A pet hate of mine is ‘advertising’ not because it tends to annoy but because it spreads ‘misinformation’. A distinction that anywhere else would be seen as simply ‘lying’.
I think there is some thing sick about a society that is dependent on both the magic pudding concept (consumption has no bad consequences) and the need to spin to survive
How many ads have you seen that linking unhealthy products to fun/enjoyment? Exactly why do we need to upgrade our mobile phones every 10/12 months? I still use a 7 year old phone… it works. But get a new battery for it and…good luck.

Likewise cars to freedom, food products that advertise ‘low fat’ but don’t mention that the diabolical sugar content .

Cleaning products 80% are usually only a variation on a theme and most could be replaced with cheaper less toxic more basic alternatives…but where’s the profit in that?

While I don’t necessarily fear GM foods I do fear the corporation that benefits… the industries block us knowing its inclusion why? it’s inconvenient (profit reducing ) for THEM we the consumer may not buy their product! But wait, I thought that was both ‘market forces’ (‘capitalism’) and a Democratic right. Apparently those rights only apply when they conform to corporate profits ambitions.

Do you really understand the star rating/energy usage and capacity numbers?
Ask how they’re arrived at.
e.g. the front loading washing machine.
7kg capacity? Often ONLY on the least efficient program.
Cold water wash? (they say the enzymes need heat yet not in top loaders[European design its the real reason]) the machine either uses unaccounted hot water or heats… energy saving?

Informed consumers making informed choices? You think?. Even those who are CAPABLE of making ‘informed’ decisions are blocked. From unreadable/ incomprehensible labelling to uninformative brochures and ‘thick as a brick’ consumer information services.
God help the less persistent and or capable any wonder the poor/ignorant the easily led are over weight and over consumed.

Sorry examinator, I can't really support this. I can sympathise, but at the end of the day, I always try to envision the alternative.

We do have very basic advertising standards which can kick in when there is outright lying. Most of the time, the sins are of omission or exaggeration rather than outright lies.
I don't think you can effectively prevent those without going overboard and creating some bloated government nitpicking bureaucracy. Poetic licence must exist, even if it's usually misused.

I take all advertising and information with a grain of salt. If you think it's bad in Oz, try developed countries. Figuring out the reality of products is damn near impossible, all you can do is try to buy from reputable sellers.

Dear examinator,

We are literally bombarded with ads, receiving
many hundreds of commercial messages each day
from such sources as TV, radio, newspapers, and
billboards. We tend to take this deluge
for granted, but it does have certain effects.

Of course, the main function of advertising is to
encourage sales, but it also has latent functions.

Advertising creates markets where
there were no markets before, by arousing consumer
desires for items or services that were previously
nonexistent. The implication is that the economy is
not merely satisfying human 'needs,' but is endlessly
creating more of them.

The further implication is
that modern consumers are learning always to want
'more.' And, that each increment of 'more' may leave
them just as unsatisfied as before, yet seeking still
'more' in the hope of achieving greater satisfaction.
Where will this end?

Ageism against the elderly is a subtle but
pervasive effect of ads. Take for example,
television commercials. These ads almost always
present youthful, attractive, active people.

When older characters appear, they are likely to have
health problems and to be promoting health-related
devices.

Old people are almost always totally absent from
commercials about cars, appliances, clothing, or
home-care products.

Advertising, like so many other aspects of the media,
often reflects the "fountain of youth" theme that
courses through our culture in which people are
encouraged to believe that creams, soaps, lotions,
colorings, vitamins, diet pills, exercise machines,
sports cars, or whatever will make them look like
a young adult forever. As a result,we have health
problems,(anorexia, dieting), and,
cosmetic surgery obessions.

Then there is the fairly traditional gender
stereotyping in ads. Women are typically
portrayed either as sex objects or as
domesticated housewives. Glamourous models
stroke new cars, or are sent into raptures
by the odour of a particular after-shave.

Ads directed at women show women delighted
beyond measure at the discovery of a new soup,
or thrilled into ecstasy by the blinding
whiteness of their wash or toilet bowl.

All we can do is try not to be influenced
by advertising, and
be very selective in what we chose to buy.

I guess advertising for everyday consumer products is bearable because you can just ignore the ads. When I sit in front of the TV, apart from irritating me (mainly a certain homewares company), hardly any of the ads actually influence me. Maybe I'm lucky.

But misleading advertising gets bad when finance companies tout their products to gullible customers, the guys at the top make their profits and bonuses, and the customer loses his hard-earned money. This takes the cake.

Then there's the clever drip feed from technology companies that always seem to have a bug in their software that can only be fixed "with the new improved upgrade". They string people along with promises that they only partially honour, thus keeping themselves in business for the maximum time.

It's pretty hard to regulate against this stuff in a competitive market (no sooner have you shut one avenue that another one is opened by a clever marketer), but much of what's on TV borders on the immoral.

I'm with you completely on this one, examinator. It's a real no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree with TRTL. I think there's quite a lot that government could do to reduce the harm done by advertising. I'm sure that eventually environmental, health and social problems will escalate to the point of forcing governments into taking a tougher line anyway, as has already occurred with cigarette advertising, for example.

Some further government bans which I feel would be of benefit are:

Alcohol advertising - would help reduce the road toll, domestic violence, public health costs, public nuisance offences, and much more.

Junk food advertising - would help promote healthier eating which would improve general health levels and reduce public health costs.

Advertising that sexualises children - would help reduce the development of image problems and eating disorders and give children back their childhood.

Highway advertising - would reduce visual pollution and driver distraction.

None of these bans would be overly complex or difficult to implement and enforce. We've all come to accept and appreciate the banning of cigarette advertising and likewise I think the time has come for a further reigning-in of the advertising industry.

Other advertising I consider problematic includes: car ads that glamourise speed and vehicles heavy on fuel, ads of communications products that prematurely and needlessly consign former models to wasteful obsolescence, ads for air-conditioning, swimming pools and Macmansion-type housing, pharmacuetical ads and ads for slimming fads and cosmetic surgery. And no doubt I could soon think of many more without much difficulty.

I think it's time we the people, through our elected governments, got a whole lot smarter on the issue of advertising, and stopped allowing faceless corporate executives and marketing gurus free reign to inflict on us any fad that takes their fancy, and in any manner they please, as we currently do.

We have regulations which outlaw lies in advertising.

We have an advertising oversight panel and standards board.

But no one can protect the uselessly gullible from their own folly.

If you want to have a whine, send your specific complaint to the

http://www.advertisingstandardsbureau.com.au/pages/page38.asp

imho, if it ain’t busted, don’t waste time fixing it.

The standards of expectation will be based on the common one, that of a “reasonable person” but sometimes those who complain are beyond 3 SD from that presumption.

Foxy, Bronwyn and others,
Too true folks.
In the context of the 'bogan' debate many people are influenced by what is in the ads 'whiter white' the association of fun happiness with junk food. "Coke" are past masters of this but nothing is mentioned about the 12teaspoons of sugar in each bottle. Any wonder why the more vulnerable have no idea of nutrician etc. Child mothers who can't cook et al.

The net result of all this is adversely impacting our health care budget like smoking Col and his ilk would scream nanny state, caveat emptor etc. But I would suggest that "misinformation" spin is the problem. In many cases the undereducated/undiscerning are the target of these ads they do the most consuming of these types of products. Leaked literature from one company showed that the poorer suburbs are the biggest consumers of their unhealthy products.

To me ads should as cigarettes claim (sic) they are after market share not creating new markets.

I would suggest discretionary products should have an extra tax to pay for their inevitable consequences.
e.g. Maccas should be taxed for both medical purposes and waste stream cleanup. Booze should cost more and the extra to health costs.

Instead the bottlers fight tooth and nail to ensure accessible to children. and that recycle fees like in SA don't go any further.

It seems to me that business should be able to sell their products but should be responsible. To me if a product can't be produced for a price that allows for responsible amelioration then perhaps it shouldn't be on the market.

If as consumers we have to be responsible why then should purveyors not be like wise?

As for the cost argument …rubbish! Consider their packaging and advertising budgets.

Dear Bronwyn,

Once again, you totally nailed it.
I only wish I had your talent.

Dear examinator,

Can I give you a hug?
You dear man, are one in a million.
I'm thankful to have you
as a poster on this Forum.
You've raised such great threads,
with so much food for thought...
I hope that you'll keep posting for
a long, long, long time.

Examinator
“In the context of the 'bogan' debate”
re
“Child mothers who can't cook et al.”

I am not responsible for their slack morals, their bogan parents are.

I realized a long time ago, we all make choices, that some retarded morons make bad ones is not something I am required to accept responsibility for. I am more concerned with ensuring some bureaucratic half-wit, who could not hold down a job in private industry, is not in a position to make decisions which might impinge on my personal rights and discretion.

“I would suggest discretionary products should have an extra tax to pay for their inevitable consequences.”

I recall, back in the sales tax days of old, chocolate bars were taxed as “confectionary” and therefore, “discretionary” but cooking chocolate was taxed as a food product and thus, essential.

Typical of bureaucratic double-speak and double-standards.

Grandiose pronouncements to taxing “discretion” are inherently flawed by the very definitions.

“Instead the bottlers fight tooth and nail to ensure accessible to children. and that recycle fees like in SA don't go any further.”

That has nothing to do with advertising. For many years now, the cost of cleaning beer bottles has been so high, largely due to draconian Health Standards regulations which bottlers are forced to comply with, that “light-weighting” of glass bottles has developed to make “one-trip” bottles more affordable.

You cannot have it both ways, forcing product suppliers to conform to higher standards but deny them the right to promote / profit from their product.

That is the unacceptable face of the Nanny State.

“It seems to me that business should be able to sell their products but should be responsible.”

They are, if they wish to have a viable business in the future.

“as consumers we have to be responsible” and can choose not to consume that which we do not see as either value or healthy.

“As for the cost argument …rubbish! Consider their packaging and advertising budgets.”

They pay the advertising budget,

my taxes carry nanny regulations…

I have better things to do than buy a third rate nanny.

I have always thought that much advertising borders on the immoral as it raises everyone's expectations to an unattainable level. We are brainwashed to think we deserve something or that we are somehow disenfranchised if we don't have the latest or the newest. If even thought that Peter Foster who was convicted of misleading the public over the attributes of a certain tea that he was marketing was no worse than some of the claims made by well known manufacturers of well known household products. I am always suspicious of companies that claim their product is "scientifically proven to ......" or "doctors recommend...." They of course offer no formal recognition to any data.

I have three VCRs on which I automatically record everything I want to watch on a commercial station. I can then zap the advertisements when replaying. It saves so much time too. "60 minutes" is only about 44 minutes. I can also use the remote mute if watching "live"

Some advertisements do inform to an extent, and availability is probably the main thing, but if I want to buy any expensive item I get the advice of someone who hires a product, particularly electronic equipment, and that gives me an idea of serviceability. If I bought a car, I would talk to my local mechanic. I get advice from people that don't have an axe to grind. If supermarket items are advertised profusely, I will avoid them because I know the cost of the advertising goes onto the product. I am reliably informed that the contents of a hair spray can, for instance, only constitutes a very small fraction of the sale price. The rest is marketing. That of course goes for all cosmetics, soap powder, cleaners and dietary supplements. I never read advertisements in the print medium either, although I might miss out on the odd special, as I "horse trade' over most things I purchase.

With a bit of effort it's reasonably easy to avoid much of this irritating intrusion into one's life, but advertising obviously must work, otherwise people wouldn't be infected by it.

I fully agree Bronwyn. So much basic commonsensical stuff could be done to improve the advertising regime, without us a becoming a nanny state.

In the meantime, we all know that we should treat all advertising with a big grain of salt, that everything needs to be confirmed or clarified and that the espoused benefits of buying most stuff is at least only part of the story, is mostly exaggerated or misleading and is sometimes complete trollop.

Most advertising is avoidable. You don’t have to cop it on the teeve, in newspapers or on OLO. Just don’t look at it!

Jeez I hate going into a shop (such as the workshop where I went to get new tyres for my car recently) where there is some obnoxious commercial radio station blaring out manic advertising for about 50% of the time…that you just can’t escape…and totally crap music for the other 50%!

Regarding billboards; I noticed yesterday while driving back into town that most of the billboard advertisements were impossible to fully take in in the brief second or so that you have to look at them and be able to read anything that is written on them as you drive past. They can indeed create a quite considerable distraction. But then, I found that it was very easy to just not look at them.

Oops, my earlier post should have said "developing" countries, not developed.

As far as advertising goes, I really do feel quite immune to it.

I know people dispute these things, and point out the subconscious level and so on... but when I look at my possessions, I can't see that I favour any brand. The things I have bought don't appear in advertisements most of the time.
Of course, I see advertisements, but I really do tend to just ignore them. It can be done.

In relation to younger viewers etc - I guess I take a middle ground here. I think any and all cigarette advertising should be banned. A product that is addictive has no place being advertised, it's not a level playing field.
We can talk about different scales of addiction, etc, children finding cola addictive and so on... but I don't buy that. Nicotine is an addictive drug.

Everything else... is fair game. I feel pretty ambivalent about banning junk food advertising during children's programming. On the one hand, I don't like rules for rules sake, but I can see that this could really generate some positive effects for society, so I guess I'd support that, even if I wouldn't support more blanket restrictions for advertising in general.

Foxy

"Dear Bronwyn, Once again, you totally nailed it. I only wish I had your talent."

Thank you, Foxy. You have any modicum of talent I might possess in spades, and much, much more! I agree with your comments regarding examinator's threads. They're great. They have us all digging deep I think.

Col

"I realized a long time ago, we all make choices, that some retarded morons make bad ones is not something I am required to accept responsibility for. I am more concerned with ensuring some bureaucratic half-wit, who could not hold down a job in private industry, is not in a position to make decisions which might impinge on my personal rights and discretion."

You're in fine arrogant form again I see, Col. What's happened to that more decent side that we all caught rare glimpses of in some of the lighter threads over the festive season? Not packed away for the year I hope, only to be brought out and dusted off next C/mas. In my mind, I'm still holding onto that refined image of you at Foxy's party - resplendent in black tie, complimenting the host and reciting your poem! :)

snake

"I have always thought that much advertising borders on the immoral as it raises everyone's expectations to an unattainable level."

Spot on. Such great comments from such a lowly and reviled creature! Quite apart from the immorality that you point out, is the environmental degradation and resource depletion being brought on by the wasteful sea of consumption that advertising creates.

Ludwig

"Jeez I hate going into a shop (such as the workshop where I went to get new tyres for my car recently) where there is some obnoxious commercial radio station blaring out manic advertising for about 50% of the time…that you just can’t escape…and totally crap music for the other 50%!"

Same here, with a passion. You should have picked up the obligatory waiting room mag while you were about it and got the full hit of crap advertising!

In the mornings, I hit the radio button right on the hour and get 4 mins of news and off. Won't put up with the garbage on the local commercial radio.

For TV, I just love my remote, it kills all ads including SBS and ABC.No matter what they say the volume IS louder when ads are on. I pride my self on how quick I can beat the ads.

I detest ads and deliberately avoid the shops that use high presure ads. The same goes for products. Yep, and loud music keeps me out of shops.

I bought some airline tickets this morning,on line, and the airline has some type of a bonus scheme going, you know where points are given for each purchase. Well try as I might I could not get a list of the, so called, benefits so told them to stick it.

There is a mobile phone shop near here that spells phone 'fone' so I went in one day when passing and told them I would never buy from them. If they can't even spell the name of their product properly, what chance of getting decent service from the idiots.

I also detest abstract signs for toilets and weird styles of writing on signs and advertismants.

Personally, I don’t particularly like advertising and don’t take much notice of it. I do suspect some of you are giving advertising more power than it really has. I don’t think advertising per se does all that much to create demand for products. Peer comment, peer pressure if you like, is much effective in terms of market creation. My kids want IPods because their friends have them, not because they have been taken in by advertising. However, cultural advertising (placements in movies and other cultural offerings) certainly has an affect.

Advertising is more about branding. Of course that creates an advertising arms race. If the competition is spending millions on advertising, you have to do so as well in order to keep your brand in the game. Seeing a furniture advertisement doesn’t give me a major urge to go and buy furniture, but when I need a piece of furniture, I remember that one firm seems to have good prices, perhaps I should go there. Once they have me through the front door the advertising has worked.

Annoying advertisements are useful, because they attract attention and get people talking about the product. What more could a company want?

In a sense advertising positions the product in the best possible light hiding flaws, so technically it is lying. However, there are laws in many Western countries limiting what is allowed in advertising, so it doesn’t get too bad. Try travelling through India. Lastly advertising on the internet is much, much worse. I really don’t have a ready solution. The excesses can be limited, but that is pretty useless when the internet can’t be regulated. Like a lot of other things, training the populace to ask questions about the claims is the best approach.

The most dishonest advertising I've heard lately has been the rash of academics spouting absolute BS about the imminent disaster, in their field, unless bucket loads of money is poured into their research. Must be grant time.

What makes it even worse is that it is spewed out as news. Each does of course have the obligatory reference to global warming being to blame for part of the problem.

While ever we have an almost totally dishonest academia, I don't see how we can expect any better from those who actually work for a living.

Agronomist,
Thank you for your response.

My concern is not for the likes of OLO posters to us ads a little more than a petty annoyance. My fears are for those not equipped by naivety, ignorance, education or conditioning et al.

The problem with statistical analysis when imposed on people they address approximately 66% of people (Std. Dev. either side of the mean) logically mean that up to a statistical 34% of the people are constantly ignored.

My experience in crisis intervention services has given me the overwhelming view that people don't come in two flavours smart or dumb and as such I've seen good people been sucked in by ads because they for what ever reason they have no other point of reference but the media.
Look at the comments on talk back radio, hardly the most informed opinions.
For that reason I reject the ultra 'caveat emptor' approach much favoured by a number of conservative commenters.
I consider myself relatively informed and independent but trying to find real details on products is a battle for the smart and determined. I site the purchase of a washing machine as point in fact. Despite my best efforts I was duded.
IT IS THE CONTROL OF AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND THEREFORE EFFECTIVE DENIAL OF CHOICE THAT IS UNDER QUESTION.
Take the GM content in foods... manufacturers over ride our right to know on the basis that it is too difficult or might be rejected by the public. I always believed that informed pubic choice was part of democracy and market forces. What happened to level playing field?
While I have little concern about GM as such I still abhor the corporations ambitions to be the food gatekeepers and for that reason I boycott GM foods...as is my right.
It is a fact that the worlds best psychologists are not in medicine but marketing trying to manipulate consumers. See previous posts for examples.

Bronwyn “What's happened to that more decent side”

He is still alive and well and thanks you for remembering him : - )

I was responding the examinators comments regarding

“the 'bogan' debate” and “Child mothers who can't cook et al.”,

who as the initiator for the thread, has some responsibility for setting the tone.

I was merely following along with the ‘tone’ as set.

Unlike a few here, I admit I find advertising useful, especially when recently looking for a refrigerator, a Harvey Norman ad came on the radio telling of their sales special and I got the fridge I wanted at 65% the best price being offered from the other electrical retailers for the same make/ model.

Similarly, when looking for houses to buy or rent, who has not gone first to the local papers?

Although, when not needed, papers go straight from letter box to recycling bin.

But I find all those government ads annoy me because it is my taxes which I would have put to better use than on propaganda and social engineering.

Regarding consumerist purchasing, I am on the fourth phone on the same plan, I replace when it suits me or when the article is showing early signs of failure.

I buy a new computer every year to 18 months. That is likely to continue or increase but I use them to make a living (tool of trade).

I recently bought a new LCD TV to replace a CRT one which was 12 years old and the picture stopped working, my risk assessment of the old one was: too expensive to get fixed.

Examinator “the corporations ambitions to be the food gatekeepers”

I would agree but I would also observe, such gate-keeping is often the reserved ambit of government who, tend to royally stuff it up.

Imho we would be better off, abandoning regulation and researching cheaper tort proceedings.

Hi Examinator,

Great topic.
Although I can agree with you that commercials can be quite annoying, generally advertising doesn't bother me that much. I'm very good at ignoring ads when I want to and paying attention when I'm looking for something particular.

I don't think I am influenced in a negative way by it. I just think it's handy to know what is available.
I like junk mail for that reason, and my daughter loves it and looks out for it when she plans to buy something.
It can generate ideas especially when having to buy Christmas presents for a lot of people.
As a side note, I'd agree that junk mail is a waste of paper but I discovered the Lasoo site which I sometimes use.

It bothered me at first when the kids were little that TV ads target children but then it occurred to my that I could use TV ads as a tool to teach them to think critically about purchases of products e.g. to teach them to thoroughly research an advertised product they were interested in by comparing other brands and prices.

Watching advertisements was also an opportunity to teach them the difference between "wants" and "needs". Children ofter don't distinguish between the two.
You might need a new pair of pants but do you need THIS particular brand or do you just want that, and why?

So I can say that TV advertising have neither influenced me to buy something I did not need or want nor damaged my children in any way- in fact it helped them to become informed young customers (consumers?).

And yes, it's a good thing that there exists this advertising oversight panel and standards board.

Well this topic has really opened my eyes. According to one poster because I seeded a debate I am responsible for his alleged arrogant response.

And here’s me assuming that the individual was fiercely immune to anything outside his own realm of experience much less intimidation from group think.

I understood this site as being one where within the boundaries of propriety and sensitivities (both of which he has stated he doesn’t care about) one was entitled to express their views. Along with this is GrahamY’s stated view that we are all responsible for ones OWN views arrogant or otherwise.

I reject emphatically as nonsense the notion That I am responsible for the tone of anyone else's post. The nature and content of your post is yours. The argument is a bit like she made me hit her also nonsense.

For those who missed the point my objective was to raise only to discussion the topics. Sure I have views (lots of them) but they are never set in stone I illicit other views as a test to my own perceptions and change the latter where shown prudent.

I must admit that I do hold one view dear that that in order for societies not to degenerate into simply the elite and the serfs I seek to improve everybody’s opportunities for betterment. Even though in the short run it may mean some less advantaged groups get nominally more help…to each his/her need as opposed to mob rule and power groups.

Left wing? Hardly call it enlightened self interest. Consider if we didn’t have 30% of our population wallowing in their ignorance with regard to social responsibility, nutrician, health etc. there would be more money for more infrastructure etc.
How we are as a society benefited by a disgruntled underclass the proverbial time bomb. Civilizations have fallen in the past because of this imbalance.
I won't respond any further to this post.
Examinator.

examinator

I'm sure most readers here would agree with me in describing your threads and comments as thoughtful, respectful, nuanced and from the heart. They have on many occasions, as here, inspired really interesting discussions.

I'm sorry for derailing your thread by making a personal attack, albeit a relatively light-humoured one.

I don't apologise for the attack itself though. I still consider the language I objected to as unneccessarily demeaning and not at all in keeping with the previous tone of the thread.

Col's assurance that his 'decent side' is 'still alive and well' is a positive sign. His next move will demonstrate just how 'alive and well'!

Brony,
No need for appology Your comment were fair and measured.
My comment was directed else where.
I appreciate almost eveyones comments as being meaningful. There are a few who whose views when held up to scruitany tend to resort to loaded wording, insults and a dog eat dog I'm alright jack view of life et al.
To me that's the their right and only they bear the responsibility and consequences of their words.
I do note also those who genuinely want to communicate as opposed to lecture, talk down to people are prepared to apologize and ammend their words if appropriate.
Think no more of it.
More power to you

Examinator “I reject emphatically as nonsense the notion That I am responsible for the tone of anyone else's post. The nature and content of your post is yours. The argument is a bit like she made me hit her also nonsense.”

How defensive and unerringly (albeit predictably) precious of you.

As I said to Bronwyns suggestion that “You're (me) in fine arrogant form”,

following her quoting my comment regarding my decision making processes, compared to the decision making processes of the sort of “retarded morons” (my words) who are disproportionately represented among the “bpgan” (your word) and “child mothers who can’t cook et al” (your words) demographic.

“your word(s)” being where you have ‘pitched’ or ‘set the tone’ for the language in which others, including myself, might reply.

“How we are as a society benefited by a disgruntled underclass the proverbial time bomb. Civilizations have fallen in the past because of this imbalance”

Somehow, I think the future of humanity hangs on more than the viewing or not of a ‘Maccas’ ad…

You will probably accuse me of arrogance but you will find wisdom from arranging the following three words in their correct sequence

Yourself
Over
Get

Bronwyn ”Col's assurance that his 'decent side' is 'still alive and well' is a positive sign. His next move will demonstrate just how 'alive and well'”

In this, as in all contexts, my “decent side” is inseparable from the rest of me.

And lets face it, my "decent side" has not made gratuitous comments to your 'character' (regardless I might consider it 'arrogant', 'humble' or otherwise), I wonder what that means?

Ultimately my "Decent side" is an integral part of the total package, take it or leave it.

Col

Seeing as examinator has no intentions of further responding to your claim that it was his choice of language that set the tone for this discussion , I will.

You've deliberately taken one or two isolated words in an effort to make your point. When those words are seen in their full context, as all readers here have seen them, they are very obviously part of a respectful, considered and nuanced conversation. They are not in the same league at all with the arrogant and condescending manner in which you refer to the same group of people, and that's not talking one or two words, it's a sneering attitude that permeates pretty much every sentence you've written on the issue.

If others could be bothered making this point, I'm sure they'd agree with me. Most of them have given up long ago and accept your arrogance as par for the course. I did too until Foxy's thread threw a different light on that perception. One glimmer of light though won't survive long when a closed mind seems determined to snuff it out!

"And lets face it, my "decent side" has not made gratuitous comments to your 'character' (regardless I might consider it 'arrogant', 'humble' or otherwise), I wonder what that means?"

Granted, not on this occasion at least, which I do appreciate. I was never wading into this on my own behalf though, I was objecting to the arrogant way you were referring to your fellow humans, who may not have been born with the same advantage or ability as your good self, but who nonetheless deserve to be spoken of with a certain level of respect.

I was not making 'gratuitous' comments on your character for the sake of it. It was merely my attempt to object to your arrogance with some degree of humour. Next time, I'll probably dispense with all of that and revert back to direct and blunt criticism. That seems to be the way you like it I think Col.

Col (cont)

By the way, I'll be the first to admit that some of my posts at times probably could be described as arrogant too. The difference between you and me on that score though, is that I'm aware of it and try to temper it as much as possible, whereas you seem to thrive on it and deliberately cultivate that type of persona. I'm not sure why that is. I guess only you could answer that.

I think people forget some of the value and free stuff in life that is paid for by advertising. This forum for instance. Or the news sites I read. Billions of dollars go from advertising budgets of companies back into free services for the community. It's a rort on our part if you're ignoring the adverts.

I mean who really even registers anything in response to a coca cola or Mcdonalds advert? We're getting free entertainment that cost a lot to make, while someone for whom the message is intended (Someone who hasn't heard of McDonalds perhaps) is paying with their attention. It's Great!

The new generation are happy with this arrangement; Everything should be free and I don't mind ignoring the visual pollution or giving up my privacy seems to be the attitude. Personally I like my privacy so I don't enter competitions or post my life on the internet, and I like my movies not being compromised by product placement. BTW: If you get rid of adverts on TV, the shows will become the adverts. Whoops already too late if you've ever seen ACA.

Bronwyn,

I'm interested Bronwyn, you have a long list of things that shouldn't be advertised, but how do you define advertising? What medium? It could be very difficult to police.

But if you want to fall back to just TV adverts, I suggest a PVR or a mute button. Though I hazard a guess there's only one TV station you watch, so why not let others have their choice as well. They are after all paying for our ABC.

Foxy,

'..show women delighted
beyond measure at the discovery of a new soup,
or thrilled into ecstasy by the blinding
whiteness of their wash or toilet bowl.'

You just described 'er indoors. A lot of people fit stereotypes, that's why stereotypes exist.

The only things I hate about advertising is...

Visual pollution.
That Harvey Norman guy that screams at me and wakes me up.
The fact that the guys who deliver junk mail don't put it in my recycling bin for me.
Popup adverts that are hard to find the close button really quickly.
That the government can waste my money in such a way.

I think I'd rather ban all government advertising than commercial advertising though.

If I had the money I'd make my own TV adverts to counteract and spoof government adverts. I'd also make bizarre cryptic adverts. It would be good to see people waiting to find out what I was advertising, and get those marketing w@nkers talking and have them all miffed when no product is ever unveiled.

Good point, Houellebecq, about the benefits.
I think that if the (health) ‘risk’ of an ad outweighs the benefit, it is ground to ban it.
E.g. we'd still get entertainment if all ads would be about tobacco.

Bronwyn (and Col),
I think that Col knows how I feel about respecting ‘the less advantaged’; I‘ve had some disagreements about this with him in the past.
Although I can accept his view and understand the reasoning behind it, I have to agree with you that he sometimes expresses his opinions in a confronting way. Not sure if it's meant that way.

I usually try to ignore people’s tone if I don’t like it and try to concentrate on the argument itself. I have to admit that I can be confronting, as well.
However, I’m ‘trying’ to improve.

It’s true that everybody should be responsible for their own stupid choices, but on the other hand it’s also true that some people have not learned and are not able to ever learn how to make the right choices because for example, they grew up in hash, abusive, or dysfunctional environments or have a mental problem.

Col, as you know, I’d like to think people are social beings and that there is help and a social network provided for these people to fall back on.
I believe that this would not only benefit the individuals but communities, too, and even society as a whole.

I don’t feel that I am fully socialist though because I can see several negatives as well, and I like many aspects of Libertarianism too.
I can’t see why a balance, a combination of both shouldn’t be possible.
E.g. we can have private organisations like Health Funds but there can be rules and regulations set by the government within these organisations.

I agree that some people might be such ‘bad apples’ that they haven’t earned any respect, but we should be careful that we blame the particular person, not the whole group (e.g. disadvantaged area group) that this person happens to belong to.

Examinator reasons that some advertised products are a health hazard such as Coke and Maccas and that the more vulnerable are damaged by it more.
He suggests that therefore these discretionary products should be taxed extra to pay for their inevitable consequences.

Col reasons that we all have the option to make the right choices.
He concludes that he is not willing to accept responsibility for the bad choices of others.

My view on this argument would be that our health system, which is paid for by all of us, needs to treat people that make the wrong choices about their lifestyle, so in any case, we pay for other’s bad lifestyle choices.

I tend to lean towards believing that it would be more beneficial for everyone if taxes go toward prevention of self-inflicted disease through education, prevention programs and banning or reducing advertising of products (such as tobacco, alcohol and all products that include transfats) that are obviously having a very damaging effect upon society as a whole, than it is to wait until people need treatment for a disease that results from bad lifestyle choices.
I’m not convinced about taxing the baddies more. It didn’t work that well for people who bought alcopops.

I haven’t fully made up my mind about this yet, as it can be hard to draw lines. Which products are proven to be the worst health hazards and isn’t almost everything we buy a health hazard in some degree? It also depends so much how much we indulge in the baddies.
For example, people who are moderate drinkers may well benefit from a little bit of alcohol and they would like to find out about new products or brands or best prices.

Celivia,
The key point to my reasoning is that we are paying more than necessary in our health system for the bad choices of those who are incapable (for many reasons) of making the right choices.
Unlike Col I don’t see the issue as taking responsibility for some one else but simply an extension of user pays. Sure there is an element of social conditioning in it but as enlightened self interest I fail to see that Col is taking responsibility for anyone but himself (freedom of choice is still in tact). My suggestion simply advocates redirecting hidden costs from the public purse to the (ab)user.
Consider the massive fines against the tobacco companies in the US these fines help to pay for tobacco associated health costs. These fines have increased the retail cost of smokes. People can still smoke if they choose but it now the cost is more equitably attributed.

The problem with alcopops tax was that it was selectively (at the behest of industry concern over their profits.) applied when it should have been across the board. You drink heaps you should contribute to associated medical costs in proportion to your habit. Why should non drinkers pay for the excess’ of others?

The political problem is that business tends to drive governments rather that the other way. THAT is where the likes of Col and I disagree on most issues

Examinator says, "I don’t see the issue as taking responsibility for some one else but simply an extension of user pays."

I see. Not a bad idea, although I have in front of me a glass of nice red :)
I probably can agree with you now that you've clarified your point. It somewhat overlaps what I said about prevention. Prevention programs cost money, and I can see how extra tax for these products could (partly) cover these prevention programs as well as contribute towards health care.

It may be off topic and I'm not meaning to start a drug debate (hold your horses, Col, hehe), but in fact, I'd like to see all drugs that are now illegal, legalised and taxed. It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug use.

I'll need to give it some more thought.

Exammy,
Oops, error.

I said, "It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug use."
That would be too good to be true :) I must've been hallucinating.

I meant to say,
It would cost tax payers less overall if the tax on drugs would cover the costs of drug PREVENTION programs, health care etc.

Bronwyn “You've deliberately taken one or two isolated words in an effort to make your point.”

Ahhhh – I think that happens quite frequently, especially when anyone quotes from anyone else’s post.

“When those words are seen in their full context, as all readers here have seen them, they are very obviously part of a respectful, considered and nuanced conversation.”

That would be based entirely upon the subjective interpretation and personal bias of individual the reader (aka ‘opinion’, as in "On Line Opinion").

“Most of them have given up long ago and accept your arrogance as par for the course.”

And I ponder, what sort of ‘arrogance’ it is for you to assume you speak on behalf of ‘them’?

“I was never wading into this on my own behalf though,’

Really ?

‘ I was objecting to the arrogant way you were referring to your fellow humans,”

So you are “wading into this” as the official spokesperson for the common good?

“I was not making 'gratuitous' comments on your character for the sake of it”

I hover, in anticipation of finding out why you are making gratuitous comments . . .

"It was merely my attempt to object to your arrogance with some degree of humour."

"Degree of humour"

that is "laughable"

“Next time, I'll probably dispense with all of that and revert back to direct and blunt criticism.”

That is your sovereign choice

Just as it is my choice, as one of those “fellow humans”, to determine the nature of any response I may care to give but

be assured, any 'opinion' I do offer will be a personal one.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else at all

But if I did, I would pre-qualify the social / political / professional / collectively identifiable sub-group in whose name I spoke.

Now we have got that out the way . . . . .

Celivia “It’s true that everybody should be responsible for their own stupid choices,”

We agree.

However regarding

“but on the other hand it’s also true that some people have not learned and are not able to ever learn how to make the right choices because for example, they grew up in hash, abusive, or dysfunctional environments or have a mental problem.”

Yes and some are not as ‘tall’ as others and there is nothing we can do about it either. We do not penalize the tall for their ‘height advantage’ over the short.

The other point is, some so called ‘mental problems’ are consequences of other bad choices, and represent a ‘freely acquired disadvantage’, rather than a natural one.

“Col, as you know, I’d like to think people are social beings and that there is help and a social network provided for these people to fall back on.
I believe that this would not only benefit the individuals but communities, too, and even society as a whole.”

Margaret Thatcher described that as “families” (including the friends), as in

“there is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families”

I know my network includes friends and family, people I know.

I have less 'connection' with some government appointed bureaucrat, supposedly there to means test me if I ever came to seek the services of any government network.

Making people accountable for their legal and personal choice in drinking or not coca cola and its consequence on their health (user pays), in terms of the provision of health services would be fine, if they had a personal choice in the selection of that health service.

However, I believe, whilst we have non-discretionary, taxpayer funded medical services, it is hypocritical for government to direct the legal choices of the voting, tax paying, electorate, who they are supposed to represent, without those voting taxpayers being given the power to opt-out of being taxed for those health services.

Of course, this view modifies slightly if the personal choice is not a legal one, viz the consequences of taking of illegal drugs.

Haha Busted Celivia. I like your thinking.

Col that whole post to Bronwyn had me laughing out loud:-) Sorry Bronwyn. I'm sure you can see the humour too though. Does anyone else picture Col looking like Kramer off Seinfeld?

Houellebecq “Col that whole post to Bronwyn had me laughing out loud:-) Sorry Bronwyn. I'm sure you can see the humour too though.”

Well that is a good thing, personally I try never to take myself too seriously either : - )

“Does anyone else picture Col looking like Kramer off Seinfeld?”

Sadly, I lack the physical height and physical ticks…

In terms of comedial personas and my physical image, I might modestly suggest more along the lines of the thinner of the Two Ronnies

Houellebecq: << Does anyone else picture Col looking like Kramer off Seinfeld? >>

Nah - Kramer's nice as well as funny. As I've said before, I picture Col as a kind of cross between Alf Garnett and Victor Meldrew - both odious Poms who are good to laugh at.

Damn, Houellebecq, am I in trouble?

Col,
The two Ronnies are hilarious. I like the “Fork Handles” episode. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz2-ukrd2VQ
in where the little Ronnie needs steps to be able to reach the shelf to get to the “O’s” - interesting.
Kramer would’ve been able to reach it without a ladder. Kramers don’t need ladders, but little Ronnies do.

As Victor Meldrew says, I don’t believe it- that it would be beneficial for society (or for families, or individuals like little Ronnies) to hand the higher ladders to the Kramers and the shorter ladders to the Ronnies.

Seems fair to me that if there is a supply of ladders to be handed out, that the short are given the higher ladders because the tall can reach high enough with only low ladders.
More fairly distributing the ladders will make a huge difference to little Ronnies’ circumstances but not so much to tall Kramers’ lives. They’ll just have one less tall ladder standing in their shed.

If Thatcher had distributed the ladders she had available a bit more evenly, there wouldn’t have been as many children living in the UK below the poverty line at that time.
It’s not like children have a choice about the height of their ladder, is it? Some are born with a whole supply of steady ladders stashed away in the shed, while others are born into a family who stack up wobbly milk crates to stand on, if they have any at all.

Wobbly milk-crate owners hardly have a network of high-ladder owners as friends and families. It's not like they can tell family to drop by and give them a tall ladder to stand on.
That way nobody in that household will ever be able to get to the O's and P's until someone drops by a ladder.

Not that Alf Garnet would care about safety and risks.
After all, he said, “We'll never have a proper democracy here until we start shooting a few people!"

"Nah - Kramer's nice as well as funny"

Didn't Kramer get into big trouble about a year ago because of a racist rant? Not making any other point, BTW.

Rob P “Didn't Kramer get into big trouble about a year ago “

Yes he did

celivia
I too enjoy a lot of work of the Two Ronnies both together and when acting separately

you have opened up a whole new world for me, I did not realize UTube had all those sketches on them,… thanks for that :- )

but we might do best to leave the jokes to them :- )

Regarding your own analogy of ladders, I always thought people had more important things to do with their lives than fixate upon ensuring “all are equal”, especially when “equality” works against the benefits of diversity and

humanity, like every other species, relies on genetic diversity, which produces the natural difference in heights (and other attributes), to ensure the continuation of the species.

“If Thatcher had distributed the ladders she had available a bit more evenly, there wouldn’t have been as many children living in the UK below the poverty line at that time.”

Bob Hawke failed in that respect and he actually promised to achieve it.. so who is at greater fault,

The politician who recognized the stupidity of pursuing the pointless and focused on doing practical good?

Or

The politician who prioritized the pointless, at the expense of real issues and failed?

That choice is a slam-dunk and I am not drawn to any oersonal gender bias.

“Not that Alf Garnet would care about safety and risks After all, he said, “We'll never have a proper democracy here until we start shooting a few people!"”

I am less amused by the Alf Garnet’s of the world.

Victor Meldrew and Alf Garnet appear on OLO more as the fetish objects of one less gifted poster, both characters were hirsute challenged (aka ‘the glimmer domes’), maybe that is the source of empathy which draws the talent challenged to them. ...