Isn't This Disgusting?

[diamondbar1971]

I agree, does the phrase "Looking through a glass darkly" apply here and look at what the mother has taught her daughter, not to mention the millions of other kids out there that are asking their parents, why didn't we do that, etc.

 

[Kacey]

I am being serious.

There is a stir in the world because someone wrote an essay that wasn't genuine, to be able to see a show.

And then the performer in that show, a make believe character in the first place, has to have a stand-in to play the make believe character.

I think it makes that outrage about the disingenuiness of the essay even more petty.

I don't. Having a body double for the short time needed to make a costume change is a standard show business method to keep the show moving along; unlike, say, Milli Vanilli, no actual deception about the artist's abilities are being made - just a stage trick to facilitate a costume change. I fail to see how that is equivalent to a parent encouraging (and given the age of the child, facilitating) a child to lie about a parent's death in war to win concert tickets.

 

[Cruentus]

I am being serious.

There is a stir in the world because someone wrote an essay that wasn't genuine, to be able to see a show.

And then the performer in that show, a make believe character in the first place, has to have a stand-in to play the make believe character.

I think it makes that outrage about the disingenuiness of the essay even more petty.

Well, some people value integrity, and some people don't value it as much. Those of us who value integrity are offended by the notion, nature, and degree of the dishonest essay, and are not offended by a show that isn't violating any integrity rules, as we would expect some artistic leeway there.

Those of us who don't know what integrity is or don't value it as highly would think that both the essay and the show is the same type of thing, with both being equally disingenuine...

 

[michaeledward]

Well, as long as everybody agrees that we are talking of "situational ethics".

Deception is wrong if a little girl does it.

Deception is not wrong if Walt Disney Corporation does it.

 

[Kacey]

Well, as long as everybody agrees that we are talking of "situational ethics".

Deception is wrong if a little girl does it.

Deception is not wrong if Walt Disney Corporation does it.

I don't believe that's what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant. Deception is wrong if it's meant for material gain; deception is not wrong if it's meant for entertainment - else magicians would have no audiences.

Many people enjoy being deceived when they know it's happening; they become challenged by attempting to uncover the deception - again, many people are fascinated by stage magic and sleight of hand. People do not enjoy being deceived, however, when there is a cost (or loss of potential benefit) - thus, people enjoy sleight of hand on stage, but not when it's used by a pickpocket.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, as long as everybody agrees that we are talking of "situational ethics".

Deception is wrong if a little girl does it.

Deception is not wrong if Walt Disney Corporation does it.

I see. So this has nothing to do with anything else but the fact that you seek an opportunity to slam a corporation that you don't like. Now I got it.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't believe that's what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant. Deception is wrong if it's meant for material gain; deception is not wrong if it's meant for entertainment - else magicians would have no audiences.

Many people enjoy being deceived when they know it's happening; they become challenged by attempting to uncover the deception - again, many people are fascinated by stage magic and sleight of hand. People do not enjoy being deceived, however, when there is a cost (or loss of potential benefit) - thus, people enjoy sleight of hand on stage, but not when it's used by a pickpocket.

Kacey; you don't need to justify your statements in my opinion. You understand the difference between a trick and being lied too. You also know that the difference is what is behind the act, not the act itself. A magic show has integrity even though trickery is involved; where as a cheating card dealer has no integrity. And so on. A show with artistic leeway used to put on a good performance has integrity. An essay that lies and disrespects fallen soldiers to win a contest has no integrity.

Unfortunatily, not all of us care about integrity, and therefore some might not see the difference between a trick and being lied too. Or worse, some are willing to overlook the difference in order make a statement or a point. Well, that is unfortunate, as the person who either sees no difference , or wants you to think there is no difference between a pickpocket and a street magician or a disrespectfully honest essay and a stage performance is not someone anyone should trust. Ever...

I am just glad that you or I are not like that.

 

[michaeledward]

I see. So this has nothing to do with anything else but the fact that you seek an opportunity to slam a corporation that you don't like. Now I got it.

Actually, I like Disney.

We went to the Orlando Disney Mecca when we were married. And we returned last year.

Please feel free to continue to make suppositions about my attitudes and beliefs, and spread those suppositions as you wish.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't believe that's what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant. Deception is wrong if it's meant for material gain; deception is not wrong if it's meant for entertainment - else magicians would have no audiences.

Many people enjoy being deceived when they know it's happening; they become challenged by attempting to uncover the deception - again, many people are fascinated by stage magic and sleight of hand. People do not enjoy being deceived, however, when there is a cost (or loss of potential benefit) - thus, people enjoy sleight of hand on stage, but not when it's used by a pickpocket.

Kacey, I believe you. I am certain your meaning is not what it appears to be. But, I don't know that the body double is quite the same as a magic trick.

I once paid for some tickets to see a revival of Jesus Christ Superstar. The billing included Irene Cara and Dennis DeYoung of Styx. When we were seated at the show (UMass Amherst), both Ms. Cara and Mr. DeYoung were no shows. I was quite upset, because I was led to believe I would be seeing these two actors on stage. I apprecaite the need for understudies, but when both headliners are no shows; something stinks.

In this instance, it is not that the headliner is a 'no show', but instead needs to attended to business offstage. This does not require a 'body double'; it gives the appearance that Ms. Cyrus can dance, in a place and time when people are not expecting to be fooled.

I have seen Stevie Nicks in concert a couple of times. Now there is a performer who has some costume changes (and an old coke habit) that needed to be attended too of-stage. Never did she use a body double. If she was off stage for a couple of minutes, the band vamped and everything was OK.

The deception is wrong. Is it a big deal? Of course not. But, I don't think it was a big deal that the essay was fiction either.

I think what had people up in arms, is that the fiction included a United States soldier dying. I think the essay raises some uncomfortable questions about soldiers dying; questions many of us would rather not face. I think those who were most outraged by the essay are cut from the same cloth as those who told me, when I vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq, that I should leave the country or that I was a Nazi Sympathizer.

It appears that it is still taboo to question the military in any way.


P.S. Incidentally, I think the mother encouraging the girl to win at all costs is poor sportsmanship if you will. But, it is also the American way.

 

[jks9199]

Well, as long as everybody agrees that we are talking of "situational ethics".

Deception is wrong if a little girl does it.

Deception is not wrong if Walt Disney Corporation does it.

Explain what is so heinous about the stage-show using a slight deception to maintain the show while allowing the next scene to be set. The "true" performer is on stage, sings, leaves the stage while someone else dances, then returns to sing some more. For a moment or three, a different person is dancing -- but the audience gets to see the "true" artist before & after. (I wonder what your take on some of the other kid-aimed shows around, where they use completely different casts in the costumes on the road show compared to the tv show that inspired it, is...)

Compare this to "winning" the prize with an outright fabrication, with no apparent basis in truth. On top of which, a fabrication that claims a status & respect that is unmerited.

I think there's a pretty major difference between the two.

 

[michaeledward]

Explain what is so heinous about the stage-show using a slight deception to maintain the show while allowing the next scene to be set. The "true" performer is on stage, sings, leaves the stage while someone else dances, then returns to sing some more. For a moment or three, a different person is dancing -- but the audience gets to see the "true" artist before & after. (I wonder what your take on some of the other kid-aimed shows around, where they use completely different casts in the costumes on the road show compared to the tv show that inspired it, is...)

Compare this to "winning" the prize with an outright fabrication, with no apparent basis in truth. On top of which, a fabrication that claims a status & respect that is unmerited.

I think there's a pretty major difference between the two.

jks9199 ... let us first recognize that the outrage is not about the 'winning' but the 'entering' ... the person who created an essay had absolutely no input on which essay was chosen as the winning essay. I have already voiced my opinion about the nature of the publicity Club Libby Lu judges were hoping to garner from the selection of the essay in question. But, neither the mother, nor the child, acted as judges to select the winning essay.


I don't understand the difference that you cite. To me, they are both deceptions. One significant difference is that the producers of the Hannah Montana stage show are perpetrating their deception on thousands of paying patrons. Whereas, the author of the essay, was hoping only to deceive a panel of judges. (That is if the rules required the work to be non-fiction; to date, I don't believe it has been shown that the essay had to be first person factual.).

 

[jks9199]

jks9199 ... let us first recognize that the outrage is not about the 'winning' but the 'entering' ... the person who created an essay had absolutely no input on which essay was chosen as the winning essay. I have already voiced my opinion about the nature of the publicity Club Libby Lu judges were hoping to garner from the selection of the essay in question. But, neither the mother, nor the child, acted as judges to select the winning essay.


I don't understand the difference that you cite. To me, they are both deceptions. One significant difference is that the producers of the Hannah Montana stage show are perpetrating their deception on thousands of paying patrons. Whereas, the author of the essay, was hoping only to deceive a panel of judges. (That is if the rules required the work to be non-fiction; to date, I don't believe it has been shown that the essay had to be first person factual.).

I do believe that a "tell us why you should win" contest does carry the implication that the entries should be truthful...

With that said... I guess you're just a joy to be around, since you apparently brook no untruth, and tolerate nothing less than absolute honesty. Pity the person who asks you "how do I look"...

You're upset over a few moments in a stage show -- and you're not alone (or there'd be no story.) Personally, I expect a certain amount of deception or stagemanship in a stage performance. For example, I'm under no illusion that some of the dances that pop singers do today can be done while singing... I know they must be lipsyncing at least for some of the dance sections. I just don't see something like that -- when the vast majority of the show is, to every indication, what it's advertised as being is nearly the same thing.

Now -- going to see a stage show, and finding that the advertised stars are both unavailable... That would piss me off. I could handle ONE of them -- but not when it's two big names, and they're both out. That's a point where I feel a respectable stage would offer a credit of some sort...

 

[michaeledward]

You got to love the dicohtomy of opinion here on MartialTalk.

In the last half-dozen posts, or so, a couple of interesting comments seemed to be made about me.

I guess you're just a joy to be around, since you apparently brook no untruth, and tolerate nothing less than absolute honesty.

And

not all of us care about integrity, and therefore some might not see the difference between a trick and being lied too. Or worse, some are willing to overlook the difference in order make a statement or a point.

To be honest, it is not specifically spelled out that Cruentus was talking about me, although that does seem to be strongly implied.

In one statement, I am honest to the point of pain. In the other, I am petty an willing to be dishonest to make a point. It is hard to imagine that both posters seem to be refering to the same person.


For many years, I was a paid performer. I think it is sad that audiences have come to accept the lip-synched performances; and all that goes along with that.

 

[Cryozombie]

For many years, I was a paid performer.

Clown?

 

[Cruentus]

Incidentally, I think that jks was being sarcastic.... back the the regularly scheduled discussion....

 

[Big Don]

No sane person can equate an actress doing what actresses do to what the mother and child did in this case.
Everyone knows Hannah Montana isn't real, that is half of the show...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Gents, enough with the personal cracks. It grows tiring seeing it in almost ever thread involving certain mixes of individuals. Debate and discuss all you want, but enough is enough.

 

[Cruentus]

To be honest, it is not specifically spelled out that Cruentus was talking about me, although that does seem to be strongly implied.

I don't want to make inferences about you as a person or your opinions. But I can make inferences about certain lines of thinking; if you fit that line of thinking or not is up to you to decide and explain if you wish.

My observation is that people who can't ethically seperate one act from another where there is a clear ethical seperation are morally bankrupt people, and need to re-evaluate themselves.

Here are some examples of what I am talking about:

Someone who lies in advertising to sell products, and simply says, "Well, people want to buy into lies all the time. Look at all the people who pay to see psychics and spiritual advisor's. Like them, I am using a little creative expression to make people feel better about themselves when they buy my product, and what is wrong with that?"

Someone who steals peoples money by claiming via e-mail to be a wealthy businessman who just needs some personal information to wire transfer money into an account, of which the recipient will be rewarded 10%. After working on these people and stealing identities and thousands, saying, "Well, it's not like I am breaking into their homes and holding them up at gunpoint. They volunteered this information, were dumb enough to participate, and deserve to learn a lesson and lose their money"

Someone who says, "I don't agree with violence, but I can sympathize with Muslim's wanting to run planes into buildings, or do terrorist acts on us because we send our military into other countries, and we arrange trade to benefit us, and therefore we are just as bad as they are, if not worse. How else are they supposed to fight back? As long as we continue our foreign policy, we deserve to have terrorist acts against us.."

Now, the above examples are not outragous; it is a synopsis of the corrupt logic we have all seen in different circumstances.

The problem is, the people making those arguments see (or want us to believe) that there is no ethical separation between different acts that clearly should be separated, and therefore one act is justifiable given the other. There is a clear difference between going to a psychic and paying for that service, and being lied too on an advertisement or by a salesperson and buying a product based on those lies. To a person who doesn't live in an ethical gray area where anything could be justified, the separation between these acts is very apparent. But, for a person who is himself morally bankrupt will not see (or will not want others to see) the differences. The morally bankrupt person does not see these ethical differences, and therefore would be the type of person who would sympathize with the terrorists, or lie and deceive, or support the liar and deceiver to suit an end, because they see that all these acts stand on the same ethical grounds.

Such a person is morally corrupt, and needs to re-evaluate himself. And, such a person cannot be trusted.

As this applies here, to think that artistic leeway taken on a stage show and lying and saying your father dies in Iraq to win an essay contest is on the same ethical level demonstrates the same level of moral corruption as any of the examples above.

Luckily, it is good to see that most people understand integrity, and are rightfully offended by the essay, and don't think that it sits on the same ethical playing field as a stage show...

 

[crushing]

Actually, I like Disney.

We went to the Orlando Disney Mecca when we were married. And we returned last year.

More Disney deception along the Hannah Montana character line. The Mickey Mouse you may have seen on the Disney property is not only not really a mouse, but is a part played by more than one person.

If I were to engage in suppositions about people's belief and attitudes, I doubt many people are really outraged about these so-called deceptions.