NationStates Jolt Archive

They're a bunch of odious egocentric bastards aren't they?

Why do the Osbornes think that anyone who wasn't distraught enough by the obvious consequences of the Tsunamis would sudenly donate money just because they asked us to?

Why do the likes of them and David Beckham think that we will donate more money if they put in an appearance?

There's also something very offensive about vey rich people asking us.

Can't we just round up all celebrities and conduct medical experiments on them?

Wouldn't that be more useful?

You think they're odious and egocentric because they're asking people to donate money?

As Michael Crighton stated, celebrities are fantastically stupid. Or something to that effect!

Bottom line: it works.

If, hypothetically speaking, you were a one of those famous celebrity types, and you knew making an appearance would generate extra cash for a good cause, would you do it?

I should think so.

No, I wouldn't and I wouldn't think it would make any difference. You see, I think that people dying and livlelihoods being destroyed was reason enough to donate money.

These clelebrities abuse the cause to get another bit of public exposure.

Are you people saying you wouldn't donate until some celebrity came along and told you to do so?

And yes I do think celebrities are egotistical and odious, precisely because they think thye are more important than a natural disaster.

No, I wouldn't and I wouldn't think it would make any difference. You see, I think that people dying and livlelihoods being destroyed was reason enough to donate money.

These clelebrities abuse the cause to get another bit of public exposure.

Are you people saying you wouldn't donate until some celebrity came along and told you to do so?

And yes I do think celebrities are egotistical and odious, precisely because they think thye are more important than a natural disaster.

I defy you to name a single celebrity that has said that he or she is more important than a natural disaster.

I detest silk ties in a windsor knot the most.

I defy you to name a single celebrity that has said that he or she is more important than a natural disaster.

They don't have to say it, they show it by their actions.

They don't have to say it, they show it by their actions.

Oh, I see. You are very wise.

Tell me, what harm does it do for celebrities to publicly ask people to donate money?

I never said it did any harm. I was commenting on their egotistical nature.

I said I found clelebrities offensive because some of them think that their appearance/words on TV is/are more influential than the obvious consequences of a natural disaster.

Why do you find this sooo hard to understand?

Oh yes, and for the record after Central American floods a few years ago, Sly Stallonw went on record as saying, "Actually, I'm more important".

I never said it did any harm. I was commenting on their egotistical nature.

I said I found clelebrities offensive because some of them think that their appearance/words on TV is/are more influential than the obvious consequences of a natural disaster.

Why do you find this sooo hard to understand?

Oh yes, and for the record after Central American floods a few years ago, Sly Stallonw went on record as saying, "Actually, I'm more important".

If he's on record, prove it.

I don't find it hard to understand. I find it hard to understand why you think that they're doing it out of pure ego, instead out of obvious concern. Just because someone is a celebrity doesn't mean they're a self-centered, egotistical asshole.

Obviously, I was taking the piss.

Don't you think it requires an enormous ego to go on TV and think people are more likely to donate money if you tell them to?

maybe so, but if it helps, who cares?

are you saying it would be better if celebrities listened to people like you and didn't go on tv to help raise money because it could be perceived as egotistical?

isn't that saying that YOU are more important than the tsunami?

I'm saying they don't need to go on TV because I can't imagine for one moment, that they make any difference.

The disaster should be able to speak for itself, it doesn't need to become the Tsunami, Ozzy and Beckham show does it?

No I don't think I'm more important than the Tsunami because I don't think the celebrities make any difference in the amount of aid raised.

ant and dec, there from england so you may not know them

Yes I know them. They seems to be associated with every piece of shit that appears on TV. They do seem to have done a good job in resurrecting Noel's House Party though haven't they?

Which celebrity/ties do you detest the most?

Cat Stevens (aka Yusef Islam, aka Steve Georgiou).

I don't forgive him for endorsing the call to murder of writer Salman Rushdie. I don't know how an artist can condemn another artist (to death no less) for something he created. And someone who wrote a song called "Peace Train" no less.

When Stevens/Islam/Georgiou apologizes to Rushdie then I will stop turning the dial when he comes on the radio.

ok anarchist think about this: most ppl in the USA will jizz their pants over a chance to see celebs on stage and pay money to go see them..so when a celeb shows himslef in public for $$ they are bringing in the cash for the victims. i know it is a sad state when the only way some ppl will donate is if they get to see a celeb but at least they are giving $$ even if they dont realize it is for the victims. Poor sad star struck americans, if only they knew they were giving money to the poor they probably wouldnt even go to the benefit

My view, most people view celebrities in the same light as the United States. No matter what they do, somebody WILL bitch about it.
I dont normally swear, but as it is 'Whine' simply doesnt work.

I dispise Paris Hilton, she is a stupid spoiled whore who thinks the world revolves around her.

I'm saying they don't need to go on TV because I can't imagine for one moment, that they make any difference.

The disaster should be able to speak for itself, it doesn't need to become the Tsunami, Ozzy and Beckham show does it?

No I don't think I'm more important than the Tsunami because I don't think the celebrities make any difference in the amount of aid raised.

But it's quite demonstrable that they do. When celebreties speak for a cause the money comes in faster. It doesn't matter if you think it wouldn't, or if they think it will, they do, the money does. Why do you think that companies pay celebrities millions to use their products?

If you want to complain about anyone complain about the millions of stupid sheeplike people out there who do (not would, might, or would make sense to) spend their money because a celebrity tells them to.

I hate it when people argue about what they think would or would not happen when whatever was going to happen has already happened and has been the opposite of whatever the wouldChuck said would happen. "If rich people were given more money they "would" spend it on the poor and the economy would improve." "would" only belongs in an argument when "does" and "have" are impossible to find.

Believing in what has already happened does not make anyone an egotistical bastard, even if the reason it happened has something to do with them.