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