02 Nov 14
No-one thinks, "I'm happy because I'm consuming." Nobody lives just in order to consume. But if a present or an object we buy for ourselves – say, a chess board a remote-controlled car, a magazine or book, a slow cooker, or a tennis racquet makes us happy, if not always for a very long time, what's wrong with that?
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseYou make that sound like a bad thing. Are you saying you are not a manipulated consumer? I'm beginning to think you're just a stingy old fart that thinks Santa Clause should die.
You sound defensive.
Shall we interpret that gut reaction as a recognition that
you are aware of being a manipulated consumer within an
machinery designed to make you an automaton?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseI imagine that if someone replied "oooga boooga!" we could find a way to have it imply that preordained conclusion.
You sound defensive.
Shall we interpret that gut reaction as a recognition that
you are aware of being a manipulated consumer within an
machinery designed to make you an automaton?
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by JS357You sound quite condescending towards the selected few
I imagine that if someone replied "oooga boooga!" we could find a way to have it imply that preordained conclusion.
who would go down the path of "oooga boooga", which is,
evidently, a postmodernist criticism of our age through a
quite smart metaphor of its parallelisms with the stone age.
P.S. I do sport a quite ironic mustache.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseThe people pushing consumerism are the same ones wanting to bring back the 'glory' days of Reaganomics.
Please, explain.
Added bonus if you also comment on how does it feel
to live under eternal indebtedness and if such a reality
is palliated by being surrounded with tons of useless
objects.
No. Just... no.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseUS economics during the Reagan administration. Also see "trickle-down economics".
I am sorry. Those terms are alien to us, the rest of
the world not contained within the fence around the
U.S.
Is there an equivalent in plebeian, non-murica speak?
Google it. Am I holding your hand here?
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseTax breaks and economic policies that benefit the rich in turn create new benefits that (theoretically) drift down,
I am sorry. Those terms are alien to us, the rest of
the world not contained within the fence around the
U.S.
Is there an equivalent in plebeian, non-murica speak?
like dandruff, to fall on the less fortunate. It looks good on paper, but it doesn't work. The rich keep the dandruff.
02 Nov 14
Originally posted by SeitseOf course consuming things that stimulate and please the senses, emotional and/or intellectual appreciations makes a person "happy" but it doesn't last. These things of yesterday become tomorrow's forgotten trash. A poverty stricken man and woman naked and alone in the midst of adversities can be happy being together with their rapport, trust and abiding love. Principle: Forget BYOB; go with BYOHappiness. Please explain the context of "to live under eternal indebtedness".
Please, explain.
Added bonus if you also comment on how does it feel
to live under eternal indebtedness and if such a reality
is palliated by being surrounded with tons of useless
objects.