Paris Hilton: The Death of America

[Solomon Kane]

Nope. I have neither hope of reward nor fear of punishment. Dead is dead, friend.

What if there is a God? What if God, is the God of the Bible? Then you will have to account for yourself at the day of reckoning, and ultimately pay the price of eternal damnation.

If there is no God, it will be of little matter to me when I'm dead.

 

[jake431]

What if there is a God? What if God, is the God of the Bible? Then you will have to account for yourself at the day of reckoning, and ultimately pay the price of eternal damnation.

If there is no God, it will be of little matter to me when I'm dead.

Is this the belief costs nothing argument?

If there is a thread to discuss the nature of religion(s) and God(s)(?), that would be a better place for it.

Paris Hilton - she' bad on a lot of levels - 1) She's too skinny and as a role model for women and young women growing up insecure she's no help whatsoever. 2) She enjoy's being "slutty" without being labelled a "slut". When the porn tape was discovered, her family but on a big show of her being a family girl - yeah right. Mind you, I have no problem with sexuality expressed by males or females, but to me, responisbility's the watchword. Like Dave Chapelle says, "...fine, you aren't a whore, but you are wearing a whore's uniform." 3) She among others (Britney, Christina, I'm looking at you here...), epitomizes the downfall of feminism - when young women see turning themselves into sex objects as empowering (embracing their sexuality is the catch phrase most uttered by women in the media/entertainment field), that is an utter failure.

However - her behavior is none of my business (from a stand point of anything other than tsk tsking), except to derive some sort of entertainment from it, much the same as heriditary Aristocracy fascinates us, she is hardly relateable to from the point of view most of the rest of us mere non-famous mortals. Being born ungodly rich doesn't seem to have done her any favors in terms of making her relate to human beings at large, or have any notion of how wanting and having are different things for 99.9% of people on Earth. Simply put, any parent who lets such an example serve as role model to their child is not doing their job.

-Jake

 

[Solomon Kane]

What if god is a green cat who lives on Mars? It is as likely. And as useless for me to worry about.

God have mercy on you.

 

[Solomon Kane]

Is this the belief costs nothing argument?

If there is a thread to discuss the nature of religion(s) and God(s)(?), that would be a better place for it.

Jake

You may be right, but as you most likely know, all conversations turn to religion and politics eventually.

 

[jamespowers]

What if god is a green cat who lives on Mars? It is as likely. And as useless for me to worry about.

Gee, then I would change my opinion about the space program and likely back an expedition to Mars. I like cats. Green would be fine. :kick:

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

Who's Steve Perry?

bk

Geez, I thought I gave my teacher friend the benefit of the doubt because he is now 85 but...... Well anyway if it helps you remember this is a photo of him with the Sox taken at the world series this year.

The Sox used his song Don't Stop Believing as their theme song this year.
Steve was the lead singer for the music group Journey from the 1970s through the 1990s. He was also a solo artist in the 1980s. Here is a clearer picture of him with his cat:

Notice it is not green and not from Mars. :kick:

Regards to all,

J

 

[jake431]

James,

I don't think anyone thought Steve Perry talked to God. Or his cat for that matter, but maybe I'm wrong on that second point.

-Jake

 

[jamespowers]

James,

I don't think anyone thought Steve Perry talked to God. Or his cat for that matter, but maybe I'm wrong on that second point.

-Jake

No he doesn't. Believe me. He is probably one of the least "celebrity" of the celebrities I have known. Very thankful to his fans and concerned with his image---at least now. Nah, his mother would have really raked him over the coals if he screwed up too bad anyway.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Oh.

Never heard of him or the band. Guess i'm out of the loop a little

bk

 

[Steve]

Back to the original post of this thread, we seem to forget that the Hilton half-wits are not the first morally-challenged celebrities to be idolized. Errol Flynn drank himself to death, but he was extremely popular in his day. How many young boys do you think wanted to be Robin Hood in 1938?

And there's Marylin Monroe. I might be treading some volatile waters here, because I know some people like her still today, but she was the quintessential loose woman back when she was alive. Affair with Kennedy, posing nekkid all over the place, yet held up as an all-American girl.

 

[Wild Root]

Good points.

=WR=

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Back to the original post of this thread, we seem to forget that the Hilton half-wits are not the first morally-challenged celebrities to be idolized. Errol Flynn drank himself to death, but he was extremely popular in his day. How many young boys do you think wanted to be Robin Hood in 1938?

And there's Marylin Monroe. I might be treading some volatile waters here, because I know some people like her still today, but she was the quintessential loose woman back when she was alive. Affair with Kennedy, posing nekkid all over the place, yet held up as an all-American girl.

Precisely.

And everyone knew what Oscar Wilde was up to back in the day. One of the arguments against him was that by being relatively open about his sexuality he was corrupting the public morals. A ridiculous and completely pretentious argument whatever era one lives in.

bk

 

[Harp]

I was reading philosophy today and read this quote from Epictetus:

"Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant."

I immediately thought of the moral vaccuum that is the Hilton sisters. The inheritance they have squandered in decadence, the as yet untold negative effect they are having on the minds of millions of young women in America. What is the message they are sending?

Character is destiny.

Heraclitus

 

[Edward]

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

bk

Hmmn.... in the absence of malice, though, it could be defended as fair comment (an honestly held opinion based on true facts - the true facts being the way she behaves, the honestly held opinion being she is a whore) - arguable at least.

That's English law, though - I can't comment on the US equivalent with authority.

 

[Edward]

Oh, i forgot this.... Isn't malice a main requirement in the US for a public figure
to be defamed?

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

 

[Edward]

I am not a fan of celebrity, especially those who walk arounds with their noses in the air and their legs.....well, you know what I mean.
Anyway, I just found an article from about a year ago saying that the ever so lovely Paris Hilton will be playing the role of Daisy Buchanan in an upcoming re-make of "The Great Gatsby" It will also star some young guy from "The OC" (I only know this show because the guy who wrote it is from Rhode Island, and that's where I grew up), and it will be produced by one of those hip hop guys, JayZ or Ludacris, who knows.
Ok, so Daisy Buchanan's character is a little shallow and self absorbed, but that's not why I chose the name. Paris Hilton is no actress, and not worthy of such a role!

She ain't no actress, but in some respects it'd be such a typecast that I doubt there'd be much acting necessary....

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Hmmn.... in the absence of malice, though, it could be defended as fair comment (an honestly held opinion based on true facts - the true facts being the way she behaves, the honestly held opinion being she is a whore) - arguable at least.

If there are 'facts' out there in the public domain showing that Paris Hilton has sex for money (as i see it, this is at least a sketchy definition of prostitute, or "whore"), i'm yet to see them (perhaps i'm the last man in the world to see them). Sexual promiscuity does not make one a prostitute. Hence my opinion of a year ago that such statements would be libellous.

For example, how would the press complaints commission deal with a headline from The Screws: "Paris Hilton (a Whore) Released From Prison"

bk

 

[Edward]

If there are 'facts' out there in the public domain showing that Paris Hilton has sex for money (as i see it, this is at least a sketchy definition of prostitute, or "whore"), i'm yet to see them (perhaps i'm the last man in the world to see them). Sexual promiscuity does not make one a prostitute. Hence my opinion of a year ago that such statements would be libellous.

If that is the common understanding of whore.... a jury might decide otherwise - certainly there is a common understandsing about now that often equates it with slut or slag. In any case, there wouldn't have to be a proven fact that she'd done it for money - an opinion that she must have done so based on the proven facts that she was in the porn film, etc would be defensible under fair comment provided that there was no malice in the opinion. For the defence of fair comment to work, it does not matter at all that the opinion in question be even remotely reasonable, provided that it is honestly held. I know it sounds crazy, but that's the law. It's loopiness like that that makes it fun! lol

For example, how would the press complaints commission deal with a headline from The Screws: "Paris Hilton (a Whore) Released From Prison"

Well, now that's a different ballgame - the PCC is an extra legal body and adjudicates on the basis of its own code, not the law per se. I imagine that the PCC would not wear a story like that about a named individual unless there was a very clear level of proof and a public interest in the story too, but that's very different from defamation liability.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

If that is the common understanding of whore.... a jury might decide otherwise - certainly there is a common understandsing about now that often equates it with slut or slag. In any case, there wouldn't have to be a proven fact that she'd done it for money - an opinion that she must have done so based on the proven facts that she was in the porn film, etc would be defensible under fair comment provided that there was no malice in the opinion. For the defence of fair comment to work, it does not matter at all that the opinion in question be even remotely reasonable, provided that it is honestly held. I know it sounds crazy, but that's the law. It's loopiness like that that makes it fun! lol

Interesting points. Juries can come to some damn queer understandings, so i don't put it past them to decide so. And this type of "logical judgement" on the part of a jury actually gives credence to the notion that a celebrity cannot get a fair trial, but that's beside the point.

Re: the bit in bold. At least 10 of my friend's parents have filmed themselves having sex. I have seen some of these videos (don't ask, scarred for life) and heard about the rest. None of them made money from the distribution of these films. The point being that simply being on tape having sex is not a valid reason to conclude that the person "must have" worked as a prostitute. (Not that i'm saying you are saying such a thing, merely for argument's sake, you understand.) As i understand it, the video of Paris Hilton and [whoever it was] was stolen, and put on the market. So, she didn't make any money from it.

But now we're just batting minutiae back and forth - a notable tradition in the OB, along with obfuscation - so i'll leave it there. Surely no-one else is interested in the fine details of UK libel law . . .

bk

 

[jamespowers]

Geez, I am glad that US law is a bit different.
Public figures---those who are in published magazines, newspapers, the media in general with the last two to five years are public figures.
They open themselves to scrutiny and fantastic statements. Believe me--I know. :eusa_doh:
Proving that they did it on purpose and that it has damaged you in some quantifiable way is nearly impossible. They'll likely issue a retraction and that is that. [huh] Remember libel is written and slander is through some transitory form such as speech. Slander is harder yet to prove than libel because it is a he said she said kind of case.

Regards,

J