| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Chela 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 165
|
 Posted: January 09 2011 at 23:06 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The V-strings feel like you're wearing nothing at all. I love them.
Bras are a dream too. I go from a weak A to a solid B. |
They only have good bras for As and Bs, rarely Cs and they seem childish to me. I am neither 
Edited by Chela - January 10 2011 at 01:18
|
 |
Gamemako
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 02:17 |
|
f**king hate kids.
|
Hail Eris!
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 02:27 |
Gamemako wrote:
f**king hate kids.
|
Haha I could go into a big thing about this. I don't like to voice it publicly or in the presence of women because I fear it's probably something that raises warning flags. I very rarely like kids. ESPECIALLY toddlers. They annoy the hell out me. I suppose the thing is that they get tolerable when they're your own flesh and blood. But they stare at strangers and make weird faces at me when I ring up their parents at the store. It is remarkably off-putting. They say annoying things, I have to feel encouraging toward their development all the while grating my teeth at how annoyed I am. I'm a very polite person, so I never say anything. I'm much more comfortable with the puppies (I work at a pet store). Small humans are just weird, though.
|
|
|
|
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 02:30 |
harmonium.ro wrote:
Any Colour You Like wrote:
I'm really not into people.
|
Not even of the female kind?
|
Depends. Such misanthropy is not gender defined.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 02:46 |
presdoug wrote:
Dean wrote:
::snip::
|
What about Green Eggs and Ham?
|
Ambivalence and genuine indifference.
|
|
What?
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 02:59 |
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20391
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 04:45 |
Gamemako wrote:
f**king hate kids spoiled brats |
that's better 
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Do parents strap them to chairs and make them watch it? Aren't parents responsible somewhat?
And yes it is. First off kids can't buy things.
Secondly, no study I've ever read has shown that advertising has the power to make someone purchase something that they don't want.
It delivers information to a party. That party already has an interest in the product if they're purchasing it. Have you ever bought something you don't like because you saw a commercial?
People like to blame advertising for the country's massive consumerism, something which I am against. That's absurd. Massive consumption is a part of the culture. We have advertising because of our consumerism. Advertising doesn't bring this about. It's a case of reversed causality.
I love advertising. It's a great benefit towards consumers. |
Well if that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't zillions of dollars induced in advertisements
Well advertising does play on lower instincts of humans and are ready to some kind of blackmail (not just greed-related, but guilt as well)
These advertisers don't care whether you need it or not.... they just want to sell it to you.... and they'll create a desire or a need in you to buy it... wearing designer clothes makes you sexy beast... that kind of cologne makes you irresistable....and driving the latest Ford Mustang makes you a stud >>> loads of babes will plead you to let them suck your willy, because you drive it...
They'll even lay guilt trips on you.... if you don't buy Dr Ballard or Cesar dog food or useless dog gadgets for your canines, it's because you don't love them enough.... you bad dog haters... shame on you...
only half a point made, here: "Uneeded massive consumption is part of the advertising culture" is the full sentence 
well it depends on your feelings and philosophy on consumerism and the state of the environement due to that consumerism
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 06:08 |
Chela wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The V-strings feel like you're wearing nothing at all. I love them.
Bras are a dream too. I go from a weak A to a solid B. |
They only have good bras for As and Bs, rarely Cs and they seem childish to me. I am neither |
My girlfriend seems to have little trouble finding them for Cs.
The last thing I'd call their garments is childish.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 07:44 |
|
Well I never, PA's 'naughty' filter has not been tripped by suck your willy: we need to update the forum software with the Scottish Vernacular for Fellatio Appendum V 1.6 patch (revised)
I blame those pesky libertarian kids pah....
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 07:44 |
stonebeard wrote:
Gamemako wrote:
f**king hate kids. |
Haha I could go into a big thing about this. I don't like to voice it publicly or in the presence of women because I fear it's probably something that raises warning flags. I very rarely like kids. ESPECIALLY toddlers. They annoy the hell out me. I suppose the thing is that they get tolerable when they're your own flesh and blood. But they stare at strangers and make weird faces at me when I ring up their parents at the store. It is remarkably off-putting. They say annoying things, I have to feel encouraging toward their development all the while grating my teeth at how annoyed I am. I'm a very polite person, so I never say anything. I'm much more comfortable with the puppies (I work at a pet store). Small humans are just weird, though.
|
Especially toddlers? What did I ever do to you? 
I usually tell my kids in public...."Honey, it's not nice to stare".....This way the adult they are staring at is maybe a little less uncomfortable.
Kids are looking for attention from strangers. They are amused because you are not their parent and appear to be different. They are waiting to see if you might take on the role of a John Candy type. They want to be entertained. It takes a period of time to develop manners. They don't come with a book of instructions and many of the books I have read on parenting are contradicting. Not every author's method of upbringing will apply to every child and reward the parent and their goals.
The whole entrie communication process between store staff, rude parents, and staring kids is broken down. I desperately try to ignore women in public as a general rule. Especially the very beautiful ones who dress and fix their hair like glamour queens. I've noticed over the years how if a single man is shopping and accidently bumps into the woman, there is an attitude. A judgemental accusation of sorts. Maybe women watch too much TV? In recent years I've noticed a major change since I have kids. Now it would seem that these so-called beauty queens are smiling at me and tickled because they observe my kid's questions and behaviour. Otherwise, they would feel uncomfortable thinking the single guy is a threat or even a pervert. It's like, who in the hell do they think they are to rule the world like that? (so to speak).
Last week I was in the local Pediatrics waiting room watching a woman smack her 3 year old around. All he wanted to do was joke a bit and play. The other children were gawking at her. I couldn't help but to think she was going to damage this child at an early age. You talk about the bully law? I felt as an adult, I should have spoken up and addressed the issue. People on the staff said nothing. It is no one's business and therefore the justice is never served. My kids love John Candy and Tom Hanks. They often misunderstand the concept of acting. They often say how stupied the 2 of them are but....later before bedtime, they state that they really like Tom Hanks because he is goofy and John Candy because he gives kids attention. So it's mainly the role they play in their films which attracts the attention of children. They seem to think other adults in the Walmart could be kind to kids like John Candy appears to be in his films. Unfortunately they are waking up slowly to the realization that it is not always true.
Edited by TODDLER - January 10 2011 at 08:03
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 09:13 |
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Do parents strap them to chairs and make them watch it? Aren't parents responsible somewhat? |
Parents are very much responsible, but I will never believe they're the only ones responsible, as the FDA and advertising giants have promoted. And it is very hard for parents to shield their kids from negative influences like that. They would not be able to take them down most aisles of the store and they would have to drag them out of the room every time the commercials play for a TV show of their. Unless they're not allowed to watch TV. Good for them, I say, but that's hardly an option nowadays with both parents having to work a lot of the time. They can't control everything their kids are exposed to, so how unreasonable is it to demand some sort of responsibility from corporations in controlling advertising that will likely reach people unable to think critically about it. Especially when it is designed to take advantage of it. And even more still when you consider the drastically rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in children. Even if you say that the purchasing power is in the parent's hands, the reality of the world is that many of them are too tired or ignorant to care. Which is the easiest way to tackle the problem: revamp our workforce and somehow make parents have more time to actively monitor their kids and also become more educated about nutrition and advertising toward children, or require stricter regulations for products aimed at children?
It is seriously hard for me to believe you don't think that is a negative thing.
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but if parents aren't going to see to it that their children don't eat right and that they don't live their life in front of a tv, government sure as hell can't do it. Saying parents are busy is such a cop out. It's bull. My mother worked 60 hour weeks when I was growing up, and my father worked two full time jobs and a part time, to pay the bills and get us out of a dangerous neighborhood. They still found time through all of that to give me all the attention I needed. Also, kids don't want sugary cereal because they saw a tv ad for it. They want it because kids like sugar. Nothing you can do will change that. Kids may be tempted to try something from advertising, but they don't continue to consume it because of advertising. Such regulations won't have the effect you desire. Besides, advertising is a great thing.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 09:18 |
Sean Trane wrote:
Well if that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't zillions of dollars induced in advertisements
|
That's very poor reasoning. You're first off assuming that the only purpose of advertising is to instill a desire in someone to purchase something. That's false. Simply providing people with information about the existence of a product, sale, etc is sufficient. Also, zillions of dollars being spent doesn't mean it's being spent wisely. Look at the billions of dollars spent in housing development over the past decade. Ooops.
Sean Trane wrote:
Well advertising does play on lower instincts of humans and are ready to some kind of blackmail (not just greed-related, but guilt as well)
These advertisers don't care whether you need it or not.... they just want to sell it to you.... and they'll create a desire or a need in you to buy it... wearing designer clothes makes you sexy beast... that kind of cologne makes you irresistable....and driving the latest Ford Mustang makes you a stud >>> loads of babes will plead you to let them suck your willy, because you drive it...
They'll even lay guilt trips on you.... if you don't buy Dr Ballard or Cesar dog food or useless dog gadgets for your canines, it's because you don't love them enough.... you bad dog haters... shame on you...
|
You're explaining what advertising attempts to do. You would have to show that it actually does it for it to be a problem. Either way, enticement isn't coercion.
Sean Trane wrote:
well it depends on your feelings and philosophy on consumerism and the state of the environement due to that consumerism
|
No it doesn't. It's an independent statement. I find consumerism bad. I find advertising good.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
DisgruntledPorcupine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 16 2010
Location: Thunder Bay CAN
Status: Offline
Points: 4395
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 09:43 |
Anthony H. wrote:
-People who walk slow in the hallway at school
|
/thread
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20391
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 10:36 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Well if that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't zillions of dollars induced in advertisements
|
That's very poor reasoning. You're first off assuming that the only purpose of advertising is to instill a desire in someone to purchase something. That's false. Simply providing people with information about the existence of a product, sale, etc is sufficient. Also, zillions of dollars being spent doesn't mean it's being spent wisely. Look at the billions of dollars spent in housing development over the past decade. Ooops.
|
I'm not assuming it... I just know it's the case, or else all you (as a manufacturer) would have to do is put an add in one of these paper advertising folders... If indeed you the consumer) wanted to know it existed, all you'd have to do is look into the folder.... All he'd see in that folder is the image and technical facts, the price and its performance... and that's it.....>>>no need to see Vanna White langourously laying on the hood of the latest Ford Mustang, right????
Instead, the multiple adds are forced upon you in the Superbowl or during Desperate Housewives ... funnily enough you won't find adds for hygienic towels during the Superbowl, like you don't have Four Roses Bourbon addsduring Housewives.... targetting the advertisement is already boosting consumerism
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Well advertising does play on lower instincts of humans and are ready to some kind of blackmail (not just greed-related, but guilt as well)
These advertisers don't care whether you need it or not.... they just want to sell it to you.... and they'll create a desire or a need in you to buy it... wearing designer clothes makes you sexy beast... that kind of cologne makes you irresistable....and driving the latest Ford Mustang makes you a stud >>> loads of babes will plead you to let them suck your willy, because you drive it...
They'll even lay guilt trips on you.... if you don't buy Dr Ballard or Cesar dog food or useless dog gadgets for your canines, it's because you don't love them enough.... you bad dog haters... shame on you...
|
You're explaining what advertising attempts to do. You would have to show that it actually does it for it to be a problem. Either way, enticement isn't coercion. |
well look at all the people ruined by the easy credit loans (installed and advertised by the stores who not only sell but finance the selling, and often even on the advertisement itself) that they signed-up to own these flat-screen TVs for the kid's bedrooms... These people are so taken up by the desire installed in them to own it, that they don't even figure a second they can't afford it... until it's too late... Enticement through advertisement is often trickery (by deceiving the buyer in the real costs)
I'm not planning to get a flat screen until my cathodic tube TV dies on me... even though I can easily afford to buy 5 or 6 of them without borrowing a cent. I'm maybe more intelligent than those who feel they must have everything now.... Hey, I'm still also subject to advertisements myself, even if I resist... I couldn't care less if my neighbour has four flat screens and my cathodic tube only gets four TV station, because I don't have cable distribution (lett alone a satellite dish)
but thousands of women feel guilty if they didn't feed their poodles with Cesar's chicken meat meal .... and this mental manipulation sucks and is borderline criminal (mental torture) to thepoint that it almost does become coercion (kids angry at their parents for not being able to afford and offer them the latest Playstation, so the parents oblige)
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
well it depends on your feelings and philosophy on consumerism and the state of the environement due to that consumerism
|
No it doesn't. It's an independent statement. I find consumerism bad. I find advertising good.
|
The bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that advertising boosts mindless consumerism.....
Funnily enough, you fail to answer to this part of the debate
Edited by Sean Trane - January 10 2011 at 10:38
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Bonnek
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4521
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 10:43 |
|
religion, new age, witches, Santa, astrology and shopping during the weekends
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 11:20 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Do parents strap them to chairs and make them watch it? Aren't parents responsible somewhat? |
Parents are very much responsible, but I will never believe they're the only ones responsible, as the FDA and advertising giants have promoted. And it is very hard for parents to shield their kids from negative influences like that. They would not be able to take them down most aisles of the store and they would have to drag them out of the room every time the commercials play for a TV show of their. Unless they're not allowed to watch TV. Good for them, I say, but that's hardly an option nowadays with both parents having to work a lot of the time. They can't control everything their kids are exposed to, so how unreasonable is it to demand some sort of responsibility from corporations in controlling advertising that will likely reach people unable to think critically about it. Especially when it is designed to take advantage of it. And even more still when you consider the drastically rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in children. Even if you say that the purchasing power is in the parent's hands, the reality of the world is that many of them are too tired or ignorant to care. Which is the easiest way to tackle the problem: revamp our workforce and somehow make parents have more time to actively monitor their kids and also become more educated about nutrition and advertising toward children, or require stricter regulations for products aimed at children?
It is seriously hard for me to believe you don't think that is a negative thing.
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but if parents aren't going to see to it that their children don't eat right and that they don't live their life in front of a tv, government sure as hell can't do it. Saying parents are busy is such a cop out. It's bull. My mother worked 60 hour weeks when I was growing up, and my father worked two full time jobs and a part time, to pay the bills and get us out of a dangerous neighborhood. They still found time through all of that to give me all the attention I needed.
Wow! That is incredible! To me there is a lot of glory in that. What great parents you have.
Also, kids don't want sugary cereal because they saw a tv ad for it. They want it because kids like sugar. Nothing you can do will change that. Kids may be tempted to try something from advertising, but they don't continue to consume it because of advertising.
I definitely agree with this because I've always felt the importance of home education. For example, my parents knew I was interested in the hippie culture as a kid but educated me to the possibility of self-destruction with drugs. As a result I ran away from heavy drugs and sadly watched my friends disintegrate. At a young age they forced me to understand that indulging in heavy drugs was not necessary. They put a scare into me during a time when drugs were or as it seemed then,...so accessible. I'm thankful they persuaded me not to because some friends ended up in the mental hospital from only one dosage of LSD.
Such regulations won't have the effect you desire. Besides, advertising is a great thing.
|
|
|
presdoug
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 24 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8711
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 11:30 |
Dean wrote:
presdoug wrote:
Dean wrote:
::snip::
|
What about Green Eggs and Ham?
|
Ambivalence and genuine indifference. |
Sorry, my comment was just meant as a joke, and i was not trying to take a poke at you!
|
|
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Online
Points: 12207
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 11:42 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Anthony H. wrote:
-Genocide
-Child Torture
|
Few people have the courage to take a bold stance against genocide and child torture, bravo. I'm glad that you qualified only child torture, though. Otherwise I might feel bad for all the adults I'm planning to torture (PHIL COLLINS YOUR NUMBER IS UP). |
Ha-ha
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Most criticism of advertising doesn't really make
sense. It assumes that consumers are mindlessly buying things just
because they've heard of it. |
Of course they do. People are insecure and stupid, but that's not why I'm really NOT into it:
- Advertisment in our streets on TV, at the movies, on radio etc...
- Tea party movements and gun right activism
- Celebrities that think they got something important to say because microphones are shoved into their face.
- The new disquised, anti-semitism
- New buildings/architecture & cars made after 1980 (esthetically, I mean) - Comedys with three stupid men and a sillicon bimbo on the cover - Taking the bus, tube of tram. Train is ok. - Hippies, dreads, incense, marjuana - Punks, speed and self-proclaimed anarchists
- So called enviromental skepticism - 911 Truth Movement (Truthers) - Massproduced crap from IKEA and similar concepts - Emoticons - Parenthood
- Fashion I skipped the extremely obvious stuff that no one's into.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 11:44 |
I see that the not into thread has attracted more posts than the into thread which means people are more into the not into thread. 
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 10 2011 at 11:44
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: January 10 2011 at 11:53 |
TODDLER wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Do parents strap them to chairs and make them watch it? Aren't parents responsible somewhat? |
Parents are very much responsible, but I will never believe they're the only ones responsible, as the FDA and advertising giants have promoted. And it is very hard for parents to shield their kids from negative influences like that. They would not be able to take them down most aisles of the store and they would have to drag them out of the room every time the commercials play for a TV show of their. Unless they're not allowed to watch TV. Good for them, I say, but that's hardly an option nowadays with both parents having to work a lot of the time. They can't control everything their kids are exposed to, so how unreasonable is it to demand some sort of responsibility from corporations in controlling advertising that will likely reach people unable to think critically about it. Especially when it is designed to take advantage of it. And even more still when you consider the drastically rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in children. Even if you say that the purchasing power is in the parent's hands, the reality of the world is that many of them are too tired or ignorant to care. Which is the easiest way to tackle the problem: revamp our workforce and somehow make parents have more time to actively monitor their kids and also become more educated about nutrition and advertising toward children, or require stricter regulations for products aimed at children?
It is seriously hard for me to believe you don't think that is a negative thing.
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but if parents aren't going to see to it that their children don't eat right and that they don't live their life in front of a tv, government sure as hell can't do it. Saying parents are busy is such a cop out. It's bull. My mother worked 60 hour weeks when I was growing up, and my father worked two full time jobs and a part time, to pay the bills and get us out of a dangerous neighborhood. They still found time through all of that to give me all the attention I needed.
Wow! That is incredible! To me there is a lot of glory in that. What great parents you have.
Also, kids don't want sugary cereal because they saw a tv ad for it. They want it because kids like sugar. Nothing you can do will change that. Kids may be tempted to try something from advertising, but they don't continue to consume it because of advertising.
I definitely agree with this because I've always felt the importance of home education. For example, my parents knew I was interested in the hippie culture as a kid but educated me to the possibility of self-destruction with drugs. As a result I ran away from heavy drugs and sadly watched my friends disintegrate. At a young age they forced me to understand that indulging in heavy drugs was not necessary. They put a scare into me during a time when drugs were or as it seemed then,...so accessible. I'm thankful they persuaded me not to because some friends ended up in the mental hospital from only one dosage of LSD.
Such regulations won't have the effect you desire. Besides, advertising is a great thing.
|
|
Yes I have great parents. I'm very thankful for that.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Things you're really, really NOT into. (not music)
