Titanic2Why it should be put to bed once and for all


M

matthew Sims

Guest
Im getting so sick of all the talk of a possible replica ship being built, and for very simple obvious reasons. For starters, no matter how much you try, you simply cannot duplicate an original. Titanic was unique to her period of time,and was built to reflect her times. The majesticness of the ship cannot be equaled by merely copying blueprints. You cannot capture the feel and atmosphere the original possesed. This is not like building a baseball field. But i think what irratates me more than any other thing is, whoever dreams up this wild endeavours has absolutely no regard for Titanic or history, but are simply looking for the easiest way to capitalize on a well known name and make fast easy dollars off of it. If they were to be believed, that they actually cared about Titanic and its history, then why in Gods name are they looking to make money off of a name that ultimately led to the deaths of 1500 people? Where are they being remembered as the cash register chings from tee shirts coffee mugs and ticket sales? WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING??? Im sorry, but anyone who would lay down even a blessed penny to such vultures really need to reacess things. Such an endeavour would be the greatest insult to all people on Titani
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
19
233
I agree, Matthew. Titanic II could never match the original...not by a long shot! I also agree that the Titanic does seem to have become a cash crop for cold-hearted companies to take advantage of.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Brandon-What really gets me , is what really seems to get lost in the middle of all the moneymaking schemes is the memory of the 1500 plus that passed away that night. While these companies have these wild visions of cash registers with bells ringing and drawers opeinin and shutting so fast, what they never want to seem to talk about is those 1500 people. Maybe its not good for the nostalgia business to let facts get in the way of the allmighty dollar ay? Makes me sick everytime i think about it
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
19
233
Yes, you're right that it does seem like they forget the lives that were lost that night. Let us just pray that the tragedies of last September don't sucumb to this type of cash-cropping in the future.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Brandon, im afraid the fact of the matter is they have.. While it is great to see the renewed sense of patriotism, lets face facts..The mom and pop places that put out the t-shirts are seizing the oppurtunity to cash in on american sentiment. If it was truly all about patriotism, wouldnt they be handing out t-shirts and flags free as a gesture of solidarity? But no, the allmighty dollar is what motivates them. Its funny, but when we think back to the death of Princess Diana, the media was scolded harshly anytime anyone had an idea about trying to sell an autopsy photo or something that would have created a profit. But when regular Americans take advantage of it, is is swept aside as patriotism, when the fact of the matter is most of the vendors true patriotical interest lay in the sound of hearing the bell of the cash register ring..It sadly is a trend i see getting worse instead of bett
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
19
233
Yes, I suppose you're right about the WTC catastrophe being cashed-in on. I saw on CNN that a figural firework of Osama bin Laden (I think it was called Osama bin Blasted) could'nt be kept on store shelves for more than five minutes without being sold out. I actually thought about getting one; but of course I couldn't find them! However, this catastrophe isn't nearly as "commercial" as the Titanic. It's still too fresh in our minds. There is but one living person who can honestly remember what it was like being on the ship; the other two survivors (I have heard) were too young to recollect the voyage. To me, it seems like the novelty companies have taken the fact that not many living people can remember the disaster as an excuse to produce cheesey items based on it.


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>If it was truly all about patriotism, wouldnt they be handing out t-shirts and flags free as a gesture of solidarity? <<

And pay for it how?

Somebody has to manufacture the fibre, the ink, the clothing, etc, and they deserve a fair wage for their work. Likewise, the merchents who sell this stuff have every right to make a reasonable profit. They have to eat too you know, and absolutely nothing comes for free. Somebody always pays.

Not to sound crass, but I don't begrudge anybody trying to make a living on anything so long as they don't go beyond the bounds of good taste. If it goes to an extreme I find distasteful, I vote with my wallet--by keeping it in my pocket. That simple.

And let's not forget that the entire perpose of the great liners themselves was to turn a profit for their owners and the people who risked their money by investing in the companies that operated them. The very wealth we like to condemn is what made them possible in the first place.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Micheal, while i agree with you on many things here, i will say this respectfully..No matter how you try and slice it or spin it, this is still people trying to cash in on the deaths of people who died in tragic horrific circumstances. There are some things in life you dont try and make a profit from, if you have a soul. Does it really take that much effort to give a person a flag, or does it really cost that much to make one shirt? If fellow humanity has sunk to these levels then yes im worried
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Does it really take that much effort to give a person a flag, or does it really cost that much to make one shirt? <<

Have you tried it yourself? How many shirts do you buy and how do you pay for the materials you need, the services required to imprint the designs, the effort to market the merchendise, the time invested in the venture to say nothing of personal capital?

I suppose that what I take issue with is the notion that some things should by right be free. Nothing is free, and I can see no moral basis much less any practical reason why anything should be. People who take the risk deserve whatever return they get for that risk. Somebody pays. Always.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Matthew Lips

Member
Mar 8, 2001
304
11
183
I have to agree with Michael. Matthew, please remember that this is a two way street. Nobody would try and make a buck out of selling anything if there wasn't a market for it.

It's really very simple. People make cheesy Titanic goods or bin Laden dolls because there are other people willing to buy them. Whether any of it is in good taste is a matter of personal opinion, but the simple economics don't change. So who really is to "blame" - the seller or the buyer?
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
I dont agree with it all. Because the oppurtunity to make money presents itsself, it equals justification for exploiting the deaths of near 3,000 people? Well that moral ground is one im willing to take the heat for. How do you think these people would feel knowing theyre deaths have translated into dollars for many indivuduals who have no interest at all in patriotism but merely looking to cash in on a trend? Think of that statement what you will, but there are many out there who act under the guise of patriotism, when they have no interest at all in the event...And why SHOULD they try and turn a profit? If they are a sucessful business, and truly are interested in helping the country heal, you mean to say its going to hurt them that much to make 5 t shirts or flags and distrubute them free? I understand that this is a capitlist democracy we live in, but even that has boundries of tas
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>And why SHOULD they try and turn a profit?<<

It's called the return on the investment. You take the risk, you reap the rewards...if people are interested in buying what you have to sell. Why do we suddenly assume that something is so sacred that the goods should be delivered free to those who demand it? Why do we assume that making a profit from an enterprise is somehow evil? It is after all, how people earn a living.

>>Because the oppurtunity to make money presents itsself, it equals justification for exploiting the deaths of near 3,000 people? <<

Or perhaps it's just catering to an existing or emerging market. The demand is out there so somebody supplies the demand.

>>Because the oppurtunity to make money presents itsself, it equals justification for exploiting the deaths of near 3,000 people? <<

Since a lot of these people were business people, I don't know if they'ed give it a second thought. (I don't know that they wouldn't either.) And who said anybody was "exploiting" anything? The trade wouldn't happen if there wasn't a demand for it in the first place. It would seem to me that if it's wrong to somehow provide the product, then it's equally wrong to demand it. (The principle here is that he that eats meat is on the same moral level as the butcher!)

So, what is the assumption here?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
So now we are saying that an emerging market that was created after 3,000 people that lost lives is justifiable? Im sorry, i just cannot agree with that no matter how you want to spin it. I dont beleive human life or death is for sale or profit. Like i tried to explain in my last post, there are a lot, and i mean A LOT of unsavory individuals in this world that make up these patriotic looking things, when the sick reality is they could give a damn less about one single person who died that day. It to them represents a cash cow. And yes i damn well very much against that. Where does it stop? Titanic has been no different, although i thought people would have learned something from it..Now when you have available sources such as EBAY then my God, it seems as though nothing is scacred? Am i sounding like a naive purist? Maybe so, but its a label ill gladly take. Those 3,000 did not die for the cash purposes of others. They were people going about theyre day when they were struck with the most horrific thing a human being can face, and had little time to deal with the fact that everything they had worked, lived for and all was about to be destroyed in a matter of minutes with someone hellbent on pushing a religious agenda. If you stop and put it in perspective a second, is this what they died for? And, if as you claim, these individuals are so noble in the capilist pursuit, why arent these patriotic Americans putting not a dime forth of the profi they make to the families that suddenly have no wives, husbands, fathers, or in some cases children and grandchildren? Granted there are many that do so, but i would bet there is at least an equal number that DO NOT contribute a dime to anything except theyre wallet..And thats my major problem with this. In many ways it makes this market, as you call it, sick. I respectfully hope this message isnt taken out of context, Mr Standart, for many times i agree with your opinions and value your expertise. Im just of the opinion that being a citizen of this fine land comes with a certain moral expectation, and i think that in many ways this has subtly managed to cross the line way too f
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
57
West Sussex, UK
Matthew,

Do you wish to live in a free society? No, I'm not being sarcastic or flippant; think about it for a second.

A free society allows people to produce what they want, within the legal boundaries set by that society to protect itself. Selling tasteless junk or making goods connected to a tragedy for profit will not threaten a society, so it is allowed. If, however, the individuals making up a society decide not to buy the goods in question, then it will not be made. So the fault (if there is one) is with the consumer, not the manufacturer.

In addition, we are all individuals with different values, thoughts and opinions. One person's rubbish is another person's priceless momento, and who is to say which one is right? Certainly not me...and certainly not you.

Now, if you want to go and live in a despotic society, feel free to move to one, and fight your way to the top. Once there, you will be able to impose you personal will on your fellow men and force them not to make things that you find offensive. You might also be able to force them to agree with your opinions - at least in public.

This isn't meant to be a personal attack on you, so please don't take it that way. I'm trying to say that a free society has many, many benefits but a downside in that there will always be some things to annoy us. It's still better than the alternative - but the alternative is what you are actually saying you would prefer.

Regards,
Paul.
 

Beth Barber

Member
Jun 7, 2001
275
6
183
Hi Matthew - I can understand where you are coming from and I can agree with you also. I also agree with Michael too - let me explain why I can agree with both of you.

I live in Charleston, SC. Right after 9/11 - there were so many people that wanted to show their patriotism and how proud they were to be an American that they were looking for lots of things, flags, t-shirts, bumper stickers, posters, etc.... A lot of local businesses here did give away lots of stuff - especially flags. Of course there was a limit on the supply of some things (mainly flags).

In my opinion (which is all this is) is that people wanted some kind of way to handle the terrible tragedy that happened and if that meant buying a T-shirt they could proudly wear and state how they felt - then it was good for the people.

I don't think by people providng these things and selling them that they were cashing in on those poor peoples deaths. I feel they were helping to provide a sense of unity to the American people. I am not saying that you don't have people out there that may have charged too much for items cause you do have people like that in normal situations too. But maybe it helped in the overall situation.

- Beth
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
I think your taking that way too far Paul. Im sorry but thats not at all what im trying to project. Free society can set ethical and moal tastes and not have it impede upon those freedoms. Your welcome to your point of view but i dont subscribe to it at all.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>And, if as you claim, these individuals are so noble in the capilist pursuit, why arent these patriotic Americans putting not a dime forth of the profi they make to the families that suddenly have no wives, husbands, fathers, or in some cases children and grandchildren? <<

Bit of a strawman arguement in this one. I did not say anyone was noble or ignoble. As to what people do with their own money, as far as I'm concerned, that is their own business. Not mine or anyone elses. And who says they are not making contributions? At the place where I work, were were selling flag magnets suitable for mounting on cars with the proceeds-ALL the proceeds-going to the American Red Cross.

>>but i would bet there is at least an equal number that DO NOT contribute a dime to anything except theyre wallet..<<

Which is their right. Again, what is the assumption being made here? Perhaps that people have a right to be taken care of at somebody else's expense? I see no evidence that any such right exists anywhere. And you cannot compel charity either. Not without provoking a lot of resentment. Justifiably so IMO. Anyone who wants to contribute to charity, by all means do so. (I do so when I feel it's appropriate, but that's my choice!) Just don't pick my pocket to do it or assert that you have a right to do so.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
M

matthew Sims

Guest
Sorry micheal, but when the source of the profit originates from the death of 3,000, yes, they damn well should contribute. There is no straw arguement as you call it, it is thge ethics on which this country was founded. There are laws that keep people from profitting from the deaths of others in this country. This is no different. Odder circimstances, yes, but the bottom line remains the same
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,615
734
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Sorry micheal, but when the source of the profit originates from the death of 3,000, yes, they damn well should contribute<<

That's not your call to make.

>>There is no straw arguement as you call it<<

The term I used was "Strawman arguement". That's when you basically take somebody's arguements/points and twist them around to make it appear as if they're saying something or taking a position they neither said nor took.

>>it is thge ethics on which this country was founded. <<

No they're not, and if you don't believe me, you might want to research the actual writings and documents upon which this country were founded, noting (And actually reading!) particularly the Declaration of Independance, The Constitution, and the Federalist Papers.

>>There are laws that keep people from profitting from the deaths of others in this country.<<

None of which have been violated, (Assuming any such laws exist, and a few might.) otherwise prosecuters everywhere would be all over these people. Especially now when the emotionalism of recent events would make it useful politically for any such prosecutors who are actually facing re-election!

Let's get to the heart of this shall we? For several years now, I keep hearing some very smug and self-rightous rants against people making money on varied enterprises. Money always seems to be the villain in this for some reason, and never mind that it's really people out to make their way in life and perhaps better their own by catering to a particular market demand for books, clothing, entertainment, education etc. That most of the hate and discontent seems to be aimed at people who have a notable talant for being very successful at it and make comfortable lives for themselves is not lost on me either.

Underlying all of these rants, there is an assumption being made. So for the last time..the very last time;

What is the assumption???

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
57
West Sussex, UK
Michael,

Could it be the assumption that, if you are making lots of money and being successful, then you must be either acting immorally, or have damaged someone or something in the process.

Regards,
Paul.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads