Sex as a Consumer Good - Page 2

Desidude666 · 05-30-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueneck

Interesting discussion. I only would add that what is used to sell products isn't so much sex as lust. Lust, envy and vanity would be the three deadly sins most engaged in by advertising agencies and gobbled up by American consumers.

If you buy a car because the husky-voiced woman said it would turn you on, you kind of deserve to get stuck with an overpriced gas guzzling klunker. Myself, I would prefer you were slapped around and stuffed in the trunk.

I don't think Americans are obsessed with sex as much as they are obsessed with want. It's become an addiction.

Actually, if you ignore the half-naked ladies, the cars do look good there. It depends. I think you see what you want to see. If you want to see nudity and sex around you, you can always prove your point with 1/100000 of the data out there. Ultimately as long as the women in the ads are not being sold, it should be fine because there is a general understanding between agencies and yourself, that they're selling commodities and nothing more.

Burning Giraffe · 05-30-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by william the wierd

What is idealistic in aiding the lazy and conniving?
As to Utopian are you aware of the witticism from 1968, "Stalinism is More's Utopia with a Human Face"?
Considering that the average special operator is 5-7 inches shorter than me (Yeah, I asked. Jesse Ventura is legit but he was a beanpole when he served and one of the tallest men ever admitted into ground or subsurface special operations.) could you define manliness? The three toughest guys I know of looked like wrinkled teenagers as adults: sgt. York, Audie Murphy and another guy you most likely wouldn't know.

I think Idealism leads people more in inaction than to action. Idealism is usually based on fantasy and no matter how much you believe in fantasy, there is really nothing you can do about in real life. So, you sit around doing nothing. People who believe deeply in forced equality do not count ambition as a value and therefore believe that anyone, regardless of their work ethic, deserves the same standard of living, the same health care, etc. That is idealism.

Manliness can be defined as the assertiveness, confidence, self-reliance, and honor peculiar to the male gender varying only as it relates to various cultural and environmental differences.

Burning Giraffe · 05-30-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desidude666

Morality is not a concept, it is a requirement.

Historically speaking, "morality" is an idealistic nightmare reflecting metaphysical assumptions about nonexistent absolutes. Virtue and Honor are more objective and natural codes of conduct evolved to promote the strength and ability of a people.

Desidude666 · 05-31-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

Historically speaking, "morality" is an idealistic nightmare reflecting metaphysical assumptions about nonexistent absolutes. Virtue and Honor are more objective and natural codes of conduct evolved to promote the strength and ability of a people.

Morality justifies rights. If you think it is unjustified for, say, a government to exercise your civilian rights when passing judgment in a court of law, you're in the position that justifies morality.

What you are doing is relating religion and the metaphysical non-tangible attributes to general morality. The legal code *recognizes* morality but the same court of law does not recognize Gods and Goddesses or religious myths. So in that sense, virtue, honour or codes of conduct, though might have started with supernatural context, it was all not for the purpose of justifying the metaphysical element but rather, the concretization of morality and embedding the core attributes that involve other forms of justified moral codes and the general law.

That said, the same Law that recognizes virtue, honour (valour is legally a recognizable trait that may be rewarded by a government body) and morality. But the same legal process does not recognize non-scientific elements of the supernatural.

Burning Giraffe · 05-31-2008, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desidude666

Morality justifies rights. If you think it is unjustified for, say, a government to exercise your civilian rights when passing judgment in a court of law, you're in the position that justifies morality.

What you are doing is relating religion and the metaphysical non-tangible attributes to general morality. The legal code *recognizes* morality but the same court of law does not recognize Gods and Goddesses or religious myths. So in that sense, virtue, honour or codes of conduct, though might have started with supernatural context, it was all not for the purpose of justifying the metaphysical element but rather, the concretization of morality and embedding the core attributes that involve other forms of justified moral codes and the general law.

That said, the same Law that recognizes virtue, honour (valour is legally a recognizable trait that may be rewarded by a government body) and morality. But the same legal process does not recognize non-scientific elements of the supernatural.

I wasn't talking about its relationship with gods and goddesses though, I was talking about morality's relationship with metaphysics; the absolutist, universal, and supposedly innate (or a priori) moral principles. Morality is derived from Rationalism. Not from Plato's Rationalism or Immanuel Kants Rationalism in particular, but Rationalism in general. Morality comes from the idea that Man, through reason, can grasp hold of the Forms, those mystical and ever-present truths that led Man down the right path toward "the good". That the moral truth can be categorized and defined in principles is an awkward consideration for some, who don't see anything legitimate in principles borrowed from the rational imagination and given to apply to a complex and fluid world.