Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:06:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2328 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Richard Franks wrote:
> > > You have a point, and I'm almost intrigued enough now to do the same..
> >
> > Read some of the Founders papers, they are intriguing.
>
> I will do.
Try the Federalist Papers, there should be links in past posts from this
group.
> > You also seem to have a chip on the shoulder about advertising, would you • care
> > to elaborate?
>
> Other than it's a colossal, sorry COLOSSAL waste of finite resources, yes. • It's
> like a tax on goods that I have no choice to pay.
Then buy generic. Perhaps those companies that use advertising, and
charge 1000% more for their product think its worth it. You don't have to
support them, though.
There are some brand name products with such brand loyalty that they
advertise very little, but you still pay "advertising-tax," they just don't
spend the money on it. There are a lot of taxes on goods that I have no
choice to pay, but for this example, I have shown a choice. The advertising
tax is optional, as it should be.
> You will probably say that that's a necessary freedom for the company to
> charge what they want and spent their income as they choose, and I cannot
> complain about that. I'd just rather not have to pay advertising-tax that's
> all.
Well, I don't blame you, I'd rather not pay tax on anything, but what you
are calling tax isn't. Going on the same line, one could say I hate paying
retail-tax, because the companies who sell stuff retail have to pay certain
overhead for their buildings, employees, and security and they charge me a
retail-tax to do that. Companies shouldn't have that right? :-)
> > > I wasn't lumping everyone into the same bowl, but if the majority • chooses
> > > something, or buys from a company then you'll have to live with those
> > > consequences. If everyone had perfect information, great - but few, you
> > > included, will actually research.
> >
> > Research what?
>
> I was referring to your post - where you said you researched the products • you
> bought before buying them.
What are you talking about? I am not sure what your point is or was, but
"smart consumers" today generally disregard advertising (as much as
possible), and find the facts for themselves. Our market is by no means
free, but if I am not required to buy the exact same things as the majority
do today, then why would I be required to do so in a more free, more
competitive market?
> > > > Most people say the Republican party is for the rich. How so, when I am
> > > > considered poor / lower middle class?
> > >
> > > Because stereotypes are easy, but in many cases useless?
> >
> > Yes, but most in the left on this country don't tend to think so.
>
> THAT'S A STEREOTYPE RIGHT THERE.
>
> Sorry for shouting.
At least its accurate, from most of the Democrats I have met. Not that
those on the right are any different. I think most people like to believe
that most people think just like they do. I think that is the easiest, and
perhaps most detrimental of all stereotypes to use. I could be wrong; I may
be the only one who makes that mistake.
> > There are many things to be learned, and I should have the ability to
> > learn them, but not from some politically motivated people thinking I
> > should expand my horizons. That is one of the biggest faults in academia
> > today, IMO.
>
> At which point did I presume to say that I had anything to teach you? I • think
> that presumtion led to your initial misunderstanding?
Wasn't he talking about educators from his experience, not you in
particular? Anyway, I must agree, I went to school rather recently, the
tone of leftism is rampant. Either you noticed it or fell for it. If you
didn't notice it, you got your BS all right. If you did notice, you aren't
any worse for it; you can probably see where the majority is coming from a
little better than before. You, as in anyone educated in US accredited
colleges.
> I'm sure the fact that I'm British doesn't help either.
Are you British, living in UK or US?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
