Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is it moral to do up your house?

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,037 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

    The are adding value to a tangible asset.

    so its neither pointless, nor consumerist....

    it may be rampant though :D:D:D


  • Options
    #63
    HorrorScope
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭HorrorScope


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

    People spending money that they’ve earned on property they also worked to earn enough to purchase is none of your business or this fools. Whether it has value as entertainment is another question, then again you have vacuous talentless airheads like the Kardashian’s with their own show so what harm is a home makeover program doing except riling up the perpetually offended sjw tossers?


  • Options
    #64
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The are adding value to a tangible asset.

    so its neither pointless, nor consumerist....

    it may be rampant though :D:D:D

    They are also generally adding needed space, not always but very often


  • Options
    #65
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

    So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.


  • Options
    #66
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,212 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

    No, we should give all your money to the homeless and get them sorted first.(I think)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

    So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

    People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?


  • Options
    #68
    HorrorScope
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭HorrorScope


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?

    What’s the point so? Enlighten us


  • Options
    #69
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Ipso wrote: »
    Maybe a committee of the people can be formed to tel us what is rampant and pointless, and everyone can then act in accordance.

    Yes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Never been tried, can't go wrong.


  • Options
    #70
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    I think his point is more about RTE's glorification of consumerism and excess through this programme, rather than the people doing up their houses. Nothing wrong with people fixing up their gaffs but why does it need to be televised as entertainment etc. Banging on about "people can spend their money how they want" is beside the point.

    You could say that about so many programmes. If it gets decent ratings then lots of people are entertained by it. You might not understand why people are entertained by it but they are. That’s why the programme continues to be made.


  • Options
    #71
    NickNickleby
    Registered Users Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭NickNickleby


    My take on it was that his problem was with the glorification of the phenomenon of people spending, on a makeover, the equivalent of what a young couple struggle to gather to buy a whole house. I'd say those struggling to get on the property ladder probably find the notion a bit dispiriting.

    But I could be wrong, he could just be a begrudger :).


    I used to watch Top Gear when it was about cars we could afford (have to go back a REAL long way for that). Nowadays its about cars I can't afford, and couldn't drive to their potential legally anyway. But that has nothing to do with perceived morality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    HorrorScope wrote: »
    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?

    What’s the point so? Enlighten us

    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.


  • Options
    #73
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Cordell wrote: »
    Yes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Never been tried, can't go wrong.

    It has been done, just wrong. This time it will be done right.


  • Options
    #74
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,212 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

    Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
    Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
    Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
    Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.


  • Options
    #75
    HorrorScope
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭HorrorScope


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

    Let me reiterate my point from earlier because you didn’t grasp it - 10k out of 4.8million is around 0.20% of the popluation classed a homeless. Why should tv programming or anything else have to walk on eggshells around fear of offending less than half a percent of the population? Your comment about the “lives of most people” is a falsity as well - most people who make an effort and work hard are doing quite well currently.


  • Options
    #76
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    .

    Love a bit of property porn myself. I watch a show called Million Dollar Listing New York. I can't afford any of the properties for sale on it and I dont live in New York but I still enjoy looking at them. It doesn't leave me feeling dispirited or depressed, because it's just a tv show. If it did then I wouldn't watch it. Pretty easy. I also dont feel the need to ask the channel to stop showing it because I dont live in New York and can't afford the properties either. That would be weird to think that a tv channel should cater exclusively to my own personal circumstances.


  • Options
    #77
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

    Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
    Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
    Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
    Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.

    Those are silly points but at least they're related to the point to the chap was trying to make.


  • Options
    #78
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I wonder does he have a breakdown doing his grocery shopping while thinking off all the starving people in the world?

    People are free to do what they want with their own home and money.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php

    >>> Staying Alive <<<



  • Options
    #79
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,824 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    I think his point is more about RTE's glorification of consumerism and excess through this programme, rather than the people doing up their houses. Nothing wrong with people fixing up their gaffs but why does it need to be televised as entertainment etc. Banging on about "people can spend their money how they want" is beside the point.

    I don’t think it’s glorification of consumerism and someone making a home improvement is equal to ‘excess’ ?. It’s simply about showing people in an everyday situation of doing up their houses and so on... can give viewers ideas etc. I couldn’t be arsed watching it but that’s only me..


  • Options
    #80
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

    Well I managed to do mine up by mostly getting furniture that other people didn't want. I'm just glad I have a roof over my head and a place to call home.


  • Options
    #81
    The Phantom Jipper
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭The Phantom Jipper


    HorrorScope wrote: »
    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

    The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

    Let me reiterate my point from earlier because you didn’t grasp it - 10k out of 4.8million is around 0.20% of the popluation classed a homeless. Why should tv programming or anything else have to walk on eggshells around fear of offending less than half a percent of the population? Your comment about the “lives of most people” is a falsity as well - most people who make an effort and work hard are doing quite well currently.

    My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment. Different things, know what I mean?

    As an aside, owning a house and having an extra hundred grand or so to go on TV and have a celeb architect spend it for you isn't on the cards for most people I know, but I digress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,785 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
    Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
    Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
    Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.

    The Toy Show is a disgrace. Encouraging people to buy plastic and other rubbish for children, or at least that's how I remember it. The consumerism at Xmas is a horrible stain on humanity.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    For me, the bottom line is that if someone treated animals the way we treat one another, that person would be in Portlaoise prison.

    We don't even need to relate it to animal welfare -- most farmers would take your hand off for a wandering beast or sheep at the top of the road with nobody to claim it. It has economic value. As for vagrant humans, their personhood isn't cash-convertible, they're pretty much deemed worthless.

    Every case of destitution and addiction and mental health disorder among the homeless is an individual emergency. It is a catastrophe for that person, but we are fairly blasé to have them endure conditions that we wouldn't leave a dog or a farm animal in. Nevermind. Nice gold taps, Dympna. I love your glass bath. A steal at twice the price.

    Too many people end up with more money than they know what to do with. The way we've organised society is warped, but I think most people prefer not to think about it. If you think about it too much, it's really depressing.

    On that cheery thought, I'm off for a fag. I'm a hypocrite too, spending 70 quid a week playing dice with lung cancer instead of putting my money where my mouth is. Again, most of us avoid examining our behaviour too closely.


  • Options
    #84
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,111 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Well I managed to do mine up by mostly getting furniture that other people didn't want. I'm just glad I have a roof over my head and a place to call home.

    Good for you but not everyone wants to do that. I'm also glad I have a roof over my head, not sure why spending money on my home means otherwise?! I gave away lots of my old furniture free to friends who needed it when I moved. Do I also get a halo?


  • Options
    #85
    HorrorScope
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭HorrorScope


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment. Different things, know what I mean?

    As an aside, owning a house and having an extra hundred grand or so to go on TV and have a celeb architect spend it for you isn't on the cards for most people I know, but I digress.

    His opinion is irrelevant and has only been heard because someone decided to give him column space. I hate the Kardashians, wife watches it endlessly, but does my opinion matter? Not a hope. Does it matter what I think of it? Nope. There’s an audience for it and that’s the end of the story.

    This entitled prick thinks because he doesn’t like something, it needs to be front and centre on twitter or media because he thinks it’s in bad taste. Would love to know what he watches because like all virtue signallers, I guarantee you he is a nothing but a hypocrite.


  • Options
    #86
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,073 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    I worked since I was 19 . Paid taxes , paid my mortgage , lived through 2 rescissions and tough times and still paid my mortgage and bills . Raised my kids and educated them and still paid my mortgage even though it was often hard
    So I will damn well do up my house if I now have money and damn well watch a TV programme about house improvement or frivolous build if I please.


  • Options
    #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    HorrorScope wrote: »

    This entitled prick thinks because he doesn’t like something, it needs to be front and centre on twitter or media because he thinks it’s in bad taste.

    That's not how Twitter works. It got traction because other people felt it was relevant enough to share or discuss. I don't know how it can be "Entitled", as you mention, to say that it's ostentatious, tacky, or a bit disquieting for someone to go on national TV promoting the pursuit of bling and looking "rich", and for people to be egging that person on, or envying that person, in some cases.

    If you were God (or at least Michael D) is that the kind of society you'd want us to be? Can we not do a bit better?


  • Options
    #88
    the_pen_turner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,506 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    surely all thos programs like expose and fashion shows are far worse morraly. they promote excessive consumption of clothes and get women (mostly)to buy way to many clothes and shoes etc that will very rarely be used left in presses until dumped or taken to charity shops , some with the labels still on them


  • Options
    #89
    nkl12xtw5goz70
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭nkl12xtw5goz70


    The Phantom Jipper wrote: »
    My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment.

    Whether or not it's "tasteful" is a secondary concern. Taxpayers are forking over €160 a year, allegedly to fund "public service broadcasting," and this kind of tripe is what they get in return. RTE should be fulfilling its public service remit and leaving property porn shows to commercial channels.


  • Options
    #90
    lola85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭lola85


    Jesus I despair for these type of people.

    We’re seeing the mollycoddled, offended at everything generation of brats coming through.

    Wouldn’t last 2 mins in the real world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    HorrorScope
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭HorrorScope


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    That's not how Twitter works. It got traction because other people felt it was relevant enough to share or discuss. I don't know how it can be "Entitled", as you mention, to say that it's ostentatious, tacky, or a bit disquieting for someone to go on national TV promoting the pursuit of bling and looking "rich", and for people to be egging that person on, or envying that person, in some cases.

    If you were God (or at least Michael D) is that the kind of society you'd want us to be? Can we not do a bit better?

    Twitter only works because like minded clowns retweet this idiotic **** and then some “journalist” (and I use that term very loosely in regards to Irish media) decides those 3 or 4 retweets warrant an article.

    I’m sick of being told to “do better” by these ****ing idiots who think they are morally superior to everyone else. They can **** off and watch something else if they don’t like it, nobody outside of their echo chambers gives a **** what they think.


Advertisement