jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (55 posts)

Does it bother you when...

  1. profile image0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    ... a thief prospers?
    When you look at Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates... all thieves, all hugely prosperous and all relatively high on society's pedestal.

    What about Woody Allen? He was in a relationship for 12 years with Mia Farrow who adopted a young girl. When Farrow finds nude pics he took of the then 20 year old, he sloughs it off and says the girl wasn't legally his daughter... He marries the girl who most likely looked at him as a father figure yet he continues to make successful movies.

    Republicans... democrats... lying through their teeth... and we look the other way.

    So my question is, are we just a really forgiving country? Do we look at ourselves and say, "I'm no better, I can't cast stones."  Or do we simply have no standards? As long as our needs are met, ppl can do as they please in private? Any thoughts?

    1. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      With generalities I say yes the US is a forgiving country as is most countries with a large and maybe a majority religious mindset with morals and ethics. Forgiveness IMHO is not the same as condoning. I can forgive an action and not condone the act. I tend to distinguish between those two.

      I feel they are different. Most certainly I have received that kind of judgement or discernment placed on me. My parents forgave me for putting my hand in the cookie jar, but I still lost my allowance for a couple of months and was sent to my room to think about it. In those days that meant no TV. Today many kids' rooms have TV's or of least a PC. Does that work today?

      I would say I lean onto your side of the fence with wondering how wide that fence is or how gray the line is becoming. What is acceptable practices per se seem to be becoming much more situational rather than general or having specifics as a guideline. Everything is becoming more and more situational with regard to condoning and the appropriate disciplines.

      Money is seen as a very large means for disciplining people today. And, I feel it is disproportionate between the 'have' and 'have not'. $100 dollars affects a person with a $24k income more than a millionaire. What purpose does the discipline serve? The penalty or fine is appropriate to the offense it seems, yet not appropriate to the affect with the life being disciplined. I dun'no . . .

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Spot on. Well said. And I don't think it is a good thing.

        I think it goes along with my perceived loss of society's value of principles and integrity.

        GA

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed. For instance Ethics is corporate thinking and establishes policy. The supervised must follow policy internally. Yet, at the corporate level the same principal is violated with business as a negotiated order with government or the competitive marketplace. The policy established creating ethical values is disregarded. Enron may be an example in 2001.

          We learned from that fiasco ethics and established internal policy is not legitimate at the upper echelon. The question becomes one of see, hear, do, teach. That lesson taught us - society, we can profit from violating ethics. A contrast occurs with the morality of the individual presenting internal strife.

          That seemingly leaks into the broader stroke of the brush within the laws of the land. As you pointed out perception with values and worth may override perspective. Or, maybe as an oddity, morals adjust to ethics. Ethics are seen or become situational, where ethics generally is of the whole, and individual morals are justified to be adjusted since it is seen, heard, done, and taught.

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And I think this is exactly my point. Our ethics seem to waver quite a bit on the whole when it fits our mood/need/agenda.

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image83
      Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You forgot to mention that Roman Polansky had an affair with a 13 year old girl, yet he's still regarded as one of the best directors of all time.  The reality is this is a "what have you done for me lately" type of society.  You can be famous and do things that are illegal and/or morally wrong, but you can get redeemed easily if it happens at a point where you can make people forget about it over time.

      Take Ray Lewis for example.  He was on trial for murder at one point, yet everyone forgot about that after he won his first Super Bowl.  After that, nobody ever talked about it again, and only brought up the fact that he was a champion. 

      Same thing with Kobe Bryant cheating on his wife.  Sure, it was a big deal when it happened, but you'll notice nobody brings that up anymore since he won two more titles after that. 

      Hell, I'm willing to bet if Tiger Woods even wins one more major in his career, then nobody will even remember about him cheating on his wife.

      Hell, Bryan Singer is under allegations that he might've sexually molested a 17 year old boy many years ago, yet everyone seems to be blowing that off because of the timing of the lawsuit.  However, it seems fox is doing a great job keeping it quiet, and if the next x-men movie is a huge hit (and it will be), then chances are even if Singer does turn out to be guilty as hell, then it's not going to matter.  Why?  Because to most people, they're not going to associate Singer as the guy who molested an underage boy.  Nah, they'll associate him as the guy who directed a great movie in "X-Men:  Days of Future Past."  Granted, he might be innocent, but I'm just bringing that up as an example. 

      Hell, I'm willing to bet if OJ Simpson's murder trial would've happened while he was in his physical prime, then all he'd have to do is play a few good solid years of football, and nobody would've brought up his murder trial again.  But sadly, it happened when he was way past his prime, so that was the last thing people remember about him.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ugh... I gotta take all this to work with me. Thanks a lot Steven. lol
        See ya later.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image83
          Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          lol.  your welcome.  by the way, you should comment in this one forum i opened up about donald trump  defending donald sterling. i think you'll love it. ;P

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121607

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not an admirer of Steve Jobs, but it's a bit much to call him a thief. And I wonder why you call Gates and Zuckerberg thieves. All three were creative geniuses.Also, as you know, Gates established the Gates Foundation and biven billions to it for various good causes.
      Finally, Woody Allen is arguably the most talented writer, director, actor since Charlie Chaplin. Mia Farrow is crazy and vindictive. I feel sorry for anyone married to her. She was apparently screwing Frank Sinatra while  still married to Woody. Your opinions are extreme and far off base.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Steve Jobs stole the basic functionality of programs with the mouse and drop down menus from Xerox.

        Bill Gates took the idea for Windows from the Mac, which he stole from Steve Jobs.

        Mark Zuckerberg took the idea for FB from the Winklevoss twins and ripped off his best friend, Edwardo Saverin, diluting his stocks after he had poured all his time and energy into it (after he was his only investor).

        I never said Bill Gates or anyone didn't give back a percentage of what they'd made though I would assume they didn't feel the "sting" of the gift. I mean... I doubt they went without dinner or anything in order to allow others a portion. I'm not saying they can't go on to become good ppl. I'm saying they all got their fortunes in less than honest ways. And as far as any of them *not giving back... well that would just be obscene, wouldn't it? I mean... to be that rich and not to cast a few grains of rice towards those in need would make them almost villainous in my book, but what they had done with their riches was not my original point.

        (BTW Woody and Mia were never married.)

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Improving on an existing idea and marketing it, in line with patent law, is not stealing.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Apple recently had to pay out a sum of money to the British inventor of the I-pod to defend their "patent" against Chinese encroachment!

          2. profile image0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Unless the idea was not yours. Again, we're talking about ethics here. There was quite a bit of litigation involved in many of these if not all of these cases, so this is not only my opinion.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Doesn't matter if it's yours or not.

              Whoever put ignition locks in cars first, they all have it now.  And door locks, too.

              Whoever first put a hinged screen on a laptop, they all have it now.

              Whoever figured out you could use lithium in a battery, all manufacturers do it now.

              Whoever designed the first mousetrap, there are better ones now, and lots of them.  If we couldn't improve on something we didn't invent the world would be a much poorer place for all of us.

              Litigation - I could be wrong, but I believe any litigation involved was solved in favor of the people you are calling thieves.  It would appear, then, that your ARE the only one with that opinion.

              1. profile image0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did you see any of those movies?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ??

    4. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would have one answer to your question of thieves. Money! Money dictates every direction this country takes whether morally, politically or commercially. Capitalism is fed by the majority likes and dislikes. The individual has no clout as the marketplace is king in our fabric. There is no right or wrong as long as the right people get paid.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So why do you think we the "audience" continue to put ppl up on a pedestal when they have shown their methods to be less then upstanding?

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think it would be a pedestal they would be attaining but the payoff would be more accurate a description. The two party dominance we see is brought about by the donations they receive for being in control. Why would corporations give to both opposing candidates? They don't care who wins as long as they have a say in the candidates service. We have very few options to vote for when it comes the candidates they offer. Once in a while an independent candidate will get in which is usually a useless vote except when a swing vote is needed. How else could a candidate who only has a residence in an area for a year and never lived there before be elected a US Senator? Party strength is how. The money dictates the direction in almost all situations and we sit back and argue about who marries who and who has the right to life in the meantime they sign away our jobs and voting rights which is the only control we have that they are afraid of.

    5. profile image83
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Just for the record, all of the men you mentioned are democrats or are at least highly liberal yet claim to be independent.  Yes, both republicans and democrats lie, but your list of liberals is just that, a list of liberal men.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I was unaware they were liberal. Did you feel I had intended to make a political statement or are you just very interested in the fact that they were liberals?

  2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    Well if you want the politically correct answer I would say we are a very forgiving country.
    After reading an article about a guy who sodomized and infant and is at large in the town not far from here; then reading an article about the Hollywood child abuse rate and I think what has happened to this country.

    1. profile image0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am forgiving of a lot of things, but child abuse is something I struggle to forgive.

  3. amiebutchko profile image94
    amiebutchkoposted 3 years ago

    It is truly amazing what people will tolerate.  Have you ever faced a person you know to have done something unconscionable?  I have.  And I have spoken to that person politely, and as if I didn't know.  Treading lightly, but being respectful (maybe it is even out of some kind of fear of how they may react to you if you called them out in any way, or the trouble they might cause...).  Even though I knew this person was likely a monster, I didn't want to "rock the boat"....  You are amazed at yourself that you would do something like that, but you do....

  4. profile image0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    I remember when I heard Jack Nicholson smashed someone's windshield with a baseball bat and I kind of thought to myself, 'Well I guess his career's over... he's lost it.' But it barely gave us pause.

    And the NBA Clippers owner... I don't think his remarks will be swept under the rug. His words were disgusting, there's no room left in our world for his hate speech. Surely he'll be forced into retirement. Or will he? What is it we are willing to tolerate and why?

    1. profile image0
      SandCastlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think we have to be discerning and not automatically believe rumours and think we have the right to judge others based on gossip, where something we heard becomes fact just because we heard it via gossip (unless we heard it first hand, we should be wary and not just jump on the bandwagon. People have agendas and some people purposely spread rumours to destroy someone who is innocent). People spread all sorts of rumours about Jesus (that he was consorting with the devil for example).

      Often the least powerful people are harmed by rumours. But if money is involved and the person is powerful, that is a different story. Sometimes money makes people close their eyes. But that doesn't mean that just because a person is rich means they are evil or that the rumours spread about them are true.

      I personally think it is refreshing that Jack Nicholson could smash a window and not have his career destroyed because in the every day world of normals, a person can be harmed so easily, just by giving someone the 'wrong' look.

      I think the main thing is to keep your focus on your own goals and resign the bench of judgment. Speak up and be a good role model. I think fixating on judging makes people prideful and blind to their own faults. Instead of working to be a better person, we look at someone in the mud and think, "how dirty is that" and that's too easy.  JMO  (Just my opinions).

      SC.

      1. amiebutchko profile image94
        amiebutchkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Very interesting perspective, and a good point.  Very compelling discussions here all around!  Certainly makes you think, and then think again....

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    Beth:
    I am so indoctrinated with "acceptance" that I have no idea how the first three you mentioned are "thieves." Can you explain this view you hold of Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates?

    Greater access to child porn, (thanks to the the internet,) promotes pedophilia. And pharmaceutical use, (thanks to those who are too easily swayed by the medical profession,) promotes the senseless cases of violence committed in today's society.  Why do we not connect the dots in these cases?

    As far as actors getting away with what they do… people may be more on the same page than you realize.  I will not watch Woody Allen. I feel very sorry for Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill for taking part in that horrible movie, Wolf on Wall Street. What was Martin Scorsese thinking. Oh my gosh!!! Why was that movie not rated X?

    "DiCaprio, who will be hoping to take his first Oscar on Sunday night, has defended the film as a 'cautionary tale'."   Really?

    http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/fe … -sex-drugs




    Each one of us can reach within for the truth and determine to stand strong according to our higher awareness. I think this is where the ball is too easily dropped:  Standing firm on common sense and knowledge of the truth. We must stay in positions of command as far as what we know to be true and not get swayed by Doctors, Peer Pressure, Society, Party Affiliation or Family Members.

    Maybe we are just lazy.

    1. profile image0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You should watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/) and "Jobs" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2357129/) and possibly "The Social Network" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network) all movies I enjoyed quite a bit. I'm sure there are many books written on the subject of these 3 men's lives as well, but I doubt even they would be able to refute that they are thieves.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I saw Pirates of Silicon Valley and Social Network

        Ralph deeds wrote: "I'm not an admirer of Steve Jobs, but it's a bit much to call him a thief. And I wonder why you call Gates and Zuckerberg thieves. All three were creative geniuses.Also, as you know, Gates established the Gates Foundation and biven billions to it for various good causes."

        I'm wondering also.

        It seems, in general, to be a matter of goodness outweighing the badness.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't know we were making conclusions about people based on movies made about them, especially when those very same people state the movies do not depict their stories correctly. I would suspect that facts about those people might be more valid and credible.

        1. profile image0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I s'pose you could read the court transcripts if you want something more credible.

          Or just google:

          “Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he’s more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people’s ideas.” Steve Jobs

          http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation … hone.shtml

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU9ZUiy2pAI

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Comp … soft_Corp.

          http://forward.com/articles/189472/mark … acebook-i/

          http://news.yahoo.com/suing-mark-zucker … 59653.html

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So that I don't waste my time, which of those shows a Steve Jobs as being guilty of theft?

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this
              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The claim was for theft.  As in convicted of a crime, not "murky".

            2. profile image0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do worry about it Wilderness. When you're interested, it will all still be there.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is true I'm not particularly interested, but the biggest reason is that I don't think any of them is a thief and so far all you've produced is your own claim of that.  No convictions anywhere.

                1. profile image0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It's always just a little irritating when ppl join a conversation when they don't have anything to offer other than opposition for the sake of opposition. It tells me they have a lot of time on their hands and possibly not enough hobbies. If you aren't clear on the facts, read up on it or watch the movies. They may not be absolute fact without flaw, but you'll have better understanding of the meaning behind the topic.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you also find it irritating when people ask for proof of your claims?  Or insinuate you are grossly exaggerating and you find you really can't back up what you said?

                    Are you now saying that these people are all thieves, but only by your own personal, non-legal definition?

                  2. Stevennix2001 profile image83
                    Stevennix2001posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In wilderness' defense, I dont think movies should be used as proof of anything because a lot of them can be exaggerated for cinematic effect.   Just watch argo and research what really happened for proof of this.

                  3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Attacking people personally does not make your unfounded "movie watching" claims valid.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, so let's see how your sources support your claims:



            These are condemning Jobs for being hypocritical about building on other peoples ideas.

            They do not support your claims.



            This is Apple suing Microsoft for copyright infringements on their GUI.

            It does not support your claims.



            This is an article discussing a class action lawsuit against many banks in which Facebook was involved regarding disclosing information about revenue projections.

            It does not support your claims.



            This is an article talking about what the Winklevosses's are doing with they lawsuit winnings from Zuckerburg. This is well known and it was a case of he-said-he-said. Zuckerburg's lawyers simply recommended he pay them an out of court settlement, thus getting the Winklevosses off his back. It was a drop in the bucket considering how much Facebook was going to be worth.

            The case itself was never proven in the Winklevosses favor.

            It does not support your claims.

            Well, it was mostly a waste of time going through the links your provided as none of them actually  supported your claims, but at the very least, we know your claims are indeed unfounded.

  6. profile image0
    jonaiveposted 3 years ago

    That's just a part of life I guess. Even Isaac Newton was involved in a stealing controversy (Newton-Leibniz calculus issue).

 
working