The Mail's Unplesant (And Undeserved!) Moral Superiority Strikes Again.

[andy-hughes]

This time Steven Glover tuts and admonishes over celebrity deaths -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4072250/STEPHEN-GLOVER-loss-tragic-no-one-saying-George-Michael-died-young-years-drug-abuse.html.

His nasty snippy moralistic tutting puff piece almost falls off its see-saw, so keen is he to condemn stars for their lifestyle on one hand, and then confirm that he doesn't know that it contributed to their deaths.

For the record Mr Glover as a fan to various degrees of everyone famous who has passed recently, I am not blinded by their wonderful art and influence on my life, to their frailties and failures as human beings, and the absuses of their bodies during their lifetimes.

But guess what, I manage to feel sorry without the need to tut like some pompous old buffer in a saloon bar holding forth about 'young people' like being young and stupid is a crime that personally offends me.

Yes, part of my idols' lives involved abuses that may have taken them early, but I prefer to think of the good they have done and the pleasure they have brought, and shelve their weaknesses for another day.

What a shame Mr Glover could not find it in himself to do the same.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, Celebrities do often meet an early demise because they’ve abused their bodies – as do other people. Your vitriol towards the author is truly shocking.

//Mr Glover should stick to that age-old maxim - as I do - write about what you know.//

That has to be a joke.

[Garaman]

I never read The Daily Mail so I have no idea whether or not it normally displays 'Unpleasant (And Undeserved!) Moral Superiority', but I don't detect any of that in this article. The timing is perhaps a little inconsiderate, but it is a view which a journalist should be allowed to write, and which you can choose to agree with or not.

[naomi24]

Garaman, //'Unpleasant (And Undeserved!) Moral Superiority', but I don't detect any of that in this article.//

Neither do I.

[andy-hughes]

Yes naomi , and while we are about it, shall we remind ourselves that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and eating too much makes you fat, and you shouldn’t fasten your shoes in a revolving door – and any other obvious statements you want to make.

I would suggest you re-read my OP, which makes exactly that point, and the Best Answer for the thread, which further underlines it.

My point is not that the statement in the Mail piece is obvious – spoon-feeding is a default position for their writers. It is the sanctimonious pointing out of the supremely obvious (well, it was obvious to every obituary written in any national paper) that drugs may have paid a part in Mr Michael’s early death, while carefully avoiding anything like a statement, because the cause of death has yet to be established.

[Togo]

Yes Naomi, like knowing when to shut the whatever up. (^_*)

[Jackdaw33]

Sweet Suffering Jesus, is AH still ranting on about this?

[andy-hughes]

Togo and Jackdaw, you can ignore any and all of my posts, and withdraw from this debate anytime you wish.

It's what I wish anyway.

[Jackdaw33]

You call this a debate? I call it a raving rant.

[andy-hughes]

Jackdaw - you are entitled to your opinion.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I’ve read your OP along with your subsequent posts here. My observation at 07:48 Sun stands.

[Garaman]

Andy, I honestly find that your opening post displays more unpleasant (and undeserved) moral superiority than the article you reference.

[andy-hughes]

Garaman - thank you for your input.

[vulcan42]

andy-hughes, why are you telling people to ignore what you have written if the y don't agree with it, yet you have ranted on over a period of six days about an article you could have ignored?

[andy-hughes]

vulcan42 - // andy-hughes, why are you telling people to ignore what you have written if the y don't agree with it, yet you have ranted on over a period of six days about an article you could have ignored? //

My suggestion to ignore what I am writing is directed to two individuals who appear to have a personal issue with me, rather than my view.

If anyone wants to debate the points with me, then I am happy so to do, which is the majority of the construct of this thread.

If people do not wish to enter the debate, but simply make snide remarks about me personally, then they are welcome to ignore what I write, which will save them the tedious task of cluttering up the thread with off-subject unpleasantness which assists no-one.