Time to Rid the World of Marxists and neo-Conservatives

[atlantabiolab]

Atlanta I repeat for you, my last post.

OK, let me give you another example.

A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.

This is getting old. You have shown nothing. Your arguments are as poor as the anti-ephedrine crowd, who can show correlations of product use to deaths, but simply fail to show those important factors, such as pre-existing health problems, dosage, multiple drug use, etc.

As for what you say about what is deemed natural. What I mean is in the Functionalist sense of the word, i.e natural as unviersal, ineveitable, functional and necessary. In other words the nuclear family is not natural in as much it is a man made creation and so more natural or less natural than any type of family. It is ineveitably the `right` form of family, nor the most functional or it is necessary. This is what I am talking about.

The family is natural, for man is of nature, and it is in his nature to desire others of likeness, and with the production of children, who are in his likeness, drives the formation of a contractual obligation to promote the mutual benefit of each member. Also, private property is necessary to promote the function of man and his family, so private property is natural also.

Both ideas precede the larger idea of "state", for man formed family and obtained property prior to forming "state", but the idea of state follows the idea of "family", only in larger measure.

I am sure you will attempt to show that some tribal community, who are essentially still cavemen, do not have the concept of "nuclear family", so therefore "family" is not natural.

 

[OMEGA]

The democratic capitalists will save the world.

They check each other nicely.

\



yep, it basically capatalism with a conscience


right in the middle of the ideological spectrum


they create wealth, and create for society

where the other ends of the spectrum take, take and take

 

[Krazykat]

I give up, you don`t listen, you don`t learn and you insult me.

Truth is, is that anyone reading this will go along with my arguments more than yours. You criticise me by saying I have shown nothing, you might as well say that I am rubbish! Because you have no argument to come back at me with.

Comparing my last post to those anti-ephedrine arguments is ridicolous. How about you give a proper argument instead of insulting me.

Ok so the family is natural, so single parent families are just as natural as are homosexual ones, kibbutz and so forth? You agree with that? So a society with no nuclear family is ok right?

Society is different across time and culture, there is no natural state of man.

 

[Krazykat]

I`m posting again because I can`t get over Atlantas last post!

Originally posted by Krazykat
Atlanta I repeat for you, my last post.
OK, let me give you another example.
A company, I think called MAC who produces make up products created a lipstick. They used Naomi Cambell to front the product and when this was established it was instantly sold out. The colour was not unique, the brand itself wasen`t particularly popular but by using the supermodel it created a need or want, call it what you will. It is not consumers simply choosing products that will prosper or fail.

This is getting old. You have shown nothing. Your arguments are as poor as the anti-ephedrine crowd, who can show correlations of product use to deaths, but simply fail to show those important factors, such as pre-existing health problems, dosage, multiple drug use, etc.

WHAT SORT OF ARGUMENT IS THIS!!! IT DOESN`T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT I SAID AT ALL! IF YOU ARE GOING TO CRITISE ME, GIVE ME AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WHAT I SAY!

You argue Atlanta, that producers make products and whether they suceed or not depends simply on consumers choice.

And you just say my arguments are poor. How about saying how they are poor? When in fact I have given simple layman examples
of how marketing sells products by making people want or need them.

 

[2Thick]

Oh my.

What a life - to sit in front of a computer and argue with anonymous posters on an anonymous chat board.

Just like you. Damn, you are starved for attention!

Go out and get a boyfriend/girlfriend and maybe you can have real people give you attention.

 

[2Thick]

Your words are meaningless.

Then why are you replying as if it does matter?

 

[2Thick]

Because it matters to you.

Projection: Psychological term that describes the act of projecting your feelings onto someone else in order to prevent the stigma (attached to such feelings) from harming already low self-esteem.

 

[Krazykat]

Gonna bump it!!

 

[atlantabiolab]

I give up, you don`t listen, you don`t learn and you insult me.

Truth is, is that anyone reading this will go along with my arguments more than yours. You criticise me by saying I have shown nothing, you might as well say that I am rubbish! Because you have no argument to come back at me with.

Comparing my last post to those anti-ephedrine arguments is ridicolous. How about you give a proper argument instead of insulting me.

In stating how your argument is analogous to the anti-ephedrine argument, I am demonstrating its failings. Your only example that using a model aided in the sales of a product does not show causation for you did not factor in a multitude of variables. This is analogous to the anti-ephedrine crowd who claim that the only variable that is necessary for causation is the use of ephedrine by the victim, thus leaving out a number of other potentially causative variables, such as existing health problems, etc.

This is poor science in every manner. If you do not understand this, then you will always believe that x causes y in every thing you look at.

I am not stating that people cannot be persuaded into purchasing one product over another, for humans hold certain values, aesthetics, etc. in esteem, so finding out what certain target groups identify with, will aid in the sales of a product. But these ideas are part of the individual, and not as you claim, created by the industrialists. Man values health, beauty, honesty, trustworthiness, etc., so using these as selling aids will garner more support for your product. These values will not "wither away" if the means of production were somehow given to the people, for they are natural to man. These values aid in his existence. How well would we survive if lying were a virtue? Or untrustworthiness?

Ok so the family is natural, so single parent families are just as natural as are homosexual ones, kibbutz and so forth? You agree with that? So a society with no nuclear family is ok right?

Society is different across time and culture, there is no natural state of man.

The family is natural, and Marx and the social theorists, who claim that this is a construct of the Industrial Revolution, or other ages, are simply denying the reality that all historical records show that the familiy has been consistent throughout time. Man is a political animal, not meaning government, but of "city, state, community", if this were not true, then we would have evidence of times where man did not congregate with others, and simply existed as a sole individual. The critical theorists who think that by showing factual exceptions, such as the practice of polyandry, polygyny, etc., are denying the rule, are wrong. Even in cultures where this occurs/ed, monogamous relations and family structure still existed.

This argument is no different than saying that man is not naturally of two eyes, two legs, etc. for we can show the aberrations to this rule.

 

[Krazykat]

Have you head of this group, the name of which I cannot remember who have a system of men and women in which women marry men, have sex with the tribes warriors as when is necessary and have no attachment to the husband other than going to the funeral. I believe she raises children with no father as such.

Quoting my own post

Ok so the family is natural, so single parent families are just as natural as are homosexual ones, kibbutz and so forth? You agree with that? So a society with no nuclear family is ok right?
Society is different across time and culture, there is no natural state of man.

How about answering the questions?

Going back to the whole producer, consumer argument.


Quote from Atlantabiolab

But these ideas are part of the individual, and not as you claim, created by the industrialists. Man values health, beauty, honesty, trustworthiness, etc., so using these as selling aids will garner more support for your product.

Just a moment, so you agree that producers can manipulate people through understanding human psychology, interesting seems you have contradicted yourself, though no doubt you will disagree.

The concept of health is a concept, in parts of Africa it is healthy to be fat since this shows wealth, daughters are sent to fattening camps to show their background. Health in the way you perceive it does not exist. Health to a long distance runner is different to a pro bodybuilder don`t you think? Beauty whoa there fella! What the hell is beauty? It varies, culturally, historically, individually .................... etc etc.
As for honesty and trustworthiness I am sure that in some circles, say businessmen that in certain times they are not seen as good things. Screw the other guy, dog eat dog what have you.

Its interesting because I asked about the family because I knew what your views would be on it and got the replies I expected. Its just part of your whole right wing `liberal` views.