Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Invasion of Privacy? Ref: Pg 18 (Page 12)

blue-ice. IF-Addictz
blue-ice.
blue-ice.

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 56266

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 5:52pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by monar

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by return_to_hades


Paparazzi is often unethical and many times illegal. However, in their defense they are just earning a living. When people started consuming dirt instead of news, paparazzi came into existence and they will disappear when people stop consuming dirt. I hold the consumer more responsible than the paparazzi. Moreover, some celebrities thrive on paparazzi.



Its like saying that ...stop buying expensive items...to make the thieves/burglars disappearLOL


@siggy I like that.. these golden words are from Frank Lloyd Wright Smile I changed typewriter to keyboard LOL

comming to topic I think ur analogy doesnt go along... burglar will ransack ur pockets regardless of whether you carry expensive things or not, whereas if there will be no market for gossip-enriched page-3 there won't be any paparazzi invasion in celebs life...

Media is important and no matter how much celebs crib about them, they know its imp part of their existence. No Media no publicity means no fan following -> no work. Privacy takes back seat when one becomes "Public" figure



No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...

-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:03pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by monar

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by return_to_hades


Paparazzi is often unethical and many times illegal. However, in their defense they are just earning a living. When people started consuming dirt instead of news, paparazzi came into existence and they will disappear when people stop consuming dirt. I hold the consumer more responsible than the paparazzi. Moreover, some celebrities thrive on paparazzi.



Its like saying that ...stop buying expensive items...to make the thieves/burglars disappearLOL


@siggy I like that.. these golden words are from Frank Lloyd Wright Smile I changed typewriter to keyboard LOL

comming to topic I think ur analogy doesnt go along... burglar will ransack ur pockets regardless of whether you carry expensive things or not, whereas if there will be no market for gossip-enriched page-3 there won't be any paparazzi invasion in celebs life...

Media is important and no matter how much celebs crib about them, they know its imp part of their existence. No Media no publicity means no fan following -> no work. Privacy takes back seat when one becomes "Public" figure



No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...


The paparazzi are being compared to the burglars...<lol>... I would have to say that the paparazzi prevent the burglaries! LOL

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

monar

monar IF-Sizzlerz
monar
monar

Joined: 09 March 2010
Posts: 10715

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:06pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by night13

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by monar

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by return_to_hades


Paparazzi is often unethical and many times illegal. However, in their defense they are just earning a living. When people started consuming dirt instead of news, paparazzi came into existence and they will disappear when people stop consuming dirt. I hold the consumer more responsible than the paparazzi. Moreover, some celebrities thrive on paparazzi.



Its like saying that ...stop buying expensive items...to make the thieves/burglars disappearLOL


@siggy I like that.. these golden words are from Frank Lloyd Wright Smile I changed typewriter to keyboard LOL

comming to topic I think ur analogy doesnt go along... burglar will ransack ur pockets regardless of whether you carry expensive things or not, whereas if there will be no market for gossip-enriched page-3 there won't be any paparazzi invasion in celebs life...

Media is important and no matter how much celebs crib about them, they know its imp part of their existence. No Media no publicity means no fan following -> no work. Privacy takes back seat when one becomes "Public" figure



No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...


The paparazzi are being compared to the burglars...<lol>... I would have to say that the paparazzi prevent the burglaries! LOL


or on the contrary they give ideas to burglars.. 

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blue-ice.

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 24708

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:06pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice


No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...


I think you are comparing two completely different things. In the case of paparazzi, society is demanding something while paparazzi is supplying it. In the case of burglars, they are the ones demanding "free" (rather stolen) goods and they consequently steal it. (It is also a myth that only expensive goods get stolen)

Anyway to present another analogy between the two. Why is burglary a crime? Because societally we have deemed it a crime. We do not condone it and punish burglars who are caught. No one is paying burglars to rob their houses. No one is watching television, buying magazines to find burglars.

However, barring a few jurisdictions and special circumstances paparazzi or yellow journalism is not a crime. It is a legitimate profession. Society only knows to whine and complain about it. But when some juicy gossip is published, when some secret photos are taken, society laps it all up and spends money to buy the magazines and watch the shows that dish out all the dirt.

Blaming everything solely on paparazzi is like paying a burglar to break in your house and then whining about being robbed. If society one paying for the crime, encouraging and demanding (paparazzi in this case), how can society claim to be blameless? Do you mean to say that people who pay for wrong things to be done can never be blamed because they don't do anything wrong themselves?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

monar

monar IF-Sizzlerz
monar
monar

Joined: 09 March 2010
Posts: 10715

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:08pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by monar

Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by return_to_hades


Paparazzi is often unethical and many times illegal. However, in their defense they are just earning a living. When people started consuming dirt instead of news, paparazzi came into existence and they will disappear when people stop consuming dirt. I hold the consumer more responsible than the paparazzi. Moreover, some celebrities thrive on paparazzi.



Its like saying that ...stop buying expensive items...to make the thieves/burglars disappearLOL


@siggy I like that.. these golden words are from Frank Lloyd Wright Smile I changed typewriter to keyboard LOL

comming to topic I think ur analogy doesnt go along... burglar will ransack ur pockets regardless of whether you carry expensive things or not, whereas if there will be no market for gossip-enriched page-3 there won't be any paparazzi invasion in celebs life...

Media is important and no matter how much celebs crib about them, they know its imp part of their existence. No Media no publicity means no fan following -> no work. Privacy takes back seat when one becomes "Public" figure



No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...

lol till u are comparing two for snatching the privacy I am with you..

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

blue-ice.

-Aarya- IF-Dazzler
-Aarya-
-Aarya-

Joined: 02 November 2010
Posts: 2702

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:15pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by blue-ice


No the burglar will not ransack your house if they know that u have stopped buying expensive items...its a hypothetical situation ...a far fetched one...but I think it goes well with the situation...because we are not talking about a one time event...we are talking about a habit...paparazzi will stop getting dirt if they know...no one is buying it...same goes for the burglar..they will stop ransacking houses...if people stop having expensive items...LOL...the idea is we are holding the wrong party responsible...if anyone decides to do something illegal  its their fault...no one else's...


I think you are comparing two completely different things. In the case of paparazzi, society is demanding something while paparazzi is supplying it. In the case of burglars, they are the ones demanding "free" (rather stolen) goods and they consequently steal it. (It is also a myth that only expensive goods get stolen)

Anyway to present another analogy between the two. Why is burglary a crime? Because societally we have deemed it a crime. We do not condone it and punish burglars who are caught. No one is paying burglars to rob their houses. No one is watching television, buying magazines to find burglars.

However, barring a few jurisdictions and special circumstances paparazzi or yellow journalism is not a crime. It is a legitimate profession. Society only knows to whine and complain about it. But when some juicy gossip is published, when some secret photos are taken, society laps it all up and spends money to buy the magazines and watch the shows that dish out all the dirt.

Blaming everything solely on paparazzi is like paying a burglar to break in your house and then whining about being robbed. If society one paying for the crime, encouraging and demanding (paparazzi in this case), how can society claim to be blameless? Do you mean to say that people who pay for wrong things to be done can never be blamed because they don't do anything wrong themselves?


I totally agree with you and had stated the same on page 9.   We are equally responsible for the damage caused to society due to paparazzi cause we are the ones paying the big bucks for the big dirt! We have created the market for the paparazzi.




Edited by night13 - 15 May 2011 at 6:15pm

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

monar

blue-ice. IF-Addictz
blue-ice.
blue-ice.

Joined: 04 March 2009
Posts: 56266

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:16pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by night13



The paparazzi are being compared to the burglars...<lol>... I would have to say that the paparazzi prevent the burglaries! LOL


lol...y did u like my post if you don't agree with it...LOL

Coming to the comparison...yes I compared Paparazzi to burglars...what do the burglars do...they take away something that is yours ...
The paparazzi ...do the same thing...they take away a private moment from the celebrity...that the celebrity did not intend to give them...


I totally agree that they take pics because the demand is there...that doesn't mean that they are not responsible for what they do...
monar IF-Sizzlerz
monar
monar

Joined: 09 March 2010
Posts: 10715

Posted: 15 May 2011 at 6:22pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by blue-ice

Originally posted by night13



The paparazzi are being compared to the burglars...<lol>... I would have to say that the paparazzi prevent the burglaries! LOL


lol...y did u like my post if you don't agree with it...LOL

Coming to the comparison...yes I compared Paparazzi to burglars...what do the burglars do...they take away something that is yours ...
The paparazzi ...do the same thing...they take away a private moment from the celebrity...that the celebrity did not intend to give them...


I totally agree that they take pics because the demand is there...that doesn't mean that they are not responsible for what they do...


we are moving in a circle.. ain't we? Ermm

Paparazzi won't take private moment from "common men" but "public figures" remove public from there and they are no more interested. Where as Burglars are more human when it comes to prey upon, they don't bother about your socio economical status.



Edited by monar - 15 May 2011 at 6:22pm

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Aryan invasion theory - why they faked it

2

Author: saturn001   Replies: 10   Views: 2452

saturn001 10 2452 27 September 2012 at 11:09am by The-Voice
Aryan invasion theory

Author: mijanur   Replies: 2   Views: 507

mijanur 2 507 25 December 2011 at 5:36pm by Summer3
Interference and Privacy

2 3

Author: -MOTHER-   Replies: 19   Views: 2257

-MOTHER- 19 2257 20 December 2010 at 10:47pm by -Believe-
Is invasion good for a nation?

2

Author: Dazlingflower   Replies: 11   Views: 1123

Dazlingflower 11 1123 09 February 2007 at 9:50pm by Singh23
Invasion of Privacy??

Author: MonicA#1Actress   Replies: 6   Views: 881

MonicA#1Actress 6 881 02 August 2006 at 7:40pm by usachick821

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index