Is it moral to do up your house?

salmocab

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or maybe he's saying, there's something fcuking weird when people are spending 10's, maybe 100's of thousands doing up their homes, and we can't house a few thousand

Are you suggesting that as the government are failing in an area that private citizens should start building houses and giving them away?

Ray Palmer

I thought the whole argument was how Bannon would blow through the person budget and they are kind of forced to pay as a result. Compare it to Grand Designs where people have to compromise due to their own plans. Bannon just decides and the people have to pay. Saw one where he ordered the wrong windows and insisted they needed to be changed. The quantity surveyor told him they would cost so much more and more again due to needing to be redone, his response was he didn't care.
The one where people wanted a place for their TV and washing line. He tells them that the place will look like a bookies because of the TV and refused to put it on the wall. The clothes line solution was just to ignore it and laugh about it. You could see the people were unhappy but afraid not say anything on camera.

That is why the show is disgusting. I would fire him for his carry on. Can't see any level of skill or professionalism in what he does. Even if it is for entertainment purposes it makes it worse not better. Unrealistic show on so many levels.

Cordell

Utter Consternation wrote: »

I'm not going to watch football anymore because it's offensive to people with no legs.

You could restrict yourself to watching wheelchair football, but that will be offensive to blind people.

Fionn1952

Andrewf20 wrote: »

College qualifications and subsequent jobs and salaries are usually earned though blood sweat and tears, not given. If people have money to spend, hats off to them.

This attitude is bizarrely prevalent, seems to be a spillover from the old, 'american dream' propaganda. It doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny whatsoever though.

I don't work half as hard as my partner and spent my college years touring with a band and showing up when absolutely necessary. I earn considerably more.

In fact, the only proper blood, sweat and tears job I ever had in my life was the worst paying one I ever had.

Ush1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I thought the whole argument was how Bannon would blow through the person budget and they are kind of forced to pay as a result. Compare it to Grand Designs where people have to compromise due to their own plans. Bannon just decides and the people have to pay. Saw one where he ordered the wrong windows and insisted they needed to be changed. The quantity surveyor told him they would cost so much more and more again due to needing to be redone, his response was he didn't care.
The one where people wanted a place for their TV and washing line. He tells them that the place will look like a bookies because of the TV and refused to put it on the wall. The clothes line solution was just to ignore it and laugh about it. You could see the people were unhappy but afraid not say anything on camera.

That is why the show is disgusting. I would fire him for his carry on. Can't see any level of skill or professionalism in what he does. Even if it is for entertainment purposes it makes it worse not better. Unrealistic show on so many levels.

I think he takes the p*ss out of the client a lot of the time and throws in something stupid he saw in an architecture magazine that week.

The Phantom Jipper

Princess Scarce Juicer wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I think his point is more about RTE's glorification of consumerism and excess through this programme, rather than the people doing up their houses. Nothing wrong with people fixing up their gaffs but why does it need to be televised as entertainment etc. Banging on about "people can spend their money how they want" is beside the point.

Because a lot of people enjoy watching it and it helps with their own houses for ideas etc. I’m currently having plans drawn up for a fully custom new build and as it’s been on my horizon for a few years I’ve always watched room to improve for ideas on all aspects of the house. Even if a lot of it isn’t what you would do it still gives ideas and there are lots of good suggestions in there etc.

Aside from that I also just enjoy watching it from an entertainment perspective.

That sounds reasonable. I don't watch the show personally, it's just irritating to see people wilfully misunderstand the not illegitimate point he's making.

Your Face

Morality wars.

freshpopcorn

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I thought the whole argument was how Bannon would blow through the person budget and they are kind of forced to pay as a result. Compare it to Grand Designs where people have to compromise due to their own plans. Bannon just decides and the people have to pay. Saw one where he ordered the wrong windows and insisted they needed to be changed. The quantity surveyor told him they would cost so much more and more again due to needing to be redone, his response was he didn't care.
The one where people wanted a place for their TV and washing line. He tells them that the place will look like a bookies because of the TV and refused to put it on the wall. The clothes line solution was just to ignore it and laugh about it. You could see the people were unhappy but afraid not say anything on camera.

That is why the show is disgusting. I would fire him for his carry on. Can't see any level of skill or professionalism in what he does. Even if it is for entertainment purposes it makes it worse not better. Unrealistic show on so many levels.

Ever week there's an issue.
Daniel and Majella wanted a certain type of floor he didn't.
They went with ghd floor they wanted.
A few weeks ago the woman wanted a kitchen she could paint and Dermot didn't.
The woman picked what she wanted. Dermot said it was fine in the end.
Theres being endless things like this.
The person with the TV on the wall should have just went ahead with it.

Thelonious Monk

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

Ipso

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

Maybe a committee of the people can be formed to tel us what is rampant and pointless, and everyone can then act in accordance.

sydthebeat

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

The are adding value to a tangible asset.

so its neither pointless, nor consumerist....

it may be rampant though :D:D

HorrorScope

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

People spending money that they’ve earned on property they also worked to earn enough to purchase is none of your business or this fools. Whether it has value as entertainment is another question, then again you have vacuous talentless airheads like the Kardashian’s with their own show so what harm is a home makeover program doing except riling up the perpetually offended sjw tossers?

salmocab

sydthebeat wrote: »

The are adding value to a tangible asset.

so its neither pointless, nor consumerist....

it may be rampant though :D:D

They are also generally adding needed space, not always but very often

ceadaoin.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

freshpopcorn

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

No, we should give all your money to the homeless and get them sorted first.(I think)

The Phantom Jipper

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I agree with him. Rampant pointless consumerism should be discouraged.

So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?

HorrorScope

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?

What’s the point so? Enlighten us

Cordell

Ipso wrote: »

Maybe a committee of the people can be formed to tel us what is rampant and pointless, and everyone can then act in accordance.

Yes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Never been tried, can't go wrong.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I think his point is more about RTE's glorification of consumerism and excess through this programme, rather than the people doing up their houses. Nothing wrong with people fixing up their gaffs but why does it need to be televised as entertainment etc. Banging on about "people can spend their money how they want" is beside the point.

You could say that about so many programmes. If it gets decent ratings then lots of people are entertained by it. You might not understand why people are entertained by it but they are. That’s why the programme continues to be made.

NickNickleby

My take on it was that his problem was with the glorification of the phenomenon of people spending, on a makeover, the equivalent of what a young couple struggle to gather to buy a whole house. I'd say those struggling to get on the property ladder probably find the notion a bit dispiriting.

But I could be wrong, he could just be a begrudger .


I used to watch Top Gear when it was about cars we could afford (have to go back a REAL long way for that). Nowadays its about cars I can't afford, and couldn't drive to their potential legally anyway. But that has nothing to do with perceived morality.

The Phantom Jipper

HorrorScope wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

People doing up their house is not the point. How are you still struggling to understand that?

What’s the point so? Enlighten us

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

Ipso

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Never been tried, can't go wrong.

It has been done, just wrong. This time it will be done right.

freshpopcorn

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.

HorrorScope

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

Let me reiterate my point from earlier because you didn’t grasp it - 10k out of 4.8million is around 0.20% of the popluation classed a homeless. Why should tv programming or anything else have to walk on eggshells around fear of offending less than half a percent of the population? Your comment about the “lives of most people” is a falsity as well - most people who make an effort and work hard are doing quite well currently.

ceadaoin.

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

.

Love a bit of property porn myself. I watch a show called Million Dollar Listing New York. I can't afford any of the properties for sale on it and I dont live in New York but I still enjoy looking at them. It doesn't leave me feeling dispirited or depressed, because it's just a tv show. If it did then I wouldn't watch it. Pretty easy. I also dont feel the need to ask the channel to stop showing it because I dont live in New York and can't afford the properties either. That would be weird to think that a tv channel should cater exclusively to my own personal circumstances.

The Phantom Jipper

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.

Those are silly points but at least they're related to the point to the chap was trying to make.

Leg End Reject

I wonder does he have a breakdown doing his grocery shopping while thinking off all the starving people in the world?

People are free to do what they want with their own home and money.

Strumms

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

I think his point is more about RTE's glorification of consumerism and excess through this programme, rather than the people doing up their houses. Nothing wrong with people fixing up their gaffs but why does it need to be televised as entertainment etc. Banging on about "people can spend their money how they want" is beside the point.

I don’t think it’s glorification of consumerism and someone making a home improvement is equal to ‘excess’ ?. It’s simply about showing people in an everyday situation of doing up their houses and so on... can give viewers ideas etc. I couldn’t be arsed watching it but that’s only me..

Thelonious Monk

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So everyone should just have their houses at the bare minimum level of habitable? No need for anything more than that really is there if you want to avoid "rampant consumerism" ? If you want to live like that go ahead, personally, I like to spend money decorating and adding to my home.

Well I managed to do mine up by mostly getting furniture that other people didn't want. I'm just glad I have a roof over my head and a place to call home.

The Phantom Jipper

HorrorScope wrote: »

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Agree with him or not, his point is to question the wisdom of RTE pumping out property porn that is very far removed from the lives of most people, especially those struggling with rent and homelessness.

The response on this thread has almost uniformly been to say "mind your own business if I want to do my house up with my hard earned money etc". It could be a potentially interesting topic to read but is borderline unreadable with this nonsense.

Let me reiterate my point from earlier because you didn’t grasp it - 10k out of 4.8million is around 0.20% of the popluation classed a homeless. Why should tv programming or anything else have to walk on eggshells around fear of offending less than half a percent of the population? Your comment about the “lives of most people” is a falsity as well - most people who make an effort and work hard are doing quite well currently.

My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment. Different things, know what I mean?

As an aside, owning a house and having an extra hundred grand or so to go on TV and have a celeb architect spend it for you isn't on the cards for most people I know, but I digress.

Thelonious Monk

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Why is there food/cookery programs on when they are people hungry.
Why is Gogglebox on when people can't afford a home to watch TV in.
Why are there beauty and fashion programs on when people can barely afford clothes.
Why is the Toy Show still shown for basically thr same reason.

The Toy Show is a disgrace. Encouraging people to buy plastic and other rubbish for children, or at least that's how I remember it. The consumerism at Xmas is a horrible stain on humanity.

For me, the bottom line is that if someone treated animals the way we treat one another, that person would be in Portlaoise prison.

We don't even need to relate it to animal welfare -- most farmers would take your hand off for a wandering beast or sheep at the top of the road with nobody to claim it. It has economic value. As for vagrant humans, their personhood isn't cash-convertible, they're pretty much deemed worthless.

Every case of destitution and addiction and mental health disorder among the homeless is an individual emergency. It is a catastrophe for that person, but we are fairly blasé to have them endure conditions that we wouldn't leave a dog or a farm animal in. Nevermind. Nice gold taps, Dympna. I love your glass bath. A steal at twice the price.

Too many people end up with more money than they know what to do with. The way we've organised society is warped, but I think most people prefer not to think about it. If you think about it too much, it's really depressing.

On that cheery thought, I'm off for a fag. I'm a hypocrite too, spending 70 quid a week playing dice with lung cancer instead of putting my money where my mouth is. Again, most of us avoid examining our behaviour too closely.

ceadaoin.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well I managed to do mine up by mostly getting furniture that other people didn't want. I'm just glad I have a roof over my head and a place to call home.

Good for you but not everyone wants to do that. I'm also glad I have a roof over my head, not sure why spending money on my home means otherwise?! I gave away lots of my old furniture free to friends who needed it when I moved. Do I also get a halo?

HorrorScope

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment. Different things, know what I mean?

As an aside, owning a house and having an extra hundred grand or so to go on TV and have a celeb architect spend it for you isn't on the cards for most people I know, but I digress.

His opinion is irrelevant and has only been heard because someone decided to give him column space. I hate the Kardashians, wife watches it endlessly, but does my opinion matter? Not a hope. Does it matter what I think of it? Nope. There’s an audience for it and that’s the end of the story.

This entitled prick thinks because he doesn’t like something, it needs to be front and centre on twitter or media because he thinks it’s in bad taste. Would love to know what he watches because like all virtue signallers, I guarantee you he is a nothing but a hypocrite.

iamwhoiam

I worked since I was 19 . Paid taxes , paid my mortgage , lived through 2 rescissions and tough times and still paid my mortgage and bills . Raised my kids and educated them and still paid my mortgage even though it was often hard
So I will damn well do up my house if I now have money and damn well watch a TV programme about house improvement or frivolous build if I please.

HorrorScope

HorrorScope wrote: »

This entitled prick thinks because he doesn’t like something, it needs to be front and centre on twitter or media because he thinks it’s in bad taste.

That's not how Twitter works. It got traction because other people felt it was relevant enough to share or discuss. I don't know how it can be "Entitled", as you mention, to say that it's ostentatious, tacky, or a bit disquieting for someone to go on national TV promoting the pursuit of bling and looking "rich", and for people to be egging that person on, or envying that person, in some cases.

If you were God (or at least Michael D) is that the kind of society you'd want us to be? Can we not do a bit better?

the_pen_turner

surely all thos programs like expose and fashion shows are far worse morraly. they promote excessive consumption of clothes and get women (mostly)to buy way to many clothes and shoes etc that will very rarely be used left in presses until dumped or taken to charity shops , some with the labels still on them

nkl12xtw5goz70

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

My point wasn't that he's necessarily right or wrong, it was that barely any of the responses were addressing the point he made. Again, he wasn't saying that an individual shouldn't renovate their house, his point was about how tasteful it was for RTE to broadcast it as entertainment.

Whether or not it's "tasteful" is a secondary concern. Taxpayers are forking over €160 a year, allegedly to fund "public service broadcasting," and this kind of tripe is what they get in return. RTE should be fulfilling its public service remit and leaving property porn shows to commercial channels.

lola85

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.

HorrorScope

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not how Twitter works. It got traction because other people felt it was relevant enough to share or discuss. I don't know how it can be "Entitled", as you mention, to say that it's ostentatious, tacky, or a bit disquieting for someone to go on national TV promoting the pursuit of bling and looking "rich", and for people to be egging that person on, or envying that person, in some cases.

If you were God (or at least Michael D) is that the kind of society you'd want us to be? Can we not do a bit better?

Twitter only works because like minded clowns retweet this idiotic **** and then some “journalist” (and I use that term very loosely in regards to Irish media) decides those 3 or 4 retweets warrant an article.

I’m sick of being told to “do better” by these ****ing idiots who think they are morally superior to everyone else. They can **** off and watch something else if they don’t like it, nobody outside of their echo chambers gives a **** what they think.

ceadaoin.

Charley Enough Thesis wrote: »

Whether or not it's "tasteful" is a secondary concern. Taxpayers are forking over €160 a year, allegedly to fund "public service broadcasting," and this kind of tripe is what they get in return. RTE should be fulfilling its public service remit and leaving property porn shows to commercial channels.

Or they should provide a range of programming that their audience and license payers actually want to watch? Plenty of people like property shows like this

HorrorScope

HorrorScope wrote: »

Twitter only works because like minded clowns retweet this idiotic **** and then some “journalist”...

Look will you hold still there a moment, man? You're hopping mad all over the shop, neglecting your original point. I only disagreed about his acting "entitled". Maybe it's the opposite. He's saying there should be limits on what is socially acceptable, that we are in danger of letting "entitlement" run away with itself again, as it did during the Tiger years.

A reasonable statement, no ?

Society has unwritten social conventions about how resources are used. Burning a fiver in front of a homeless person would be described to use the scientific expression, as "being a cnut".

Is burning a fiver in front of a homeless person any worse than broadcasting, on a state broadcaster, the act of spending 15k on a bath that looks like an ashtray?

Danzy

Bullocks wrote: »

Notice box. He's like a lad that's stuck renting or got turned down for a mortgage!
Of all the things to run RTÉ down over he picked that and Fair City on 4 nights a frigging week????

Ex RTE, he'll have had no problems with getting a mortgage.

I fear it is immoral for others to end up having a house like his.

AllForIt

Disgusting socialist opinion.

Snotty

This is the problem, some nobody writes on social media and it becomes a newspaper article and a debate on here, its not even worth the effort for these couple of lines never mind what it actually got.

Pauliedragon

So people should stop renovating their homes as it's offensive? How many construction jobs would that cost I wonder? Are they not entitled to jobs? Idiot.

Pauliedragon

Pauliedragon wrote: »

So people should stop renovating their homes as it's offensive? How many construction jobs would that cost I wonder? Are they not entitled to jobs? Idiot.

(A meme)
The point: (that place)
You: (that place but beneath it)

You surely know that the point you're arguing is not the point at all. Nobody is against home improvement. Even the most ardent Stalinist Tankie isn't averse to a south-facing conservatory.

But there are limits to what is socially acceptable. We are a rules-based species. I actually thought the gold island in a fairly minimalist kitchen looked great, but that's not the point either.

Was the behaviour of the homeowners desirable in a society? I think that's the root question.

Leg End Reject

Tyrant, I'm not sure you're serious at this stage, but why the hell would anyone worry about how their spending habits are perceived?

lola85

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

(A meme)
The point: (that place)
You: (that place but beneath it)

You surely know that the point you're arguing is not the point at all. Nobody is against home improvement. Even the most ardent Stalinist Tankie isn't averse to a south-facing conservatory.

But there are limits to what is socially acceptable. We are a rules-based species. I actually thought the gold island in a fairly minimalist kitchen looked great, but that's not the point either.

Was the behaviour of the homeowners desirable in a society? I think that's the root question.

Ah here what is the point in working and having ambition anymore?

lola85

lola85 wrote: »

Ah here what is the point in working and having ambition anymore?

Nobody is proposing the abolition of profit, Lola nor the undermining of market forces.

You know how it's a bit frowned upon to put golden effigies of calves on your front lawn? Well maybe we should just extend that to other ostentatious displays of wealth? Maybe that should be a bit of a faux pas.

Maybe, that way, society would be more equal and we wouldn't land ourselves in economic crises every 15-20 years.

I think that's all that's being suggested. Nobody wants to appropriate anyone's property or install another Stalin.

Just tone it back a bit. Be chill. That's all.