nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it moral to do up your house?

begsbyOnaTrain

The former RTE reporter has slammed home makeover show Room to Improve, calling it "disgusting" and "insensitive".

WLR FM radio host Damien Tiernan, who worked for the state broadcaster for 23 years, said he'd been "waiting years to those words."

Writing on Twitter on Sunday night, Damien said: "That #roomtoimprove is a disgusting programme. At no time does Bannon question the morality of what he is promoting.

"It’s a complete cod of a programme that plays on people’s greed, opulence and avarice. And #rte promotes it as entertainment? Pathetic. They should be ashamed."

He added: "Sorry but am waiting years to say those words! Thought there 'might' have been a change or realisation of a changed world in the past few seasons but now... and as a conceptual prog, it's shockingly bad."

https://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/irish-showbiz/room-to-improve-damien-tiernan-20378565

Well is it moral to do up houses when some people only live in hotels? Do you feel guilty decorating your house?

Personally, I think his line of reasoning is mental.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wayne Jarvis

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I wipe my arse with fivers though ...

Can they still be used as legal tender? (Possibly a question for the Etiquette thread)

Leg End Reject

Guy Person wrote: »

Can they still be used as legal tender? (Possible a question for the Etiquette thread)

Yes, if someone is prepared to handle them ...

HeidiHeidi

Stark wrote: »

Yes you are.

It's a bull**** analogy. You're trying to equate standing in front of a homeless person and openly taunting them with spending your hard earned cash on whatever you fancy. The two are in no way morally equivalent.

Sorry comrade, but the world has long ago woken up to the deceptive ploy that was vilifying the ability to acquire wealth and spend wealth.

Likelihood was, the person who spent 10k on the bathtub already paid 50% tax on the money they earned to pay for the bathtub and a further 23% in VAT on the purchase. Tax that was redistributed in part on social welfare, emergency accommodation for homeless people and the like.

Seems the only remaining issue is most people wouldn't value a bathtub enough to spend 10k on it but obviously these people did and that's their prerogative. Same as some people will prefer to pay over the odds for a car, or others will prefer to pay over the odds for a nice coat or whatever. Things will have different value to different people.

Hear hear

Feisar

JupiterKid wrote: »

This may be a little bit Off Topic but one thing I really like about Holland - where my sister lives with her family and has pretty much become a second home to me as I travel over and stay here a lot - is the culture of appearing modest.

There is of course plenty of wealth and money in Holland and has been for centuries - the Dutch built their country and economy on international trade in the 17th century - but flashing the cash in a vulgar and crass manner and being overly ostentatious with your wealth is a social faux pax in Holland. Wealthy Dutch tend to be more discreet in their wealth.

Ireland could learn a few things from this aspect of Dutch culture...

The Dutch get a bad rep but are the soundest cnuts going.

JupiterKid

The nastiness, bitterness and crass smug attitude to the serious inequities in wealth and opportunities in our society (or is that economy?) by some on these threads and forums never ceases to depress me...

branie2

Just ignore him

Strumms

yabadabado wrote: »

I wonder was he ashamed picking up his 90k per year from RTE when he is nothing more than a talentless hack.

That’s the bigger question......^

And he is critical of a program where people might enjoy getting ideas and inspiration for their own home or just enjoying it full stop.

By his reasoning too they should put a ban on.....

Football... fellas earning 50-100 grand a week

Holiday programs... not everybody can afford a holiday

Winning Streak... rubbing 3 stars, shît loads of cash AND holidays in peoples faces

[Deleted User]

Stark wrote: »

Yes you are.
It's a bull**** analogy. You're trying to equate standing in front of a homeless person and openly taunting them with spending your hard earned cash on whatever you fancy. The two are in no way morally equivalent.

Sorry comrade, but the world has long ago woken up to the deceptive ploy that was vilifying the ability to acquire wealth and spend wealth.

It's not a bullshít analogy. in this discussion, when you boil it down to its core, we're discussing displays of unnecessary wealth in a society where the ordinary person can readily observe stark inequalities. People walk their over-bred dogs on the same streets where humans sit with their hands out looking for loose change, or they go on television advertising a desire to look "rich" (I am quoting) in a small community, as we are, where 3,000 children are homeless.

By any measure, that's an unnecessary display of wealth.

The State already appropriates wealth that it deems to be excessive and/ or unequal. I'm not suggesting that the State goes any further. I'm suggesting that we adapt our social conventions a little bit to match what the State is already doing.

Therefore, burning fivers is socially unacceptable -- so too should it be socially unacceptable to behave in any way which promotes 'bling' or "looking rich"

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

I literally gave an example of myself wasting money stupidly and selfishly. We means we. I think we all spend money on things that we don't need, probably don't even want, and I'm suggesting that we could all be a little more responsible and empathic.

[Deleted User]

Guy Person wrote: »

Why did you add that last line into my post you quoted?

Just a typo, was trying to multiquote on a phone at the time. Edited now.

whisky_galore

Charley Enough Thesis wrote: »

Ostentatious houses aren't necessarily a sign of wealth. All too often those who live in them are drowning in debt. Put your money into good investments, not home improvement.

I've driven past a good few dick waving statement homes, construction stalled since the crash, probably never to be restarted. Concrete going green, no windows etc. What people want houses the size of a small hotel for I'll never know. Cut your cloth to measure.

Strumms

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Therefore, burning fivers is socially unacceptable -- so too should it be socially unacceptable to behave in any way which promotes 'bling' or "looking rich"

I literally gave an example of myself wasting money stupidly and selfishly. We means we. I think we all spend money on things that we don't need, probably don't even want, and I'm suggesting that we could all be a little more responsible and empathic.

Looking rich though or bling is subjective -

If I win the Euromillions or hit the jackpot in business I’d look after friends and family, two charities I’ve had a relationship with and probably a few more in addition and so on..... then... I’d like a place in the South of France, a Mercedes AMG, possibly a Ferrari too fûck it. I’m not going to apologize for living life and enjoying life.

I’ve been in the South of France, sat at a cafe in Monte Carlo, watched as the traffic lights beside me turn green and the cars literally bumper to bumper... AMG, Ferrari, Lamborghini... not a car show or rally that’s reality and life there.... I didn’t think, ‘flash bastard’ or ‘why is he not driving a Mondeo and fûcking his dosh at poor people’ I was thinking ‘good on him, good for him’ for all probability that dude might be contributing handsomely to charitable organizations AND enjoying life in style, comfort and enjoying the fruits of success, I’d never begrudge it or anyone.

[Deleted User]

Strumms wrote: »

Looking rich though or bling is subjective -

If I win the Euromillions or hit the jackpot in business I’d look after friends and family, two charities I’ve had a relationship with and probably a few more in addition and so on..... then... I’d like a place in the South of France, a Mercedes AMG, possibly a Ferrari too fûck it. I’m not going to apologize for living life and enjoying life.

Are you not already enjoying life? Maybe not. Everyone thinks socialists are pessimists, when actually we're the ones suggesting that life might be better under different conditions.

The probability of winning the lottery in Ireland is roughly equivalent to the probability of being struck by lightening in Germany. Are those the kinds of chances you fancy for happiness? Is that the kind of trade-off you're comfortable with? Is that really the best you can imagine?

JupiterKid

For those posters who have reacted angrily the the posts on this thread questioning the glorification of ostentatious wealth on television, I would highly recommend a read of the book Affluenza by Oliver James.

In the book, James posits that the West has become a "hyper-consumerist and hyper-materialist" world, where aspects of life that bring contentment and peace of mind such as family ties, spirituality, community and participation are ignored in favour of the relentless drive to have more, acquire more and is a vicious circle.

Wanderer78

JupiterKid wrote:

For those posters who have reacted angrily the the posts on this thread questioning the glorification of ostentatious wealth on television, I would highly recomment a read of the book Affluenza by Oliver James.

Sounds like an interesting book, but it's fairly obvious where we have gone to, you d have to wonder, have we opened Pandora's box

Ush1

There's only such a thing as "unnecessary wealth" to those who don't have it.

daheff

Lucca Some Sagittarius wrote: »

But what about the homeless?

they dont have a telly to watch it on... so not offensive to them

JohnnyFlash

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

It’s turn of phrase, dear. No need to be so literal about everything.

pgj2015

maybe the homeless people living in hotels might watch the show. get inspired and get a job so they can have a nice house?

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

maybe the homeless people living in hotels might watch the show. get inspired and get a job so they can have a nice house?

Fcuking hell, there really are absolute arseholes on this site

Keyzer

I'm sick and tired of this "perpetually offended" culture we and the rest of the globe seem to be living in.

If someone want's to do up their house, its absolutely nobody else's business.
If they want to spend a fortune doing so, its absolutely nobody else's business.
If they want to buy a car for a million quid, its absolutely nobody else's business.
If they want to burn their money in the back garden, its absolutely nobody else's business.

Honestly, why are people getting so "offended" by a tv show?

If you don't like room to improve, turn the fúcking program off.

BeerWolf

He makes €90k a year. He should be donating half of that to charity.

Disgusting!

Woke Hogan

Raconteuse wrote: »

Anyone else hate this "we" bollox?

It actually means "everyone else but me".

Do you ever offer any opinions on this website? All I've ever seen you do is criticise people for speaking too generally or for not being civil enough by your own lofty standards. You can bring some ideas to the table as well every once in a while, stop treating this like a magazine.

Keyzer

lola85 wrote: »

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.

Problem is, they will be the "real world" in another generation.

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Fcuking hell, there really are absolute arseholes on this site

really? most of these homeless people in hotels are lazy spongers with no work ethic who have no jobs but keep having kids, they should be inspired by these tv shows and aspire to live in houses like the ones on Bannons tv show.

Wanderer78

Keyzer wrote:

Problem is, they will be the "real world" in another generation.

These people already exist, they live in the exact same world as all the rest of us, the only world we know of

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

really? most of these homeless people in hotels are lazy spongers with no work ethic who have no jobs but keep having kids, they should be inspired by these tv shows and aspire to live in houses like the ones on Bannons tv show.

You really should look into the root causes of long term unemployment, it's rather lazy not to

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You really should look into the root causes of long term unemployment, it's rather lazy not to

there is a job for everyone out there at the moment, I have business owners asking me daily do I know anyone who will work for them. I have informed some unemployed people of these jobs, some are delighted with them, the lazy ones refuse the job.

Peatys

JupiterKid wrote: »

The nastiness, bitterness and crass smug attitude to the serious inequities in wealth and opportunities in our society (or is that economy?) by some on these threads and forums never ceases to depress me...

Try being from Dublin while reading after hours.. not long before you realise how many people you've never met hate you. Mods are fingers in ears
lalalala clicks keep the servers running lalalala

Wanderer78

pgj2015 wrote:

there is a job for everyone out there at the moment, I have business owners asking me daily do I know anyone who will work for them. I have informed some unemployed people of these jobs, some are delighted with them, the lazy ones refuse the job.

So you ve decided that their main reasons is laziness, what is your criteria for this decision, did you do a full evaluation of their psychological situation and any possible child care needs they may have?

pgj2015

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So you ve decided that their main reasons is laziness, what is your criteria for this decision, did you do a full evaluation of their psychological situation and any possible child care needs they may have?

why else would an able bodied person not want to work? and its no excuse if you would get more on the dole than by working, if you choose not working over working and you are a fit healthy person, you are lazy.