U.S. to close..

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Advertisers and marketers will say they are engaged in the critical activity of informing consumers. Capitalism is supposed to function best when consumers are informed-consumers. Advertising and marketing is one way for consumers to learn about products and services.

They're doing g-d's work .

Ya been in lockdown too long Mike

Of course that is what advertisers and marketers will say.
However their motive is to keep their own KPIs higher than their mates in order to keep their own wallet fat. They are only loyal to the paymaster.

We both know this true .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Ya been in lockdown too long Mike

On that, I have no doubt . Although my current self-isolation has involved living in a remote cabin on the shores of Lake Superior. No running water, woodstove for heat, and an outhouse for ... essentials. Excellent for quarantining though.

Originally Posted by Wotname

Of course that is what advertisers and marketers will say. However their motive is to keep their own KPIs higher than their mates in order to keep their own wallet fat. They are only loyal to the paymaster.

But this is the point Arent is making, and has been well reinforced over the last two decades of human behavioral research; humans are masters at self-delusion. ALL OF US believe we are good, descent people who are doing the right thing. All of us, even those nasty marketers and advertisers.

Originally Posted by Wotname

We both know this true .

Yes, WE know it to be true, but I'm not a marketer, and I assume neither are you. The banality of evil thesis is that we are all capable of atrocious actions -- or non-actions, which are even more common.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "Advertising and marketing is one way for consumers to learn about products and services."

You don't say :-0)?

If we keep thrashing around in the sludge of "received wisdom", we aren't EVER gonna get to considering the unintended consequences of our present social arrangements.

Is there a distinction to be made twixt "informing consumers" about (advertising) the availability of the sorts of goods the law used to call "necessaries" and "informing consumers" about (advertising) the availability of the sorts of goods exemplified by "pet rocks" - to use an extreme example from the past?

If we (via our democratically elected, representative governments) have banned the advertising of smoking tobacco, ostensibly because in a society where smoking tobacco is widespread, innumerable consequential deaths occur, should we not, for the sake of consistency, also ban the advertising of automobiles because in a society where automobile use is widespread innumerable consequential deaths occur?

Please don't give me a pat answer - I know the pat ones. I would like some innovative answers though :-)

TP

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "and we weren't doing God's work, but we raised Hell at some great parties!"

Who wuz "we" then :-)?

I do have a vague recollection of stuff like that going on half a century ago. Speaking of doing "God's work" and advertising - in the same breath, no less - does anybody read Elmer Gantry any more?

TP

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I think your looking at this through a "glass half empty" perspective.

Having lived in a few "whakadoodle" communities I've found there are a few benefits.

1) As these tend to be tropical locations subject to storms. You have local entertainment when the tv stations and internet go out. Just walk down to the local watering hole and listen in for excellent distractions to the days real problems.

2) These preppers know how to grow and make stuff out of nothing. Become friends before the collapse and you have a ready built survival community just in case.

3) Normal people are boring.



- opinion of a fringe whakadoodle (not sure if I'd put the MAGA hat people in that category though, they get their own box).

Yes, they are entertaining....we have a gringo market on Fridays...many of them show up.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes indeed. When there's a lack of leadership from the supposed leader, others usually step up.

The 42% is a scary number. I doubt (hope?) it won't be nearly that high. If it is, we may have to really build a wall, and have the Americans pay for it [emoji3].


Quick research reveals that while the 42% number is out there, it represents an improvement over recent polling. Too early to tell where the real trends are, but it has improved from the previous poll finding 50% were unwilling to be vaccinated.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/325208/...d-vaccine.aspx

I'll wait and see what happens to those 6 of 10.

Im skeptical of a vaccine that got pushed thru for moslty political reasons.

Afterall, His Orangeness suggested we could just inject/injest Lysol...

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

I'll wait and see what happens to those 6 of 10.

Im skeptical of a vaccine that got pushed thru for moslty political reasons.

Afterall, His Orangeness suggested we could just inject/injest Lysol...

Yeah, except he didn’t say that at all.

But ooook

Guessing the shot will be good to go as long as it comes when when/if Harris is president?

Also who cares? I won’t bother with a shot for something that has under a 1% chance of killing me, especially with how likely it is I won’t even feel that bad if I get it. Part of me kinda wants to go get confirmed covid so I can say I had it, even though I think I did already.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "Advertising and marketing is one way for consumers to learn about products and services."

You don't say :-0)?

If we keep thrashing around in the sludge of "received wisdom", we aren't EVER gonna get to considering the unintended consequences of our present social arrangements.

Is there a distinction to be made twixt "informing consumers" about (advertising) the availability of the sorts of goods the law used to call "necessaries" and "informing consumers" about (advertising) the availability of the sorts of goods exemplified by "pet rocks" - to use an extreme example from the past?

If we (via our democratically elected, representative governments) have banned the advertising of smoking tobacco, ostensibly because in a society where smoking tobacco is widespread, innumerable consequential deaths occur, should we not, for the sake of consistency, also ban the advertising of automobiles because in a society where automobile use is widespread innumerable consequential deaths occur?

Please don't give me a pat answer - I know the pat ones. I would like some innovative answers though :-)

TP

I think we're having two different discussions. I'm making the case that everyone, all of us, has a massive capacity for self-delusion. And than almost none of us act from a position of malice. This is where the real 'evil' in society is to be found, not in some nasty advertiser or Hitler (although they can be evil too ).

If you want to delve into specific ethical conundrums, then your questioned equivallency is an interesting one. But the same could apply to a wide range of items. Everything from booze to sailboats carry some level of user morbidity and mortality. Where is the threshold which, You Shall Not Cross!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

I'll wait and see what happens to those 6 of 10.

Im skeptical of a vaccine that got pushed thru for moslty political reasons.

Afterall, His Orangeness suggested we could just inject/injest Lysol...

If you don't trust "His Orangeness", nor the CDC, then how about all the other regulatory bodies around the world which are going through the same process of verifying the vaccine companies' research, and moving through their approval processes?

I too am critical and skeptical of such a fast process. But I've spent some time looking at the trials and data from some of the candidates. I've also read some of the reasoning as to how it happened so fast. I am more comfortable now that I was a week or so ago.

I will be rolling up my sleeve when the time comes. Although I must admit I'm happy that I won't be near the front of the line .

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

.........
...........................................

I contend that Allgemeinbildung in North America (and by now in most other places as well) is a function of advertising, whether it be formal or informal via social media, rather than of the influence of parents and schools. You will agree that I am not the only one to entertain that notion. It is clear to all of us that there is no single "evil genius" behind "Madison Avenue". It is equally clear, at least to me, that the effect of advertising is both palpable and injurious to society's good, i.e. to both Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft.

So what are we gonna do about it :-)?

TP

Thanks, TP. I'd been thinking about mentioning advertising in this thread for a day or two. IIRC, it was Nixon who brought all his advertising guys to DC from California in the late 60s.


Same old, same old.


Don't know what to do about it.


Maybe people should be born old and die young.

[TrentePieds]

Quote: "Where is the threshold which, You Shall Not Cross!"

Ah, yes. You are stating MY question far more succinctly than I did, the very question to which I'd hoped you'd suggest and answer :-)

You are aware, I'm sure, that included in the complex concept of Allgemeinbildung is the matter of ethics. And isn't that the rub? Arent was keenly aware of that, I dare say, given her ethnicity, and her position on ethics had been solidified, or perhaps inherited holus-bolus, long before the bizarre little Austrian corporal came to power. She was 19 (i.e. a mature woman) when he wrote his treatise and began to shape the events that ultimately generated the "Nuremberg Defence" that I think you object to as much as I do.

A few days ago our member Dockhead made a post in another thread pointing out that Finland (and the Baltic countries) have done very well in regard to the pandemic. It has been suggested that that is, at least in part, due to their ethnic homogeneity and relatively small populations, with all that that means for culture and Allgemeinbildung. Being a former Dane, I have some sympathy with that point of view.

And here is a nice conundrum: Can we, in fact, ever hope to establish a common ethic and a common Verhaltensbasis in a nation-state comprising many, many ethnicities? Or to be more specific: Can the men and women of such a nation ever be expected to agree on the location of the line "you shall not cross"?

I am unresolved as to that question. But it strikes me, and has done since I came here over three score years ago, that we Canadians have done quite well in that department, "Wexit" notwithstanding :-)!

TP

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Quote: "Where is the threshold which, You Shall Not Cross!"

Ah, yes. You are stating MY question far more succinctly than I did, the very question to which I'd hoped you'd suggest and answer :-)

You are aware, I'm sure, that included in the complex concept of Allgemeinbildung is the matter of ethics. And isn't that the rub? Arent was keenly aware of that, I dare say, given her ethnicity, and her position on ethics had been solidified, or perhaps inherited holus-bolus, long before the bizarre little Austrian corporal came to power. She was 19 (i.e. a mature woman) when he wrote his treatise and began to shape the events that ultimately generated the "Nuremberg Defence" that I think you object to as much as I do.

A few days ago our member Dockhead made a post in another thread pointing out that Finland (and the Baltic countries) have done very well in regard to the pandemic. It has been suggested that that is, at least in part, due to their ethnic homogeneity and relatively small populations, with all that that means for culture and Allgemeinbildung. Being a former Dane, I have some sympathy with that point of view.

And here is a nice conundrum: Can we, in fact, ever hope to establish a common ethic and a common Verhaltensbasis in a nation-state comprising many, many ethnicities? Or to be more specific: Can the men and women of such a nation ever be expected to agree on the location of the line "you shall not cross"?

I am unresolved as to that question. But it strikes me, and has done since I came here over three score years ago, that we Canadians have done quite well in that department, "Wexit" notwithstanding :-)!

TP

I don't think it's 'ethnic' homogeneity as much as socioeconomic homogeneity. To put it bluntly, an asian, black, Hispanic person living in a middle class suburbs will act like someone from that middle class suburb, not what the media portrays their ethnicity to be.

You put a black man through Harvard and you get Obama. He now has a mansion in Martha's vineyrd. The whitest thing anyone can do.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If you don't trust "His Orangeness", nor the CDC, then how about all the other regulatory bodies around the world which are going through the same process of verifying the vaccine companies' research, and moving through their approval processes?

I too am critical and skeptical of such a fast process. But I've spent some time looking at the trials and data from some of the candidates. I've also read some of the reasoning as to how it happened so fast. I am more comfortable now that I was a week or so ago.

I will be rolling up my sleeve when the time comes. Although I must admit I'm happy that I won't be near the front of the line .

There is a good reason that Vaccines normally take around 10 years to go through all the hoops, trials and checks, so how can you condense that into 10 months and still keep the same level of safety? (which is no where near perfect as it is for the current vaccines).


Add to this these are new and never tried methods of creating a vaccine so there is no history of trials to fall back on as well.


Also if you genetically modify any plant the trials and time it takes to market is huge, to ensure we do not release something into the wild that could have a catastrophic consequence, yet here we are about to try and inject the whole planet with genetically modified proteins and viruses - What could possibly go wrong there I wonder?


They simply do not know if there are any long term effects and with such small test sample sizes they really don't know if there are any short term effects - Tough luck I suppose if you are one of the people who's genetic makeup has an issue with it and it does god knows what to you - Its a bit like Russian Roulette, but with massive odds in your favour, but when jabbing a whole planet that could mean a lot of people are the unlucky ones.

[Yihang]

There is still no vaccine for sars and mers. Maybe because its not economically viable.

Perhaps covid vaccines are better funded. We may never get a sars vaccine.

Enough money and anything can happen.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by UFO

There is a good reason that Vaccines normally take around 10 years to go through all the hoops, trials and checks, so how can you condense that into 10 months and still keep the same level of safety? (which is no where near perfect as it is for the current vaccines).

Add to this these are new and never tried methods of creating a vaccine so there is no history of trials to fall back on as well.

Also if you genetically modify any plant the trials and time it takes to market is huge, to ensure we do not release something into the wild that could have a catastrophic consequence, yet here we are about to try and inject the whole planet with genetically modified proteins and viruses - What could possibly go wrong there I wonder?

They simply do not know if there are any long term effects and with such small test sample sizes they really don't know if there are any short term effects - Tough luck I suppose if you are one of the people who's genetic makeup has an issue with it and it does god knows what to you - Its a bit like Russian Roulette, but with massive odds in your favour, but when jabbing a whole planet that could mean a lot of people are the unlucky ones.

It's not fair to generalize timelines to 10 years; it took about 2 years to develop the Salk polio vaccine (where the polio vaccine is, simply put, dead junk injected under the skin) and that was in 1952/1953. Given modern technology and massive effort vaccines for something like Covid should reasonably be done in 2 years (including trials), while if this report holds up, vaccines in the not to distant future might get churned out much faster with marked reduction in safety concerns. As Yihang says, funding is everything, but the technology is there (depending on the type of virus).

If you scrape your leg on a rock, you're inserting living/dead bug parts under the skin (i.e. exposing you immune system to that).

Roughly 70% of the immune system activity is in the gut, bathed in foreign proteins and ongoing viral/bacterial struggles that it has to deal with.

We don't know the long-term consequences of driving behind airbags, it's only been about 24 years now.

Concerns about long-term effects on genetics from vaccines is as legitimate a concern as is scraping one's leg on a rock causing long-term genetic changes.

Summarizing much other stuff, if vaccines don't cause problems in the first few months (under clinical trials) then there are tens of other threats to health that people routinely subject themselves to, that people have to temporarily ignore while postulating about approved vaccine usage.

True that probably no matter what there will be rare unlucky folks. On principle, this applies to anything we do, but as this is a number game under the circumstances it's the best thing on the radar screen.