Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Should the Hills stars be judged for their lifestyle or given the right to choose?

  • Let's judge them, because they're bad

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.

Attachments

  • h4yv93hgdnwq.jpeg
    h4yv93hgdnwq.jpeg
    15.5 KB · Views: 64
Um, right, not quite the point...

Then make a better point?

------------

Lauren Conrad seems to be doing the most after the show. Here's a great interview.

IMO, she's the only girl that's wifey material. The rest seem too volatile.

She seems smart, stable, and motivated.

It's only 42 minutes long.

http://youtu.be/3SZ9-01aAD4
 
Last edited:
Wow, you're just out in left field. Are you super high right now?

I've had a few shots but that's about it.

Ok, so I'm about to purchase season 1 y'all and watch some episodes

It's been a long time since I've seen it so I'm super excited right now! :D

EDIT:

This episode was my FAV!!!

Here's a preview yall!

Lauren and Jason, Take 2 by The Hills
https://itun.es/us/ZysVm?i=215118532
 
Last edited:
If you are freaked out that easily, you should probably not read the internets. It's mean :eek:


I just saw this thread and have read some of his replies. Never seen someone act this way, even on the internet. Seriously :confused:
 
Of course it is. And of course I do volunteer for tornado relief especially. But I'm talking about my PERSONAL life.

I can do whatever I want. I don't have to be "moral" with who I date etc.

Even the hills characters give to charity.

Re-reading parts of this - to be frank, quite surreal - thread, I knew there were one or two other matters I wished to raise.

The post I have cited here is post No 53 - from quite a few pages back.

The sentence I felt the need to draw attention is the one which reads as follows: "I can do whatever I want" (a sentence which displays a staggering degree of self-regard), and one which is followed by what I regard as a jaw-dropping observation (and no, 'hotness' does not cause me any degree of 'jaw dropping' but behaviour, conduct and attitudes most certainly can) which reads: "I don't have to be moral with who I date".

That sentence alone encapsulates the entitled attitudes which the OP and those he admires seek to emulate. How and why does dating anyone give you an exemption from expected standards of civilised behaviour? Physical attraction - and the belief that one can and should date only 'hot' girls (but not wallet seeking women) is not a justification for inexcusable behaviour.

And, if I understand some of your posts correctly, you seem to be using this obscure TV series - doubtless an exercise in fictional fantasy fulfilment - about the lives of the beautiful and wealthy as some sort of a template, or blueprint, for how to live your life.
 
Just to show off a bit more, on that same holiday.

1956.

My parents took me to the Paris Opera house, at about 14.00, the theatre was closed to the general public, I was introduced to people it was dark and I remember the smell of sweat, later I learnt that I had met Zizi Jeanmaire.

I was 10 years old all I wanted was an ice cream.

Sometimes, such experiences are totally lost on the young. It is only years later that you look back and wonder why you didn't realise the importance of the occasion, and that you failed to ask any questions other than 'where is the ice-cream?'

I assume that this is the very same Zizi Jeanmaire who is name-checked in Peter Sarstedt's haunting song 'Where Did You Go To My Lovely'?



The funny thing is, there are +plenty+ of smart, educated people, who are out, with equally smart, beautiful women, experiencing things you can't even imagine - on Monday, they're back to creating amazing things.

There are people with significant business experience and education, who traveled the world surfing some of the most incredible waves ever, meeting worldly, exotic women - who have the money to buy <stuff> but choose to experience life.

You've got this [painfully wrong] that engaging with life has some kind of simplistic formula.




That's such a misguided perspective on things.

You don't need to be the halfwits from the Hills to get out and mix things up, engage with life, climb a mountain, surf a crazy break in New Zealand, drop out of the corporate drudgery and build something great, run an Iron Man Tri, and yeah, even hook up with beautiful, "hot" women and have a three way. :cool:

I agree completely; live life as a richly relished experience - it is a lot more fulfilling and interesting than the alternatives recommended by the OP.

Not really. I've never seen a guy who spends most his time in a library with a model.

……….

The hills does a perfect job. Most people are just content with "enough"


………….


……….

Again, it is all about appearances, what - and who - you think you are owed and should be attracted to, - this clichéd idea of 'a model' - and how you think that this will awe and impress your peer group.


I agree with you. If you rather study maxims and wills that's great.

But MOST rather watch the hills hence 6 seasons and millions made by the actors.

A show with a professor teaching kantian ethics isn't out there.

Are we talking about values, ideals, or what you think should be depicted on this show?


Do you think a show on where a professor teaches Kantian ethics would more popular than the Hills?


I mean if you rather watch something else flip the channel

The conversation seems to have veered into what the OP thinks should be featured on a show that he views as a template for how to live his life.

I'm getting to the stage where I almost don't know what to say to this, except - perhaps - that I have no real interest in submitting scripts for such a show which espouses such an ethos……..

Now, STNG (a genuinely interesting, thought-provoking and - at its best - an intellectually challenging show would have been something else again…..)
 
My answers are underlined in red.

Re-reading parts of this - to be frank, quite surreal - thread, I knew there were one or two other matters I wished to raise.

The post I have cited here is post No 53 - from quite a few pages back.

The sentence I felt the need to draw attention is the one which reads as follows: "I can do whatever I want" (a sentence which displays a staggering degree of self-regard), and one which is followed by what I regard as a jaw-dropping observation (and no, 'hotness' does not cause me any degree of 'jaw dropping' but behaviour, conduct and attitudes most certainly can) which reads: "I don't have to be moral with who I date".

That sentence alone encapsulates the entitled attitudes which the OP and those he admires seek to emulate. How and why does dating anyone give you an exemption from expected standards of civilised behaviour? Physical attraction - and the belief that one can and should date only 'hot' girls (but not wallet seeking women) is not a justification for inexcusable behaviour.

And, if I understand some of your posts correctly, you seem to be using this obscure TV series - doubtless an exercise in fictional fantasy fulfilment - about the lives of the beautiful and wealthy as some sort of a template, or blueprint, for how to live your life. [/SIZE][/FONT]


Why is it that "moral" people always feel like they have to judge and put their beliefs on everyone else?

I can do exactly the same, but I believe everyone has the freedom to whatever. But if we're going to put our beliefs on others, fine.

I can do it too:

I suggest that you go out and get wasted. Yeager is what I suggest. In fact, go on some dating websites, find you a nice 20 year old, and have a good time.

I strongly suggest you catch up on season 1 of the Hills to get an idea of the lifestyle one needs to be living if they want a complete life.

Academics is no excuse for not enjoying life and having fun.

Also, watch this video. It represents college life for many. It is like the Hills in a way. After watching it, go out and repeat everything in it. It will help you in more ways than you can imagine
:apple:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYx7YG0RsFY

----------

Sometimes, such experiences are totally lost on the young. It is only years later that you look back and wonder why you didn't realise the importance of the occasion, and that you failed to ask any questions other than 'where is the ice-cream?'

I assume that this is the very same Zizi Jeanmaire who is name-checked in Peter Sarstedt's haunting song 'Where Did You Go To My Lovely'?




I agree completely; live life as a richly relished experience - it is a lot more fulfilling and interesting than the alternatives recommended by the OP.

This is categorically false. How would one know until they've tried it, and if it is so unfulfilling why would they continue?

I can choose to go to the mountains, date a richeous woman, study "higher" philosophy, but that's SO boring to me. I'd rather get drunk or something with friends.


Again, it is all about appearances, what - and who - you think you are owed and should be attracted to, - this clichéd idea of 'a model' - and how you think that this will awe and impress your peer group.


Incorrect. You think that I like hot girls to impress others but that's wrong. I like hot girls because it's more exciting with them in bedroom than someone who is unattractive.

Are we talking about values, ideals, or what you think should be depicted on this show?

This was in reference to what most people want to see.

The conversation seems to have veered into what the OP thinks should be featured on a show that he views as a template for how to live his life.

Yes definitely. If you admire hot women, wealth, luxury, it is a great show to. Everyone should look up to it IMO and follow along. It's difficult to accomplish though.

Much, much, much harder than anything in an academic tower :apple:

I'm getting to the stage where I almost don't know what to say to this, except - perhaps - that I have no real interest in submitting scripts for such a show which espouses such an ethos……..

Now, STNG (a genuinely interesting, thought-provoking and - at its best - an intellectually challenging show would have been something else again…..)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes, such experiences are totally lost on the young. It is only years later that you look back and wonder why you didn't realise the importance of the occasion, and that you failed to ask any questions other than 'where is the ice-cream?'

I assume that this is the very same Zizi Jeanmaire who is name-checked in Peter Sarstedt's haunting song 'Where Did You Go To My Lovely'?





I agree completely; live life as a richly relished experience - it is a lot more fulfilling and interesting than the alternatives recommended by the OP.



Again, it is all about appearances, what - and who - you think you are owed and should be attracted to, - this clichéd idea of 'a model' - and how you think that this will awe and impress your peer group.




Are we talking about values, ideals, or what you think should be depicted on this show?




The conversation seems to have veered into what the OP thinks should be featured on a show that he views as a template for how to live his life.

I'm getting to the stage where I almost don't know what to say to this, except - perhaps - that I have no real interest in submitting scripts for such a show which espouses such an ethos……..

Now, STNG (a genuinely interesting, thought-provoking and - at its best - an intellectually challenging show would have been something else again…..)

What I will add is that what I said in my earlier post above this one is not for you to actually do literally.

I was just trying to make a point which is I can impose my beliefs and values on you too.

The Hills is a perfect perfect perfect show for those who choose to live a certain lifestyle and highly recommend it to those who enjoy life in that way.

Many of the stars are still having fun. It's more than just a show. It's more than just acting. It's a lifestyle.
 
To heck with the Hills......what everyone rurally wants to know is what happened to Squilly?
 


Re Dali, as a teenager I was a bit torn by the fact that I really hugely liked his work - especially his stunning composition - but was made uneasy by the fact that some critics regarded him as 'morally rotten', and went on to dismiss both man and work in such tones, seeing them as indistinguishable.

George Orwell - whom I really admire as writer and thinker - managed to bridge this divide for me when I came across one of his essays which argued that Dali was both an outstanding artist and a morally bankrupt human being, and that one could admire the art while deploring 'moral bankruptcy' of the outlook of the individual man.
What do you mean with "moraly rotten" and "moral bancruptcy"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.