FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Register Log in
Profile Log in to check your private messages Search

The Most Heartwarming Thing I've Ever Read
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     Forum Index -> General Discussion
Author Message
UFAlien



Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:01 pm    Post subject: The Most Heartwarming Thing I've Ever Read Reply with quote

A 10-year old girl, Colby Curtin, was a huge fan of Pixar. She desperately wanted to see the film Up. The only problem was that she was dying of terminal cancer. She was too weak to go to a movie theater.

In desperation, a friend of the family called Pixar. Pixar's automated answering service has the option to be connected directly to a live person if you know the extension. The friend guessed an extension at random. She was connected.

The next day, a Pixar employee was sent out to Colby's home with a DVD copy of Up. When she learned of this, Colby's mother asked her daughter if she could hold on long enough to see the film. She said she was ready to die, but that she would wait for the movie.

The employee arrived with the DVD. The pain at this point was so intense that Colby could not open her eyes. Her mother narrated the film to her. At the end of the film, Colby's mother asked her daughter if she had liked the film. She had. Soon after, Colby's father, divorced from the mother for years, came over for a visit.

Colby Curtin passed away 7 hours after her private screening.

The original article: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show

My heart goes out to the Curtin family. As for Pixar, I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts. It is incredibly rare to see a company that cares this much.
_________________
Just because I like scary things doesn't mean I'M- okay, it kinda does sometimes.

Dubbed Loofah by Asa
UFAlien = UFA = oofah = Loofah
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:44 am    Post subject: Re: The Most Heartwarming Thing I've Ever Read Reply with quote

I read about that the other day. It is pretty sad ain't it....
Back to top
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you've gotta go I can think of worse ways than surrounded by your family in the comfort of your home. Part of me thinks that people who die young are lucky that way.

Nice of Pixar to come along anyhoo. Wonder how the media got hold of the story.
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nem wrote:
If you've gotta go I can think of worse ways than surrounded by your family in the comfort of your home. Part of me thinks that people who die young are lucky that way.

Nice of Pixar to come along anyhoo. Wonder how the media got hold of the story.


I often wonder how the media gets hold of such stories myself. A part of me dies when I start to think about it too: I'm pretty sure someone in that family sold it out, just to make a buck off their daughters death. You'll probably see a few dozen news interviews, and it will sweep the nation. All the while, they're just setting it up for a book deal.

Frankly, I'd just rather my daughter die in peace, and with dignity, than to let her legacy be a coporate sell out.
Back to top
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob, I don't think that was it at all. I think they just wanted to share the memory of their daughter with people and to do it to "thank" Pixar. I really doubt they were selling the story. =/
It IS an amazing story, what's wrong with sharing it and remembering your daughter? It seems to me like the story exemplifies the type of person they said she was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinu. wrote:
Bob, I don't think that was it at all. I think they just wanted to share the memory of their daughter with people and to do it to "thank" Pixar. I really doubt they were selling the story. =/
It IS an amazing story, what's wrong with sharing it and remembering your daughter? It seems to me like the story exemplifies the type of person they said she was.


I'm not saying that that is it at all. I'm saying I wouldn't be suprised if that is what it turned out to be. That sort of thing happens all the time here where I am at. I don't know about over seas where the rest of you are. Considering that, could you blame me for being suspect?

Regardless the conditions surronding the event, and the thanks that I'm sure the famly feels obligated to give.... I myself wouldn't feel to comfortable subjecting my daughter, or any other family member, or their legacies, to the savages in the media industry (even if only reporting such information in a good light).

I say this because there are people like me who automatically become suspect of it, not to mention all the publicity that would come from it. They (the family members who've passed) would receive all this attention from a whole world of people who have no clue who they are. How does this honour them? Why would I want a bunch of people thinking this is just some sob story, or that I'm looking to draw attention to my daughter?

I'd have to ask myself if I was doing it simply because I didn't pay enough attention to my own child, and felt guilty about that,.... or if it was because of the reasons I mentioned before.

Regardless,.... I think they're looking to exploit a situation. At the very least, if it's not the family, then it's Disney and Pixar, looking for a new way to advertise their film. Either way,... greeds still involved.
Back to top
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Overseas? Lol, I think I live in the same country as you Bob. ^^

Yeah, I guess I can see your point. But, Pixar refused to comment, it's not Pixar that's endorsing it, it's entirely the family.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinu. wrote:
Overseas? Lol, I think I live in the same country as you Bob. ^^

Yeah, I guess I can see your point. But, Pixar refused to comment, it's not Pixar that's endorsing it, it's entirely the family.


America huh?

On that note, I counter with the fact that the movie is a Disney Pixar film. I also challenge you to show me where you saw that Pixar refuses to comment. I ask simply because I have missed it. (I have a nasty habit of doing that sometimes.)

At which point if it is entirely the family, then we have circumvented the point of Disney, and Pixar, and I revert to my original arguements.

A couple examples I'd like to point out are Joan Bonette-Ramsey, and the case of the two girls from Michigan (the state in which I reside), who were involved in the car crash, and whose identities where accedently switched at the scene. (I would ask you all pardon me for not knowing their names right off hand,.... me making an arguement about how it's fundamentally wrong to profit from someones death, and I forget the names of two people who's deaths I'm pretty sure where profited off of.)

I'm sure you'll note the parodies between my arguements, and these cases.
Back to top
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I see it once you're dead you're dead. If someone can gain from your death, well at least someone's got something out of it. Preferably people gain from you being alive too, where possible. ^_^;

My concern is more for the living: Is it some viral marketing doobrie from the company; is it a single member of the family kicking up a fuss the rest of them don't want; is it a neighbourgh? While I doubt there's any really foul play going on all of these reflect on the integrity of society in different ways.

devilman2045 wrote:
[...]me making an arguement about how it's fundamentally wrong to profit from someones death [...]


So far all you've really said is that profiting from their death would make you uncomfortable; that has yet to be visibly tied to the moral framework necessary for the arguments for uncomfortable and wrong to be the same thing.
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Pixar officials declined to comment on the story or name the employees involved.


Yup. America. Great old US of A. I can't wait to move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nem wrote:
As I see it once you're dead you're dead. If someone can gain from your death, well at least someone's got something out of it. Preferably people gain from you being alive too, where possible. ^_^;


As you state later in your argument, this is linked directly to ones moral framework. The difference between profiteering from the living and the dead is this: One who is living makes a conscious decision reflecting directly on the outcome of said profiteering, where the deceased are simply taken advantage of.

My moral center tells me that taking advantage of a person, especially taking advantage of someone just to take advantage of them, is wrong.

My father once instructed me in the appropriate way to hunt. He simply stated: "Let's not kill for the sake of killing, let's do so because it's fundementally required."

Point being, to take advantage of the living for whatever reason (money, election votes (people putting up flyers, etc.), marketing) is necessary for life to continue in a normal fashion (though there are limits to what can, and cannot be done, thus limiting the type of advantageous behavior, and the distance it can take you). Taking advantage of someone who has to power to control it by some means (where to spend money, what marketing to partake in, who to elect [voter fraud anyone?]) is absolutly wrong.

Quote:
My concern is more for the living: Is it some viral marketing doobrie from the company; is it a single member of the family kicking up a fuss the rest of them don't want; is it a neighbourgh? While I doubt there's any really foul play going on all of these reflect on the integrity of society in different ways.


This is one of those things that goes back to Bonette, or the two girls I referenced. You don't really belive that the interviews, press releases, and books all occured overnight, do you? This is one of those matters we must let time tend to....

Quote:
devilman2045 wrote:
[...]me making an arguement about how it's fundamentally wrong to profit from someones death [...]


So far all you've really said is that profiting from their death would make you uncomfortable; that has yet to be visibly tied to the moral framework necessary for the arguments for uncomfortable and wrong to be the same thing.


The whole situation being released to the press the way it was was wrong. The motives behind it make me uncomfortable. The outcome that we shall see is reliant on time alone. Then we'll see if the moral integrity of this situation is really what it appears. One shouldn't keep their hopes up.


EDIT: And Tinu, thank you for pointing out that quote to me. Perhaps it's another publicity stunt, a way for them to make themselves look even better than they already have. Who knows, perhaps they are just a reputable company. We really need time to run it's course here. This is the only we could be shown the true motives behind any group here.
Back to top
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

devilman2045 wrote:
As you state later in your argument, this is directly to ones moral framework.


None of the statements I made there, necessarily at least, tie into a moral framework. 'At least someone's got something out of it,' is simply a statement of fact phrased with the implication that I find it desirable, and that I find it that way relates to my emotions and not my morality. Likewise with the idea of something being preferable.

Just because I like or dislike something, because it makes me happy or uncomfortable, doesn't make it right or wrong. And given that the causation doesn't seem to go the other way either, (since so many people have different emotional systems to myself,) there doesn't seem to be much stock in using my feelings to judge morality either.

devilman2045 wrote:
The difference between profiteering from the living and the dead is this: One who is living makes a conscious decision reflecting directly on the outcome of said profiteering, where the deceased are simply taken advantage of.

My moral center tells me that taking advantage of a person, especially taking advantage of someone just to take advantage of them, is wrong.


I mean no offence, but your, 'moral centre,' is simply the combination of neural anatomy and chemicals, as shaped by your experience and genetics, governing how you feel about a particular event. These feelings get run through a certain filter of reason to relate them to other feelings and then you get the output; whatever value system you have. No metaethical process has occurred to make the transfer from relative claims ‘the answer on this test is wrong (by virtue of not lining up with some fact about the world), it’s wrong to eat the chocolate if you want to save it for later,’ to the moral realm of, ‘It’s wrong to do X absolutely.’

devilman2045 wrote:
My father once instructed me in the appropriate way to hunt. He simply stated: "Let's not kill for the sake of killing, let's do so because it's fundementally required."


That’s a relationship, not a property. Nem requires X in order that Y; it is appropriate that Nem do Z in order that ....

devilman2045 wrote:
Point being, to take advantage of the living for whatever reason (money, election votes (people putting up flyers, etc.), marketing) is necessary for life to continue in a normal fashion (though there are limits to what can, and cannot be done, thus limiting the type of advantageous behavior, and the distance it can take you).


Although it will often bounce when drawn against the account of social norms, 'for whatever reason,' is a moral blank cheque. That there are limits to what can and cannot be done is simply a natural state, shared by everyone regardless of their actions.

devilman2045 wrote:
Taking advantage of someone who has to power to control it by some means (where to spend money, what marketing to partake in, who to elect [voter fraud anyone?]) is absolutly wrong.


You can't take advantage of someone who has the power to control it because taking advantage is an act of force and so is the act of control. If you take advantage of them then they didn't really control it.

Even then though. On the one hand you have your conventionally allowed freedoms: Where to walk, what to say, who to elect, where you can spend your money. But on the other the power freedoms exercised by others for their advantage: Whether you're in prison or not, whether you're coming onto my land or not, who stands for election and what the voting system is and how it's calculated, (for you certainly can't vote for whoever you like,) the taxes necessary to ensure law and order. One person’s freedoms, if they really exist, inevitably displace those of another.

We regularly take advantage of people in this regard as a necessity for the integrity of society. You can't on the one hand say that taking advantage of people for the integrity of society is justified and on the other say that same thing is absolutely wrong without incurring a contradiction.

devilman2045 wrote:
This is one of those things that goes back to Bonette, or the two girls I referenced. You don't really belive that the interviews, press releases, and books all occured overnight, do you? This is one of those matters we must let time tend to....


I don’t, no. But then my definition of really foul play is probably very different to yours and would usually be a bit more visible by this stage. Unless the parents have been exposing her to exotic isotopes I guess, but if they’ve gone that far the chances of catching them relate to an entirely different process.

devilman2045 wrote:
The outcome that we shall see is reliant on time alone. Then we'll see if the moral integrity of this situation is really what it appears. One shouldn't keep their hopes up.


Of course that applies whatever you’re expecting the outcome to be. Wink
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Maeniel



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1081
Location: Next to Waldo

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel like I can really comment on this, what with PR/Advertising being my area of concentration.

devilman, you're hitting it really close to the head of the nail here. Where does PR begin and where does the company end? If you do your PR well, nobody knows if you're doing it or not.

Given the amount of time it took for them to get the movie out there, before the girl died, it wasn't very long at all. Whoever brought it to her COULDN'T have consulted the PR department in time--all he would have had time for was to be cleared for taking the movie to a dying girl. For better or worse for the image of the company, the decision was made without consulting PR.

What PR could do after that was damage control if anything bad happened--but nothing bad DID happen. PR had to deal with the situation, and they obviously didn't instigate this investigation--it was the family/neighbor. They likely declined to comment because their PR department hasn't fully processed this situation and the ramifications. You know that PR has processed something because they'll have SOME sort of statement to either put a positive spin on everything, and they didn't even have that. What likely happened is that whoever was in charge of giving the movie felt that it was prudent not to say anything out of respect to the family, or because he wasn't cleared to say anything.

Either way, if the 'no comment' put the company's image in a positive light, that's just collateral. I believe, from what I know of how PR and advertising work, is that this is truly an act of goodwill from the company. These things happen infrequently, but the DO happen.

If you're still skeptical about the fact that it was released to the press, you have to realize that this article was released thanks to the neighbor--not the company. While Disney/Pixar may profit from this incident, they did not initiate this contact, and I doubt the family will profit from this in any way because there was no address to send gifts, no way to contact them outside of their names--and if they're not in the phonebook, I hardly doubt that anybody will spend the effort to contact them. I think this is purely one worker drone from Pixar with a heart of gold.
_________________
Keeper of Zaebos' and Jormand's powers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

devilman2045 wrote:

The whole situation being released to the press the way it was was wrong. The motives behind it make me uncomfortable. The outcome that we shall see is reliant on time alone. Then we'll see if the moral integrity of this situation is really what it appears. One shouldn't keep their hopes up.


I'm sorry , but I just don't see . . . Bob, we don't know the motives behind it, so we really can't make a judgment about the family one way or another. The story was released, but as to why, we've no clue. Don't automatically assume greed here, kay? We don't know if they're going to try and profit from it. Nothing has been said about book deals or a lot of publicity. In fact, I'd never have heard about this if Alien hadn't posted the link. For all we know, the family told their friends about their daughter's last few hours, and the media heard about it (they would have for writing an obituary anyways, so let's not jump to the conclusion that someone sold it), was interested, and decided to write an article about it. And people don't get paid for being interviewed. So far as I can tell, the family hasn't gotten any monetary benefit from this story. It's just a story in a newspaper. I'm fairly sure that if they were pushing with some sort of motive, this would be all over the news, and as far as I can really tell, it's not.

Let's not jump to conclusions and assume the worst about people. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devilman2045
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
None of the statements I made there, necessarily at least, tie into a moral framework. 'At least someone's got something out of it,' is simply a statement of fact phrased with the implication that I find it desirable, and that I find it that way relates to my emotions and not my morality. Likewise with the idea of something being preferable.


No offense, but someone seems to get something out of Rape to, but most people find that morally repulsive, vile, and sick, amongst many other things....


Quote:
Just because I like or dislike something, because it makes me happy or uncomfortable, doesn't make it right or wrong. And given that the causation doesn't seem to go the other way either, (since so many people have different emotional systems to myself,) there doesn't seem to be much stock in using my feelings to judge morality either.


How do you define right or wrong? You must have some bases for right, which will be your bases for wrong, and vice versa. Do you believe in causaulity as a basis to determin right and wrong? Is that what you are saying?


Quote:
I mean no offence, but your, 'moral centre,' is simply the combination of neural anatomy and chemicals, as shaped by your experience and genetics, governing how you feel about a particular event. These feelings get run through a certain filter of reason to relate them to other feelings and then you get the output; whatever value system you have. No metaethical process has occurred to make the transfer from relative claims Ďthe answer on this test is wrong (by virtue of not lining up with some fact about the world), itís wrong to eat the chocolate if you want to save it for later,í to the moral realm of, ĎItís wrong to do X absolutely.í


More causality huh? Cause, and effect,... effect becomes the cause, which leads to another effect,... there is no choice. This is all reletive to the last effect which has become the cause. You rely on what has happend, for what will happen, which will be what happend again. Anything that happens happens based upon something that has happened before, and therefore fate exist to an extent. If fate exist to an extent, then cause and effect are irrelative. Therefore, causality means nothing,.... since the idea of your idea of right and wrong are based on this,.... does this mean you have no moral basis?


Quote:
Thatís a relationship, not a property. Nem requires X in order that Y; it is appropriate that Nem do Z in order that ....


Sure it is. Harm should not be done where it has no place. You should not take advantage of someone who has already been striped of the ability to not be taken advantage off. I understand advantage, having been a chess player for several years.

If you put someone on the side of black, and give them only a king, and you retain all your peices, how do you figure it's fair to munipulate, and take advantage of someone who's already fallen victim to circustance?

For example: I die, and you take all my money, leaving my kids and wife to starve? You had simply taken advantage of me. Not my family. But that's no bother,... because their already without me. The point being, had I been alive, that would not of happened. However, you can't take advantage of the living like that. See below.

devilman2045 wrote:
Point being, to take advantage of the living for whatever reason (money, election votes (people putting up flyers, etc.), marketing) is necessary for life to continue in a normal fashion (though there are limits to what can, and cannot be done, thus limiting the type of advantageous behavior, and the distance it can take you).


That was what I was trying to say there. Hopefully that clarifies.

Quote:
Although it will often bounce when drawn against the account of social norms, 'for whatever reason,' is a moral blank cheque. That there are limits to what can and cannot be done is simply a natural state, shared by everyone regardless of their actions.


These limits are created from the social norms. If they weren't, how do you explain Rape, Murder, Incest, Assault, and the like to be illegal, considering the fact that you are trying to say that the social norm varies so much?

[quote=]You can't take advantage of someone who has the power to control it because taking advantage is an act of force and so is the act of control. If you take advantage of them then they didn't really control it.[/quote]

Sometimes one takes advantage of circumstance, and thur that, a person. Are you claiming that no one in this world has the ability to control circumstance? That no one in this world could set themselves up to be the one taking advantage, instead of the one being taken advantage of?

[quote]Even then though. On the one hand you have your conventionally allowed freedoms: Where to walk, what to say, who to elect, where you can spend your money. But on the other the power freedoms exercised by others for their advantage: Whether you're in prison or not, whether you're coming onto my land or not, who stands for election and what the voting system is and how it's calculated, (for you certainly can't vote for whoever you like,) the taxes necessary to ensure law and order. One personís freedoms, if they really exist, inevitably displace those of another.[/qote]

Actually,... where I live, can't speak for you, but your rights here end where another's begin. Example: Right to life vs Murder (could be an advantagous if you wanted something they had).

Quote:
We regularly take advantage of people in this regard as a necessity for the integrity of society. You can't on the one hand say that taking advantage of people for the integrity of society is justified and on the other say that same thing is absolutely wrong without incurring a contradiction.


I once heard that hypocrisy was the homage that vice payed to virtue. Manipulating a situation to your own ends, as a result of of something beyound someone elses control is wrong. Plain and Simple.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.     Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Elveron phpBB theme/template by Ulf Frisk and Michael Schaeffer
Copyright © Ulf Frisk, Michael Schaeffer 2004


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group