Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone does have a price and it isn't always expressed in a monetary value.
You say that now, but like I said above, everyone has a price. You have the pleasure of saying what you are saying now to prove your point, because you are not faced with the actual decision. It is not a reality, so you can "stick to your guns" over the issue.
Goat, you and I went round and round on this months ago! (At least I'm pretty sure it was you.) The discussion was about child actors. I said I'd never put my kids in front of the camera. You said I would if the price was right and someone made me the offer. (Or something close to that.)
I'll refresh your memory here. My DH is in the film industry and we had 3 cute little stair-step blonde boys. We were approached more than once by very legitimate agents and producers and casting directors to put them into the business. And we told them all to get stuffed.
Not everyone is lining up to get $$ (or fame) to put their kids in front of the camera. Some people would NEVER consider it. I wish the Duggars hadn't.
Goat, you and I went round and round on this months ago! (At least I'm pretty sure it was you.) The discussion was about child actors. I said I'd never put my kids in front of the camera. You said I would if the price was right and someone made me the offer.
I'll refresh your memory here. My DH is in the film industry and we had 3 cute little stair-step blonde boys. We were approached more than once by very legitimate agents and producers and casting directors to put them into the business. And we told them all to get stuffed.
Not everyone is lining up to get $$ to put their kids in front of the camera. I wish the Duggars hadn't.
I agree Dew.
But I wonder if the Duggars did it to dispell the 'myth' to others that not everyone is having large families via fertility treatments and looking for handouts like in the case of the Gosselins or the Octomom and that they can be a family?
I wonder why they did it and if they were approached by TLC directly? I doubt that JimBob and Michelle actively sought them out unlike other reality shows like the Kardashians, Gosselins and Octomom.
Mrs. X, I think originally the Duggars were on the Discovery Channel? Part of the business of filling endless hours on cable (and selling all those advertising blocks) is to seek out the odd, the unusual and the interesting.
As far as "why" I always assumed they did it so they could spread the Gospel. They saw it as an opportunity to share their faith. (And make a little cash.) I think the show grew from one or two specials but I could be wrong.
Goat, you and I went round and round on this months ago! (At least I'm pretty sure it was you.) The discussion was about child actors. I said I'd never put my kids in front of the camera. You said I would if the price was right and someone made me the offer. (Or something close to that.)
I'll refresh your memory here. My DH is in the film industry and we had 3 cute little stair-step blonde boys. We were approached more than once by very legitimate agents and producers and casting directors to put them into the business. And we told them all to get stuffed.
Not everyone is lining up to get $$ (or fame) to put their kids in front of the camera. Some people would NEVER consider it. I wish the Duggars hadn't.
It wasn't me, but point taken. I can get carried away with the theoretical when I'm trying to make a point, lol. I do believe that there is a "price" at which people could be made to do pretty much anything and that "price" isn't necessarily monetary. I agree that not everyone would sell out their values for money, but there are things that go beyond money. I suppose it goes back to not believing in absolutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn
Mrs. X, I think originally the Duggars were on the Discovery Channel? Part of the business of filling endless hours on cable (and selling all those advertising blocks) is to seek out the odd, the unusual and the interesting.
As far as "why" I always assumed they did it so they could spread the Gospel. They saw it as an opportunity to share their faith. (And make a little cash.) I think the show grew from one or two specials but I could be wrong.
The story that I heard was that Jim Bob and Michelle took the entire clan with them when they were voting in an election, I believe it was Jim Bob's Congressional bid. A photographer took a picture of the family that was later published in the NY Times and then they were approached by Discovery for the first couple specials and the show grew out of that.
I think your answer to the "why" is pretty accurate based on what they have said in interviews. They believe that the show is an opportunity to share their faith using their life as an example to others.
Mrs. X, I think originally the Duggars were on the Discovery Channel? Part of the business of filling endless hours on cable (and selling all those advertising blocks) is to seek out the odd, the unusual and the interesting.
As far as "why" I always assumed they did it so they could spread the Gospel. They saw it as an opportunity to share their faith. (And make a little cash.) I think the show grew from one or two specials but I could be wrong.
I think you are right. they had a few hour-long specials several years ago. they didn't actually have a regular TV show until more recently. I in no way think that any of the reality show families did it on purpose to get a TV show. There was no such thing as reality TV when the Duggar's started having all these kids. Same for Jon and Kate. Same for Little People, Big World. Octomom... who knows what went through her head. For the most part, I don't think any of them did it to get on TV.
I think the Duggar TV specials started around kid #16 or so.
An error is only an error based upon ones perspective. Examples of differences in morality abound and they are not "errors" of the society that embraces those morals. They are just "errors" to those who do not share those same beliefs.
Quote:
Nope. You inferred something that I did not say. I judge for me and no one else.
I apologize for that.
Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. The WHY they do something is irrelevant to whether or not it is a good thing to do.
"Good" falls into the same discussion as "error" did above. What's "good" for the goose is not always "good" for the gander. Good to you can be evil to me and vice versa.
Quote:
So you say. If you want to think that, be my guest.
So be it, we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how anyone can say that they do not raise their children according to and within their own values, beliefs and morals.
An error is only an error based upon ones perspective. Examples of differences in morality abound and they are not "errors" of the society that embraces those morals. They are just "errors" to those who do not share those same beliefs.
I don't agree with this at all. The determinant of morality is hard to name. Some philosophers called it Natural Law. Some base ti soley on compassion. But in my opinion right and wrong is objective truth, not subjective opinion. The subjection is in the form of the interpretation of Natural Law. Aka human error.
Society can defintely embrace non-moral behavior. Society embraced Japanese American internment which I suspect you would agree was quite immoral. Texas society (and others of course but Texas is the only one I can think of) embraces the death penalty which my interpretation sets as immoral.... etcetera.
Quote:
I apologize for that.
No worries.
Quote:
"Good" falls into the same discussion as "error" did above. What's "good" for the goose is not always "good" for the gander. Good to you can be evil to me and vice versa.
I don't agree with you as indicated above by my disagreeing that morality is subjective.
Quote:
So be it, we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how anyone can say that they do not raise their children according to and within their own values, beliefs and morals.
I don't agree with this at all. The determinant of morality is hard to name. Some philosophers called it Natural Law. Some base ti soley on compassion. But in my opinion right and wrong is objective truth, not subjective opinion. The subjection is in the form of the interpretation of Natural Law. Aka human error.
Society can defintely embrace non-moral behavior. Society embraced Japanese American internment which I suspect you would agree was quite immoral. Texas society (and others of course but Texas is the only one I can think of) embraces the death penalty which my interpretation sets as immoral.... etcetera.
This is a pretty well written piece from UNC on the innateness of morality and exploring whether there is a biological component. It's long, but I found it fascinating. For a quick read, start at page 7 on the issue of sharing.
Quick eye ball seems to indicate this author equates a subset of "norms" with morality. Look forward to reading. Thanks for the link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
