Democritus, I would say to you - for god's sake get a brain.

The idea of people working out 'what they really need' is a joke. The whole of modern post-industrial civilisation, if you can call it that, is based on the mass creation of wants that are perceived as needs - false needs. The idea of blaming the individuals who 'prostitute' their children 'because of an ad' is so simple-minded as to be ludicrous. We are all to blame, even you. Yet by your tone you seem to think that there is nothing to blame anyone for.

What child-like faith you have in the 'advertising standards'.

You say, 'Mikk and others would like advertising reduced to a level of simplicity suitable to the lowest common denominator (Village idiot) so no one is startled by the bright lights or loud music'.
The whole point is that advertising ALREADY treats people like village idiots, constantly insulting their intelligence, if only they would see it; the entire vast edifice of advertising/marketing/fashion/hype/consumerism is devoted to bypassing, breaching or corroding the intelligence of the populace

When Sarah Burnside consumes things, that’s fine, but when other people consume things, it’s because they’re too stupid to understand what they want or need. Sarah exercises autonomy, and when she buys clothes, or shoes, or shampoo, or bread, or skin lotion, or a computer, or a plane ticket, obviously it’s because she wants or needs it. But other people have no ability to decide for themselves, and are the mere blind tools of wicked exploiters.

When Sarah communicates with her clients about something she thinks that they might benefit from or want, it goes without saying that that is good and necessary. But when other people communicate with their customers about something they think they might benefit from or want, they are cynical, self-interested, deceptive hypocrites who should be imprisoned.

There is no need for Sarah to ask other people whether they want or need the thing they are buying; she already knows both what everyone else in the world think they want or need, and what they do want or need, without having to ask. They are invariably wrong. And guess who’s right?

When Sarah makes money, that’s fine, and if anything it should be a bit more; but when other people make money, they are untrustworthy and immoral.

When Sarah’s income exceeds her expenses, that is only because of her good sense and management, but when other people’s income exceed their expenses, they are wicked profiteering exploiters who should be forcibly brought down a peg.

Examinator doubts that the average person is able to make informed choices on products; but has no doubt that *he* knows better, both as to what he should buy, and what they should, as well as what communications should be allowed.

When mikk buys something on the basis of information about what’s available, that’s okay because he doesn’t use “human psychology”; but other people use human psychology and for that they should be imprisoned. If they resist being imprisoned, they should be beaten or shot.

Rapscallion looks down on the populace and sh/ts on them from a great height.

It goes without saying that everyone else wouldn’t know what they want or need; no need to prove it. Rapscallion is far above all that; he has access to absolute and perpetual truth, and is in a position to tell everyone else what communications they should be permitted to make on everything.

Oh by the way, Sarah, it’s a criminal offence in Australia not to vote. So were you being ignorant or just dishonest when you said governments are ‘freely elected’? Either way, there goes your entire argument.

No-one has a gun at their head forcing them to buy Coca-Cola. And unlike private corporations, there is no law against politicians and bureaucrats engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Furthermore you have no way of unbundling their policy offerings, no way to distinguish policies you want from policies you don’t want, and in any event, most of the policies of the major parties are the same. If we applied the same standards to them as they apply to businesses, all politicians would be in prison.

As force and fraud are illegal for private businesses, and all their revenues are the result of voluntary transactions; and as both force and fraud are legal for governments, and all their revenues are the result of coerced transactions, there is not the slightest reason to think governments are more to be trusted about what communications should be allowed.

In the history of ideas, the theory that people have no autonomy and are just the objects of wicked capitalist exploiters, came from the Frankfurt school of neo-Marxist sociologists, trying to explain why Marx’s predictions, on which he based his claim of ‘scientific’ socialism, didn’t eventuate. They decided, like Sarah, it’s because everyone else is to stupid to know what they are doing, what is good for them; and they are the mere pawns and automatons of the ruling class.

But of course if that’s true, how did Sarah, examinator, mikk and their neo-Marxist ilk get to be in this position of superior knowledge, competence, and virtue? What a pack of nasty, arrogant, hypocritical, censorious, violent know-it-alls!

"The governments, who make the laws, are freely elected; no one votes for an advertising company. One could also note (albeit rather tritely) that advertising is self-evidently not free speech - it is bought and paid for".

My interpretation of all your viewpoints outlined above PeterHume is that of utter rubbish. The "freely elected" connotation Sarah has used is a comparison. If you cannot comprehend someone's article or comments; or choose to deliberately misinterpret people's articles and comments, it is best you do not bother at all.

I am annoyed with you about something regarding another thread also. I asked you questions on the Haiti childrens sexual exploitation thread which you totally ignored; yet, you could find a second to generalise about my character inferring I held a view as a middle aged matron. You are fine to fire bullets Peterhume however weak when it comes down to giving explanations as to why you post a query asking people why they should accept the age of consent "just because it is legal/legislated/law". You asked for reasons explaining why this law should not be law.

I gave you reasons that were validated and would be common sense to most people who loved and cared for the well being [psychologically and physically]. Your response did not answer my queries put to you. Instead, you choose to generalise about another person's character as opposed to addressing fairly the responses you sought. The men guys young girls I work around would laugh at your comment.

Another question I doubt you will answer: what is your motive/angle behind posing the question? I have debated this issue with a couple of people years ago and these were adults that could not relate to children nor young people socially and did not have any respect or care for children, particularly young girls.

Peter Hume, I have forced myself to read several times your astonishing diatribe, and have no idea how you arrived at your quite outrageous interpretation of the article, or my own brief comments.

Boiling it all down you seem to be espousing the idea that advertising is an inherently honest, transparent activity that merely seeks to give us the opportunity to choose, and in so doing has more integrity and uses less coercion than any government. Anyone, apparently, who has reservations or criticisms of the way advertising or marketing - call it what you like - works or who seriously questions its limits or the way it commodifies people including very young children, is a member of a 'pack of nasty, arrogant, hypocritical, censorious, violent know-it-alls!' The corollary of your position is total de-regulation.

Nasty? Hypocritical? Violent?
How so? How so, Peter Hume?
Such fabulous vituperation and so little relevance.

You have not addressed one word to the points made in the article; it's as if you have not read it at all. Frankly, you sound like some zealous follower of Ayn Rand or von Hayek. Sarah was also concerned about autonomy - that of children, for example, who are not considered to be autonomous in a sexual relationship but are considered autonomous consumers by the advertising industry.

And I? I have 'access to absolute and perpetual truth ... in a position to tell everyone else what communications they should be permitted to make on everything'! Peter, I am the one defending the intelligence of the average person against the ubiquitous and perpetual assault on it, not you; for you, advertising is simply the meeting of transparent communication with perfectly untrammelled and rational free will.

For all your railing, there is just the slightest possibility, isn't there, that modern communications' use of psychology might actually be able to induce mass credit-driven consumption, which is the sole basis of 'economic growth' in our society? Why, I have succumbed utterly to it myself. Sometimes, though, self-criticism and detachment is required in order to understand the process and reasons for concern.

Rapscallion:

"the entire vast edifice of advertising/marketing/fashion/hype/consumerism is devoted to bypassing, breaching or corroding the intelligence of the populace"

It looks like it has already worked.

I'm interested, do you also wear tin foil hats?

I would like to believe that most of the population is capable of making their own decisions and have the b*lls to take responsibility for their actions.

I do not need a nanny state to sanitize my every interaction with the outside world.