14 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderToo late. Read it when I was 19. You're right. Not a very good book.
Don't do it; you'll never get those hours back and Anthem is a complete waste of time. It's about the dumbest piece of laissez faire propaganda ever written (and that's saying something).
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by FMFWhat a laughable assortment of empty words and meaningless gibberish this is, is this thread devoted to the discussion of marketing targeting children or is it about something else? Why all this reluctance to provide something that even resembles an intelligible answer?
It's page 6 of the thread. People can contribute what they want to it - and they have. Clearly. You can contribute whatever you want to it. You can restate the same thing over and over again, if you want. You can explore the issue more than you already have, if you want. You can continue to try to make whether or not you understand what the thread is about the i ...[text shortened]... ges, if you want. There are many choices before you. Perhaps you need to make your mind up. 😵
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by generalissimoDon't you feel like talking to any of the other people who have contributed to this thread or responding to their posts?
What a laughable assortment of empty words and meaningless gibberish this is, is this thread devoted to the discussion of marketing targeting children or is it about something else? Why all this reluctance to provide something that even resembles an intelligible answer?
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by Teinosuke"So where do you stand on legalisation of hard drugs?"
So where do you stand on legalisation of hard drugs?
I'm never very impressed by these kind of slippery slope arguments, because they necessarily construct any sensible, pragmatic step that might infringe individual liberty in any small way as a stride towards the gulag. It could be argued that all workable societies make trade-offs between individual f ...[text shortened]... own decisions). But we're certainly going to ensure that advertisers don't encourage it."
I think they are an infringement on individual liberty, and a waste of resources.
"I'm never very impressed by these kind of slippery slope arguments, because they necessarily construct any sensible, pragmatic step that might infringe individual liberty in any small way as a stride towards the gulag."
I can look back at about 50 years of adult life, and see where slippery slopes have taken us already in the USA. In many cases what appeared to be sensible and pragmatic, end up being simply intrusive and objectionable.
No doubt tradeoffs are made, however individual liberty must trump other interests, as without that, the other stuff really is insignificant.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by Teinosuke"I would like to see big business out of those areas as much as possible."
[b]From what I've seen of BBC productions, some of them very good, the inclination to propagandize leftist ideology is present there as well.
British right-wingers have long accused the BBC of tending left, and British left-wingers have levied the opposite accusation. I think that suggests it's about right, really.
Two things that can strongly ...[text shortened]... s is possible.
I would like to see big business out of those areas as much as possible.[/b]
All right, but how does big business access these areas? Isn't it via its relationships with government?
The biggest of big businesses has to operate with our consent in our sphere. Government has no such limitation.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI said what I said, and stand by it. Your feeble attempt to distort it shows your desperation.
Don't do it; you'll never get those hours back and Anthem is a complete waste of time. It's about the dumbest piece of laissez faire propaganda ever written (and that's saying something).
Are you suggesting that 10 year olds should be able to go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a six of Bud and a pack of smokes?
Of cour ...[text shortened]... to, 10 year olds did have their own money - from working 14 hour days in the mills or mines.
15 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAll right, but how does big business access these areas? Isn't it via its relationships with government?
Only part. The main issue is its superior purchasing power - including its superior ability to disseminate itself via advertising, which brings us back to the question at the top of the thread.
The biggest of big businesses has to operate with our consent in our sphere. Government has no such limitation.
In a democracy, the government has to operate with our consent in all spheres. That's what democracy's for.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignYou use the word "collectiivsts" to mean everything from people who don't object to paying tax on one hand, and to the ruling parties of North Korea, Zimbabwe and the Nazi death camps on the other, so "collectiivsts" doesn't mean much coming from you. I don't "hate" the book. I just don't find it uplifting or convincing, although I can understand why you do.
Most collectiivsts will hate Anthem simply because it projects where collectivism ultimately leads.
It is uplifting in its conclusion, and its message.
15 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign"I can look back at about 50 years of adult life, and see where slippery slopes have taken us already in the USA.
50 years of slippery slopes have still left the USA a long way out towards the free-market, libertarian end of political discourse in the developed world. The US has a long way to go before it ends up being even as "collectivist" as, say, modern France, still less Scandinavia - let alone the Soviet Union.
In many cases what appeared to be sensible and pragmatic, end up being simply intrusive and objectionable.
So as and when that becomes the case, that's the time to start climbing back up the slope again.
16 Oct 11
For products like toys and candy, I don't have a problem with marketing to children. The parents should be the screen of what the children actually buy. Children may not be able to resist marketing in the same way adults can, and that is where the parents come in.
I would not mind a ban on targeting children for products that are illegal for them to use (guns, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.), though I think the legal system of being able to sue companies who do target children and cause damage to them is probably adequate without an outright ban.
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by Teinosuke"Only part. The main issue is its superior purchasing power - including its superior ability to disseminate itself via advertising, which brings us back to the question at the top of the thread."
[b]All right, but how does big business access these areas? Isn't it via its relationships with government?
Only part. The main issue is its superior purchasing power - including its superior ability to disseminate itself via advertising, which brings us back to the question at the top of the thread.
The biggest of big businesses has to opera ...[text shortened]... , the government has to operate with our consent in all spheres. That's what democracy's for.
If that were really so, larger companies would never fail, but they do fail, probably in higher percentages than smaller concerns. They advertise, and we respond or don't. It is still our choice to purchase or not.
With government, we have democratic inputs, that is we elect representatives, however there is not any real power to reject decisions of those representatives. Democracy is slow and indecisive in creating change, and this is desirable, compared to market responses which tend to be quite a bit quicker. Products that don't sell, are pulled almost immediately.