Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort
Results 1 to 30 of 95

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    {Leo9}
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.
    So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
    The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

    As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work.
    'Always'? How far back do we go?
    Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

    The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.
    But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

  2. #2
    {Leo9}
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Result of too many choices?

    "It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
    It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

    Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2




    http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
    "It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
    It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

    Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2

    http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2
    And how ist that news?
    Plus: Have they made comparative studies, to see whether those leves of contamination have risen or fallen over the last 10 years? Not too long ago, they'd have found large amounts of lead, too. Then unleaded fuel was introduced and lo and behold, lead's off the list.
    Face it: Never before in the history of humankind have so many people had the possibility to live so healthy as today.
    If people decide to stuff themselves with oversized meals and drive the 100 m from McDonalds to Walmart, then that's their choice. It's also what kills them, not a bit of PCB.
    With that I don't want to insinuate that I think PCBs and all that other crap shouldn't be taken off the market.

    I just want to say that compared to the health risks people take willingly and knowingly (i.e. not move their asses, eat too much, eat the wrong stuff, no hygiene in their kitchens) the health risks of those poisons you mentioned are chickenshit.

    Besides, as Thorne said: Choice FTW.

  4. #4
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
    So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
    The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.
    So what are you saying? We'd be better off with only one TV network? No choice at all? That hardly seems an improvement. As I said earlier, in this country you have the freedom to establish your own network if what's available doesn't suit you. Just get the money. And I agree, the non-commercial channels often have the better quality programming. Not necessarily the most enjoyable, but the better quality.

    'Always'? How far back do we go?
    At least as far back as the establishment of money.

    Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.
    Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

    But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?
    No, freedom allows me to have the choices. Just because all the choices may be bad doesn't take away from the benefit of having choices. Better to choose among three or four (or 124) bad choices than to not have any choice at all.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #5
    Never been normal
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    969
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.
    Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

    (I'm not getting into religious figures because it's too easy, and because I don't want to annoy you too much )
    Leo9
    Oh better far to live and die under the brave black flag I fly,
    Than play a sanctimonious part with a pirate head and a pirate heart.

    www.silveandsteel.co.uk
    www.bertramfox.com

  6. #6
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by leo9 View Post
    Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.
    I didn't say EVERYONE will listen to the rich over the poor. Again, I feel it's a function of education. Those who are better educated tend to put more stock into another person's words and actions than in his wealth. But given a particular issue, I think most people will tend to listen to a wealthy person rather than a poor one. Until the wealthy person screws up one time too many. Plus, once you get the mob involved all bets are off.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top