn't invent any of it. The immoral and undignified and unprincipled are no different from what they once were. You just see it more easily. As for uncompromising natures, we still have plenty of those to go around, and not necessarily for the good.


Those who have inherited what they have and not earned it have always been prone to excess. Add to that the fact that you are clearly talking about a televison show whose intent was at least in part comedic, and I think you are making far to grand a social commentary for the evidence.


Those evil bastards!

 

[Wild Root]

My humble apologies, t'was in jest.

No, the photo was funny! I just about died laughing! But, swigging and swinging are two different words.

Apologies accepted!

=WR=

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Uh, legally speaking counselor, these are both public figures who open themselves to public scrutiny. In the US the laws are such that a public figure has a much higher level of proof that the accusations against them are completely false.
J

Since Pamela has openly admitted that she has hepatitis C I could shout that fact from the mountaintops and I doubt she has any legal cause of action against me. The fact that she is unattractive I believe is self-evident and would only require her presence within 200 meters of the jury for them to discover.

 

[Wild Root]

Oh Vlad, you crack me up! We are on the same page brother!

=WR=