First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/9/10
I've been recently reminded of a simpler definition of liberal (and conservative.)

What's a Conservative? A liberal who has just been mugged.

What's a Liberal? A conservative who has just been arrested.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/10 , edited 11/10/10

amersfoort wrote:

What's your concept of liberalism or liberalists?
What is Liberalism?

Is Liberalism good or bad?

These questions rose up on me, since I see the term Liberals being used as something bad, it's almost used like it's a curse word.
In my History classes (I studied History) everytime I read about Liberalism, it was about freedom (hence the wroth libera, wich is freedom in Latin), and other things I completely agreed with.
So... when did being a liberal become a bad, no almost evil thing?




Here is a simple definition of Conservativism and Liberalism from Mr Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:
CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.


It is rather cynical, I grant you that, but it does illustrate the the basic premise of both ideology- the conservative wish to maintain the present system as much as reasonably possible, and Liberals the opposite, that is, being much favourable to reasonable proposal of reformation of the present system.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/10/10
defining things in terms of change is great.

but the titles get hung with all kinds of political baggage. Capitalism and Socialism are neither intrinsically conservative or liberal ideologies.

both were new ideas at one time. Making the implementation of them, Liberal.

both have been well established in various polities about the world which would making keeping them in place where they already stand, Conservative.


3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/10
Although I would be considered liberal, I maintain a good amount of conservative side as well. As a result, ultra-liberals get on my nerves. It's one thing to propose radical laws to make the world better, and it is another to propose these laws to basically say "I know your life better than you do; let me decide for you".
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/10

amersfoort wrote:

What's your concept of liberalism or liberalists?
What is Liberalism?

Is Liberalism good or bad?

These questions rose up on me, since I see the term Liberals being used as something bad, it's almost used like it's a curse word.
In my History classes (I studied History) everytime I read about Liberalism, it was about freedom (hence the wroth libera, wich is freedom in Latin), and other things I completely agreed with.
So... when did being a liberal become a bad, no almost evil thing?




Now, in my former post, I have defined Liberalism and Conservativism as 'reasonable change' and 'reasonable retention' respestively.

Now, reasonable is very subjective, with many unreasonable people subscribing to both ideology- the loudest Conservatives in America think that any change is 'unreasonable', that is, unless it bring us closer to that good ol' black-and-white Ike-liking era of the fifties. These are by no mean the majority of conservatives, I have met many reasonable Conservatives, respectful of other opinions and all that, but they are the most vocal and the most filmed- these are the folks marching around with their gun and death threats to the President, or hosting shows denouncing the President as a Communist- it is through these men and women, who fancies themselves the great silent majority, who you have to thank for 'Liberalism' being sneered at in America.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

defining things in terms of change is great.

but the titles get hung with all kinds of political baggage. Capitalism and Socialism are neither intrinsically conservative or liberal ideologies.

both were new ideas at one time. Making the implementation of them, Liberal.

both have been well established in various polities about the world which would making keeping them in place where they already stand, Conservative.




Absolutely true- but, I suppose that snice elements of Capitalism and Socialism have been juxtaposed in most Western countries, neither economic system can really be consider either liberal or conservative- that is that snice none are in their purest form in most country, changes concerning what degrees elements are added to or aggrevated in the system v. what degrees they are retained and left unchanged would be what seperates 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals'.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/10
Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/10/10

makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/10

Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.
Posted 11/11/10 , edited 11/11/10

makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.

longfenglim wrote:



Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.
Well I would argue that the addictiveness of fast food has less to do with the prizes or the taste itself, since both are subjective to human socialization. However it's because of how manipulative that child advertising can be as an impersonal agent of socialization:

Pester Power

Today's kids have more autonomy and decision-making power within the family than in previous generations, so it follows that kids are vocal about what they want their parents to buy. "Pester power" refers to children's ability to nag their parents into purchasing items they may not otherwise buy. Marketing to children is all about creating pester power, because advertisers know what a powerful force it can be.

According to the 2001 marketing industry book Kidfluence, pestering or nagging can be divided into two categories—"persistence" and "importance." Persistence nagging (a plea, that is repeated over and over again) is not as effective as the more sophisticated "importance nagging." This latter method appeals to parents' desire to provide the best for their children, and plays on any guilt they may have about not having enough time for their kids.

The marriage of psychology and marketing

To effectively market to children, advertisers need to know what makes kids tick. With the help of well-paid researchers and psychologists, advertisers now have access to in-depth knowledge about children's developmental, emotional and social needs at different ages. Using research that analyzes children's behaviour, fantasy lives, art work, even their dreams, companies are able to craft sophisticated marketing strategies to reach young people.

The issue of using child psychologists to help marketers target kids gained widespread public attention in 1999, when a group of U.S. mental health professionals issued a public letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) urging them to declare the practice unethical. The APA is currently studying the issue.

Building brand name loyalty

Canadian author Naomi Klein tracks the birth of "brand" marketing in her 2000 book No Logo. According to Klein, the mid-1980s saw the birth of a new kind of corporation—Nike, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, to name a few—which changed their primary corporate focus from producing products to creating an image for their brand name. By moving their manufacturing operations to countries with cheap labour, they freed up money to create their powerful marketing messages. It has been a tremendously profitable formula, and has led to the creation of some of the most wealthy and powerful multi-national corporations the world has seen.

Marketers plant the seeds of brand recognition in very young children, in the hopes that the seeds will grow into lifetime relationships. According to the Center for a New American Dream, babies as young as six months of age can form mental images of corporate logos and mascots. Brand loyalties can be established as early as age two, and by the time children head off to school most can recognize hundreds of brand logos.

While fast food, toy and clothing companies have been cultivating brand recognition in children for years, adult-oriented businesses such as banks and automakers are now getting in on the act.

Magazines such as Time, Sports Illustrated and People have all launched kid and teen editions—which boast ads for adult related products such as minivans, hotels and airlines.


Buzz or street marketing

The challenge for marketers is to cut through the intense advertising clutter in young people's lives. Many companies are using "buzz marketing"—a new twist on the tried-and-true "word of mouth" method. The idea is to find the coolest kids in a community and have them use or wear your product in order to create a buzz around it. Buzz, or "street marketing," as it's also called, can help a company to successfully connect with the savvy and elusive teen market by using trendsetters to give their products "cool" status.

Buzz marketing is particularly well-suited to the Internet, where young "Net promoters" use newsgroups, chat rooms and blogs to spread the word about music, clothes and other products among unsuspecting users.
(citation)
Now where is the freedom of choice in this picture? When children are forced to accept values that's not of their own choosing, just like what organized religions had been doing all these time. As a moral agent who wants to uphold the categorical imperative of respect individuals' consent based on informed choice, why then should I respect the values of those who only want to manipulate people for the sake of profit, not morality?
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.
67725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


You are confusing what I can do, with what McDonalds is allowed to attempt to brainwash me into doing. or worse, brainwash my non-existant minor child.. Who NO.. does not have complete freedom, that's what being a Minor is.

Defend YOUR freedom all you like. Make sure you know what you're defending.


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


They are not banning them from selling their crap, just as alcohol and cigarettes are still sold- they are banning advertisment and enticment geared toward children, who, if you have the fortune of dealing with one, are easily swayed and covetous.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10 , edited 11/11/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


makix wrote:

Something I read like 5 minutes ago:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103

Long story short, San Francisco (notorious for its super liberal stance) banned Happy Meal toys because it would "entice" kids to consuming fat content.

Honestly... there is a very fine line between saving the world and just fucking pissing people off. This is on the extreme side of pissing people off.


Food fascists.


Just to play the devil's advocate-

Now, you would all agree that marketing something like, say, cigarettes or alcohol, both with great detrimental effect toward health to children, is wrong.

The food of MacDonald, in addition to its poor quality but somehow highly addictive, is also unhealthy.

Would not, then, it make sense to ban MacDonald from marketing its foodstuff, if it can be called thus, to innocent, wide-eyed children?

While I cannot say I agree with it, calling them 'Food Fascist' (Oh Godwin's Law) is a little too far.


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


They are not banning them from selling their crap, just as alcohol and cigarettes are still sold- they are banning advertisment and enticment geared toward children, who, if you have the fortune of dealing with one, are easily swayed and covetous.


Their banning McDonalds from putting toys in with their food, which is wrong. The government has no businesses in telling us what we can and can't eat or feed our children. Just like they had no business banning trans fats or taxing soda which is something new york wants to do.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/11/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Why should we ban McDonalds from selling unhealthy food to children just because its unhealthy, its called freedom of choice, you have the freedom to eat whatever you can shove down your throat even if its a pencil, kids have the right to eat deep fried mayonnaise wrapped in bacon if they so desire, everyone does. Besides its not the governments place to tell us what we can and can't eat.


You are confusing what I can do, with what McDonalds is allowed to attempt to brainwash me into doing. or worse, brainwash my non-existant minor child.. Who NO.. does not have complete freedom, that's what being a Minor is.

Defend YOUR freedom all you like. Make sure you know what you're defending.



Advertising is not equal to brainwashing.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.