02 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe bit about public health and morals is so open as to be meaningless.
The united declaration of human rights states that:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in ...[text shortened]... fluence than individuals.
"Free speech" says Wajoma "and no responsibilities to go with it"
If you did care about public health as you say you do, you would be (as I am) an advocate for personal responsibility, i.e. taking responsibilty for the choices one makes oneself, not simpering buck passing blame shifting.
I am not responsible for the choices you make.
You are not responsible for the choices I make
Fast food restaurants are not responsible for those that decide to over indulge in their product. Unless they have made a blatant fraudulent claim about their product. Not suggestions and not spirits.
Even if we were to accept your idea (I do not as it is an assault on freedom of expression) it would be for you to prove that the advertising had caused the abuse of the product. That there are people that can view the advertising and simply enjoy a burger or piece of fried chicken once a week means the advertising is not resposible for abuse of the product, and you have no case for limiting others voices. It is the individuals that indulge in self destructive behaviour that are resposible for their own ill health.
But you're not an advocate for personal responsibilty are you mcstabby, and people that are not should examine there control freak motives, because they fit into one of three catergories.
1/ Low opinion of your fellow mans ability to run their own life, for some reason you feel you are oh so superior at making decisions for everyone else.
2/ Quest for unearned power. Aspires to slip into the grey shoes of a petty bureauRat, take up a clip board and try to ease some of that seething envy of those successful people that have had the nous, drive and taken the risk to build a business, by taking em down a peg or two.
3/ Can't trust yourself with all that freedom. Might make some bad choices, need nanny state to hold your hand.
02 May 07
Originally posted by WajomaYes, ignoring the bits of the human rights bill that don't suit you is a very.... interesting thing to do. Be careful which bits you ignore, they might turn out to be the most important ones.
The bit about public health and morals is so open as to be meaningless.
If you did care about public health as you say you do, you would be (as I am) an advocate for personal responsibility, i.e. taking responsibilty for the choices one makes oneself, not simpering buck passing blame shifting.
I am not responsible for the choices you make.
You are no ...[text shortened]... rself with all that freedom. Might make some bad choices, need nanny state to hold your hand.
I am indeed an advocate for personal responsibility. However, this is not to do with individuals. When an individual makes a bad choice regarding their own health, that is up to them. When a group of people continually make bad choices regarding their own health, there must be a factor which is persuading those people to harm themselves, otherwise they wouldn't make that choice, as it is an utterly irrational one to make.
The outcome of a fraudulent beneficial claim about a product may be exactly the same as an aggressive advertising campaign - i.e. people overeat the product and become obese. One is misinformation, the other, brainwashing. Advertising makes a population choose to buy a product not based on the product itself, but on the advertising. This is the irrational behaviour pattern of a brainwashed individual. Rational choice is not playing a part in people's actions. When people behave irrationally in this way, they cause harm to themselves. This is not how a society should function - using time and resources to damage its own health.
As for freedom of expression, you again are forgetting the extra responsibility that must come with a company's greater power and influence than an individual. As well as serving the owner, the company should also be serving society, as it depends on it for its survival. No society - no companies or corporations. Society only works when people function together as opposed to solely being self serving. A balance between the two is key.
As for the last 3 points
1) If people cannot behave rationally and it is harming themselves or others, then they need help.
2) People who make their money at the expense of society need to be stopped. Those who work hard and contribute positively to society deserve to be left to it.
3) I'm fine with freedom, as long as the free are sufficiently educated. Freedom and choice are only good if the person with a choice has the knowledge to understand the exact outcome of their actions. I'm not sure people truly understand how bad fast food is for them - it's a vague bit of data, not knowledge.
02 May 07
I need help! I keep eating chicken with the skin on it... I know it is bad, but I can not stop... in fact my whole neighborhood is doing it. Its Walmarts fault... they make chicken so cheap to buy, but they dont take the skin off...
Maybe I can sue...?
Maybe the government can get it outlawed? No... tax it instead
Can you grow a skinless chicken?
My name is lepomis and I like chicken skin. 🙁
02 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisDamn junkies!
I need help! I keep eating chicken with the skin on it... I know it is bad, but I can not stop... in fact my whole neighborhood is doing it. Its Walmarts fault... they make chicken so cheap to buy, but they dont take the skin off...
Maybe I can sue...?
Maybe the government can get it outlawed? No... tax it instead
Can you grow a skinless chicken?
My name is lepomis and I like chicken skin. 🙁
02 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisYou sommmmamabeeyotch!
I need help! I keep eating chicken with the skin on it... I know it is bad, but I can not stop... in fact my whole neighborhood is doing it. Its Walmarts fault... they make chicken so cheap to buy, but they dont take the skin off...
Maybe I can sue...?
Maybe the government can get it outlawed? No... tax it instead
Can you grow a skinless chicken?
My name is lepomis and I like chicken skin. 🙁
You ignored Mrs. Tabby's interpretation of the UnDeclaration of ManKinds rights. It's all your fault and THAT is your personal responsibility. Damn you. Don't you know what's good for your mind, body, and soul? It's our job to tell you how to live your life. In the future please follow our directives.
Thank you in advance.
The Socialist Collective. a.k.a. "Your Brother"
03 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisWellllp, when the Socialist Btards start spewing their filth, someone has to make a stand.....
Had tears in my eyes... I dont think I have ever seen that word spelled out before 🙂
Otherwise, get to work and support your "brothers"! They need your help, because they are all mindless retards who are victims of the
Capitalist Pigs.
...time for a beer....
Remember, we are all victims here.
waaaafinnnnwaaaa.
03 May 07
Originally posted by monster truckThis isn't an issue of individual rights, it's company and corporate responsibility, which should be greater than that of the individual.
You sommmmamabeeyotch!
You ignored Mrs. Tabby's interpretation of the UnDeclaration of ManKinds rights. It's all your fault and THAT is your personal responsibility. Damn you. Don't you know what's good for your mind, body, and soul? It's our job to tell you how to live your life. In the future please follow our directives.
Thank you in advance.
The Socialist Collective. a.k.a. "Your Brother"
The fact that even individuals have the responsibility of not using their freedom of speech to the detriment of the population's health means that the responsibility should also apply to the company, if not to the same then a greater extent.
03 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyHere we see the double speak mcstabby is becoming known for
Yes, ignoring the bits of the human rights bill that don't suit you is a very.... interesting thing to do. Be careful which bits you ignore, they might turn out to be the most important ones.
I am indeed an advocate for personal responsibility. However, this is not to do with individuals. When an individual makes a bad choice regarding their own healt ...[text shortened]... truly understand how bad fast food is for them - it's a vague bit of data, not knowledge.
Says this: "I am indeed an advocate for personal responsibility."
Then goes on to contradict himself utterly.
As a true advocate for personal responsibility if some one were to accuse me of being in one of those three catergories and I felt there was a whiff of truth to the accusation I would be appalled - what does mcstabby do? he tries to defend each one.
Double speak #2: When an individual makes a bad choice regarding their own health, that is up to them. When a group of people continually make bad choices regarding their own health, there must be a factor which is persuading those...
What is a group if not a collection of individuals? Oh dear, how is it to inhabit a head full of inconsistencies.
Throw in a gross exageration: "Brainwashing"
Where do people experience this "brainwashing" are they strapped into a chair with their eyelids peeled back as per Alex in Clockwork Orange? No
Are they forced to watch television? listen to the radio? buy certain magazines? No, as they choose to buy non-mcstabby approved food they also choose media that they know full well features advertising.
03 May 07
Originally posted by WajomaPersonal responsibility and corporate responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
Here we see the double speak mcstabby is becoming known for
Says this: [b]"I am indeed an advocate for personal responsibility."
Then goes on to contradict himself utterly.
As a true advocate for personal responsibility if some one were to accuse me of being in one of those three catergories and I felt there was a whiff of truth to the accusatio ...[text shortened]... stabby approved food they also choose media that they know full well features advertising.[/b]
Brainwashing is at its finest when the people don't even realise it's happening. People don't realise the extent that advertising affects the way that they think. The human mind isn't rigid, it's very malleable.
Personal responsibility is only suitable when people think rationally, and advertising causes people to purchase certain things on an irrational basis.
So yes, by limiting the strength of advertising, people are able to become more personally responsible. Personal responsibility relies on the individual being able to think rationally. Otherwise their behaviour is being influenced by something or someone that shouldn't be.
This isn't telling people what they can and can't do, this is telling companies that use advertising that they shouldn't have the influence that they do on people's behaviour.
03 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyPeople choose to be influenced mcstabby.
Personal responsibility and corporate responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
Brainwashing is at its finest when the people don't even realise it's happening. People don't realise the extent that advertising affects the way that they think. The human mind isn't rigid, it's very malleable.
Personal responsibility is only suitable when people think ...[text shortened]... advertising that they shouldn't have the influence that they do on people's behaviour.
03 May 07
Originally posted by WajomaChoice comes into being influenced? Choice involves the conscious mind, not the subconscious. Advertising influences the unconscious mind, and I don't think many people truly understand the implications of this when they switch the TV on.
People choose to be influenced mcstabby.
On a side note, influence is a form of control. To control is to be empowered. With power comes responsibility. We can thus conclude that fast food companies are responsible for the detrimental health outcome if they influence a population into buying their product.
03 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyWe could just have something that attaches to your tv to block suggestive advertisements... for the people who feel easily manipulated. Or it could be based on IQ tests... if you score low then you qualify for the ad blocker. If your IQ is high enough then you will be allowed to filter your own ads... if you want to.
Choice comes into being influenced? Choice involves the conscious mind, not the subconscious. Advertising influences the unconscious mind, and I don't think many people truly understand the implications of this when they switch the TV on.
On a side note, influence is a form of control. To control is to be empowered. With power comes responsibility. ...[text shortened]... le for the detrimental health outcome if they influence a population into buying their product.
03 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyAnd what of those that are subject to advertising and are not influenced. They choose not to be influenced.
Choice comes into being influenced? Choice involves the conscious mind, not the subconscious. Advertising influences the unconscious mind, and I don't think many people truly understand the implications of this when they switch the TV on.
On a side note, influence is a form of control. To control is to be empowered. With power comes responsibility. ...[text shortened]... le for the detrimental health outcome if they influence a population into buying their product.
That advertising increases sales is no news - that's what advertising is about. (sheesh)
People choose to watch tv, i.e. they choose to subject themselves to advertising. Some don't or they watch another channel or flick channels when the ads are on.
You make two false claims in order to try and restrict freedom of expression.
Fast food is bad: False. In moderation it needn't be.
People loose their ability to make rational decisions when subject to advertising: False. Those that choose not to be influenced by advertising prove this. There is no advertising campaign in the world that can make a person do something they don't want to.
03 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by lepomisYou touch on a point there lepomis:
We could just have something that attaches to your tv to block suggestive advertisements... for the people who feel easily manipulated. Or it could be based on IQ tests... if you score low then you qualify for the ad blocker. If your IQ is high enough then you will be allowed to filter your own ads... if you want to.
Let those that need help can seek out the services of mcstabby, just leave the rest of us alone.
From mcstabby:
1) If people cannot behave rationally and it is harming themselves or others, then they need help.
From mcstabby:
3)I'm fine with freedom, as long as the free are sufficiently educated.
Translation: as long as the free have been first brainwashed by the state (as per mcstabby)