display your banner here

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Papparazzi

  1. #16
    Mentor KangTheMad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,263
    Blog Entries
    3
    Oh, I agree. I don't even know who Kim Kardashian married. And there are times when paparazzi go too far. People think Princess Diana's fatal accident was because her driver was fleeing from the paparazzi.

    And, yes, it is very much the nature of the beast. Questioning it? Definitely. Always question stuff. My Environmental Geology teacher would lie to us on occasion, just to get us to question (respectfully) some of the stuff we are taught.

    Either way, I don't see TMZ or similar stuff going away any time soon. Which is possibly saddening.
    I'm a turkey!

    I'm also a Mentor. What does that mean? It means if you have any questions, all you have to do is ask me. My job is to help you feel comfortable here. (The mods' job is to take away cookies as punishment. Twisted fiends.)
    http://sundancerstory.blogspot.com/

  2. #17
    Mentor felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Bedfordshire, England
    Posts
    371
    Who's Kim Kardashian?


    This argument is one of the most cyclical and always boils down to whether the individual's world view aligns with 'The ends justify the means'.
    The points just fly back and forth.

    - Point: The methods employed by Paparazzi are often illegal.
    - Counterpoint: Public figures are viewed differently in the eyes of the law.

    A blatant flaw in society, right off the bat, but one that nobody pays any mind because, hey, it's the law, right?
    If you view even one person differently then the door's open for everybody else, and that's the end of it.
    Additionally, if somebody was stalked and happened to have a fetish for being stalked, then has the stalker committed a crime? Yes, of course they have. How is this situation different?

    - Point: Celebrities are entitled to privacy as is anybody else.
    - Counterpoint: By virtue of being celebrities, they have sacrificed their right to privacy. Ergo, they are, for all intensive purposes, the property of the public.

    As stated before, even one person being treated differently makes the law system fundamentally flawed. This goes against the nature of any law prohibiting any form of discrimination as it is an act of discrimination itself.

    - Point: The crimes the Paparazzi often commit to get their scoop are hurtful, intimidating, perverted and sometimes, dangerous.
    - Counterpoint: People want those scoops, and it's the reporter's job to get them.

    An illegal activity is still illegal, irrespective of the status of the victim.
    Also, if you built a Colosseum in downtown Manhattan and forced convicted rapists to fight to the death centre stage every Saturday night on prime time television then millions of people would watch, and they'd love it. That doesn't make it right, or legal.
    Last edited by felix; 12-10-2011 at 02:10 AM.
    Insert profundity here.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •