... 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?
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 . . .
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.
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.
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.
Ugh... I gotta take all this to work with me. Thanks a lot Steven. lol
See ya later.
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.
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.)
Improving on an existing idea and marketing it, in line with patent law, is not stealing.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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....
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
So that I don't waste my time, which of those shows a Steve Jobs as being guilty of theft?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … money.html
No, not theft, but pretty murky.
Do worry about it Wilderness. When you're interested, it will all still be there.
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.
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.
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?
Saying you don't want to click on more than one link.
I have a job. I don't get paid to cater to you.
If I thought they showed court cases with convictions for stealing I would be more than happy to click them. I don't, and you are apparently aware they show nothing of the sort as well.
So why would I wish to click 5 links, looking for court records, when not a one has such a thing? You don't get paid to cater to me, but I don't get paid to point out that your links do not support your claim, either.
Wilderness... you chose to post here. This was an open thread to ask ppl's opinions on our outlook as a whole when it comes to celebrity. If these are your opinions, they are noted and I thank you for your time.
"Does it bother you when a thief prospers?"
Yes it does. I hate thieves; after working constructions sites for 15+ years and seeing the theft that goes on there on a daily, I HATE thieves.
But it also bothers me when people make up legal and ethical violations that never happened and claim that well known people are guilty of them. It is also called libel.
If you don't like the word "thieves" then call them men who have built their fame and fortune off of other ppl's ideas. If it is libel, then again, I am not the first to accuse them of this shortcoming.
I have no problem with people that (legally) use a unpatented idea and improve on it. It's what has given us nearly everything we enjoy in our daily lives.
But I still hate thieves.
Which is, coincidentally, how most of the entire human history evolved.
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.
The movies just made the general public aware of the basic situations each men were in, they were not intended to be a legal representation of actual events. The facts are easily verified. My point was not to point a finger at those men alone, but to just make a generalization about the acceptance society seems to have when it comes to celebrity.
Well, I don't disagree with you there, as there's always been a double standard when it comes to people who are rich and famous versus people like us.
In fact, I can tell you a true story right now about Matthew McConaughey that you probably won't believe, but this actually happened. A friend of a friend of mine used to work as a host at one of these fancy type restaurants. You know, the ones you need to make reservations for months in advance just to get a seat. Anyways, he was working as a host that night, when it was packed. Hardly any tables were open, and there was like a long line of people waiting to be seated. Anyways, Mr. McConaughey shows up with NO RESERVATIONS WHATSOEVER, and he just walks in casually past all the people waiting in line to be served.
He goes to the nearest empty table, and waits there to be served. Anyways, my friend's friend goes up to Matthew asking him politely to leave, and told him that he can't sit down without a reservation. You want to know what mr. mcconaughey said? He said, "DO YOU KNOW WHO THE F**K I AM!?!"
Well, my friend's friend replied saying, "I don't give a f**k who you are! You're not sitting down without a reservation!" Anyway, mr. mcconaughey got thrown out, but here's the thing. My friend's friend got written up for that incident because all it took was one phone call from mr. mcconaughey, and the owner of that restaurant immediately kissed his proverbial a**, and then wrote up my friend's friend for merely doing his job. Now I want you to really think about that for a moment.
What if it were me or you? What if one of us did the EXACT same thing Matthew McConaughey did, then what do you think would happen? Do you think my friend's friend would've still gotten written up for doing his job if we had done the exact same thing as Matthew did? or do you think it would've ended the same way?
The reality is celebrities and rich people will always be treated better than average schmucks like us because we're nobodies. We can die tommorrow, and the only people that'll care about us are the people who we were friends with, and our families. Whereas if a rich and/or famous person dies, a lot of people would notice they were gone. I hate saying it like that, as I know that sounds pessimistic, but that's just reality. We're nothing more than ants in the face of society. Me, you, and wildnerness. everyone talking in this forum is nothing more than an insignificant ant that can die tomorrow, and most of society wouldn't care about us dying outside of our loved ones. That's just a fact.
However, that's not to say that celebrities have it easy though. Far from it. I mean they have zero privacy in this day and age, as the media is always documenting everything they do and say. Hell, most celebrities can't even walk their dogs in public without being harassed by someone from the media, or some fan asking for their autograph. Hell, even their kids have to put up with the constant exposure to the media just by association, so I guess you can say it's kind of an even trade off.
Good for your friend.
I deal with a lot of famous ppl on a weekly basis. Most are down to earth, but a few expect to be treated a bit differently. Not so much because they are simply famous, but b/c they are spending (in one star's case) 20 times the amount of the average customer. Odd, but true. One of them came in and spent $1900 on groceries last week (5 carts at least.) I told her the amount she saved was the same as most spent in a week... but I told her not to worry, that I found a $1700 coupon and applied it, so it would even out. We were chatting as I walked her to her car about how she is going to be on some special that honors a legend in the biz in a few weeks. I asked her if her life ever seemed surreal. She said celebrities are the same as everyone else... (only a celebrity would feel the need to say that. lol) just with bigger bills and their issues are public knowledge.
I do pity the fact that they can't just exist though. I love movies and music, but the day I need to know about their children or sex lives is the day I've lost purpose as a human being. It's sad that ppl buy those magazines. Jim Gaffigan has a great bit on that. He calls it "McDonalds of the Soul."
Actually, movies are made to make money. They blow out of proportion an idea or concept adding drama, hyperbole and innuendo in order to make a profit as opposed to general public awareness considerations.
Attacking people personally does not make your unfounded "movie watching" claims valid.
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.
That's just a part of life I guess. Even Isaac Newton was involved in a stealing controversy (Newton-Leibniz calculus issue).
by PhenomWriter 7 years ago
I believe that if you show people the problems and you show them the solutions they will be moved to act. ~Bill GatesReligious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed...
by Paul Sam 2 years ago
Who was more successful after all: Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?Well, as most of you may know, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had one of the most burning rivalries at that time. So, I want to know who was more successful after all.
by Jack Lee 18 months ago
What do you think of this idea?He believes that everyone should be given a pot of money whether they work or not. It is like welfare payments for everyone. This is the ultimate income redistribution scheme.Do you think it is a good idea?Do you think it will work as intended?
by lesliebyars 5 years ago
Who has done more for computer technology, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Jobs help roll out the first home computers but Gates virtually invented sophisticated software formats. I Phone, I Pod and I Pad with touch screen and simplicity may put Jobs ahead. Then again Gates has the XBOX 360. In the end,...
by sandun81 4 years ago
Is Mark Zuckerberg really a bad guy as the movie "The Social Network" portrayed him?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 months ago
Facebook is at the epicenter of what could be the dawn of a new era in social media regulation. The internet is alive with stories about Cambridge Analytics possible misuse of data from 50 million people and it's only the tip of the iceberg. Former Facebook employees are coming out of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|