It's Your Time You're Wasting by Frank Chalk

[Alexander III]

Why do we need advertising in order to buy something? Your argument makes no sense. I want a beer I'll go into a pub. I need a present I’ll go online. I don’t need a fat man constantly screaming in my face in order to try to sell me car insurance at every turn. If I want insurance I’ll get it.

This is without even getting in the morality of advertising which is abhorrent at best.

But thats is what I am saying, we choose to live in society and it has pros and cons. You being able to walk to the pub and buy a beer is a pro. Having men realize that you need that beer, and having them realize that they must convince you to buy their beer instead of anothers beer, is a con which will always come with that pro.

I mean even before curency there was still advertising. There was a clever farmer who realized that he needed "you" to trade your crops for his sheep isntead of anothers sheep and so he advertised.

You cant have consumer goods without advertising. And as the mediums and technology involved in augmenting consumer goods, and giving your more choice and lower prices increase, so to will the advertising technology increase.

Sure we have way more advertising now than in the 1920's, but nowadays a man living in scotland can buy new zealand lamb everyday, something which was impossible or only for the super rich, in the 1920's

[Vonny]

That would be nice and it would be another review to add to Neely's, but I don't know if you would enjoy a novel which is primarily historical in content and, although the themes have a general application, is set within the context of English life since WW11. However, the story does move between various countries because of the UK's international status and it also attempts to throw some light on the arcane legal system in England.
You might care to check it out on Amazon if you haven't done so already.

hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to Charlotte's Web."?

Well clearly the solution is just to stop reproducing, I'm doing my part.

Same here. The worst problem we have is too many people.

And I dont know, but I see something which makes me proud, especialy in my generation. It is always a strugle against the ego which seeks to drown you and the world with you, but if you stay afloat there is somethign to see. And , there are studpid people, and dumb and ignorant and selfceneterd, but by dam, they have all cried at one point in their lives, they have all felt as I ahve felt at somepoitn in mylife, more so my generation, and beacuse of that, I could never condem any.

Two points. 1) whatever belongs to us, we tend to hold closely, no matter how awful it is. As an analogy: I have some terrible, terrible memories from my childhood, but some of my memories I relive at times and almost get a sense of comfort from them. I asked I counselor why this is, and she said it's because those memories are mine, they are my stuff, and I survived those times. A lot of the comfort to me is that I went through it and I'm in a "better place" now. Still, I wouldn't wish those experiences on another child. 2) If this generation is a disaster, it's not because the people are inherently deficient. Even if a child is born addicted to crack, we have sympathy for the child. The same 3rd grader who cusses his teacher, and refuses to do his homework, would have been respectful if he'd been in a classroom in 1950, so we do have compassion for them. And they are going to suffer from their "dog eat dog" world, and not being able to write their own names, and that is sad. If life ever becomes real again, and they have to endure privations, they are going to really struggle, and they'll probably eat each other, which is sad.

Look, we are all part of society because it has benefits which we enjoy, and we must tolerate it's lack of benifts. Advertising comes with consumer goods. If you dont like advertising, stop buying things. Ofcourse you can't do that, so instead of complainign about the drawback of advertising remember how hard your life would be if you couldnt buy things anymore. Instead of getting choleric at each advertisment, be gratefulle everytime you buy something, that is is there for you to buy.

But if you really can't tolerate advertising, stop buying things.

Because I enjoy this computer doesn't mean that its production didn't fill the ocean with a toxic chemical that will result in the extinction of whales. If I could give up this computer now and save the whales, would I do it? In a heartbeat! If I give up my computer, will it save the whales? Nope, because there are too many people in this world who do not care about whales. Even if every person who cares gave up all of their consumer goods today, it would not change the fate of the world, that it's headed for, one bit. It's possible that if all the people who cared gave up everything we could hold off the inevitable for two weeks maybe, but devastation is still going to come. Therefore, we might as well use all the styrofoam cups we want and toss them in the street. Because this world is too full of people who don't care at all, and think it's cute and funny to destroy everything.

And the whales will all die, which breaks my heart. But I have to live and make use of what's available to me, the life that I've been given, and I'm thankful for what I have - my computer. It allows me contact with the world without having to listen to the many "confused" (how can I say it politely?) and loud, strident voices in it.

Plus, you can't kill off the entire environment, without taking down people as well. Even the rich.

And advertising is taking down kids, changing their brain chemistry and corrupting their values. Just because it isn't going away doesn't make it good.

It's great we can get New Zealand lamb, but you can't buy a piece of halibut now that isn't full of mercury. And before long there won't be a fish left in the ocean at all.

[Alexander III]

Two points. 1) whatever belongs to us, we tend to hold closely, no matter how awful it is. As an analogy: I have some terrible, terrible memories from my childhood, but some of my memories I relive at times and almost get a sense of comfort from them. I asked I counselor why this is, and she said it's because those memories are mine, they are my stuff, and I survived those times. A lot of the comfort to me is that I went through it and I'm in a "better place" now. Still, I wouldn't wish those experiences on another child.

Because I enjoy this computer doesn't mean that its production didn't fill the ocean with a toxic chemical that will result in the extinction of whales.

1) that does account for many, but not all- what about a man like Heathcliff, who's only satisfaction war burning down everything he held dear?

2) ok sorry to play this card, but I have seen a lot more of the world and of people than you, and you seem far to pessimistic, I mean maybe it is like that in your town, but how can you say your town is representative of your state, or even country or world when all you know is your town?

3) If your cared more about the wales than your enjoyment from this computer you would not have bought one, simple and plain and honest.

I am against the way they raise chickes in farms, so I only buy free range eggs. I am sure I could use your argument and say well il buy any eggs afterall one person buying free range eggs wont solve the problem. But I actualy do care about this problem, and I dont care if it is just me I shall never buy anything but free range eggs - and if your truley cared about the wales more than the enjoyment from your computer then you would not buy one.

To be honest I care about whales, but do I care about them enough not to buy a computer? No. At least be honest, and dont be a hypocrite.

[Vonny]

1) that does account for many, but not all- what about a man like Heathcliff, who's only satisfaction war burning down everything he held dear?

2) ok sorry to play this card, but I have seen a lot more of the world and of people than you, and you seem far to pessimistic, I mean maybe it is like that in your town, but how can you say your town is representative of your state, or even country or world when all you know is your town?

3) If your cared more about the wales than your enjoyment from this computer you would not have bought one, simple and plain and honest.

I am against the way they raise chickes in farms, so I only buy free range eggs. I am sure I could use your argument and say well il buy any eggs afterall one person buying free range eggs wont solve the problem. But I actualy do care about this problem, and I dont care if it is just me I shall never buy anything but free range eggs - and if your truley cared about the wales more than the enjoyment from your computer then you would not buy one.

To be honest I care about whales, but do I care about them enough not to buy a computer? No. At least be honest, and dont be a hypocrite.

I buy free range eggs because it does have a direct effect on a chicken. But not buying a computer is not going to change one thing in this world. I do limit my impact on this world, but if I wanted to save it I'd have to commit suicide because it's impossible to live without an impact today. We don't have the world we once did, you live with what you have or you don't live. Most animal species that I cherish will go extinct in my lifetime and there's not one thing I can do to change that, because there are very strong forces, that are not about individual people, that are going to make sure of it.

And I care much more for whales than I do a computer. It's like I tell my mother, "I know my own heart. You are not going to convince me that I'm rotten, because I know I'm not."

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Vonny;1090873]hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to [I]Charlotte's Web/I]."?/QUOTE]

Charlotte's Web is almost certainly more enjoyable but I don't think it's as informative, and whereas Charlotte's Web is sometimes read by adults as well as children, Pro Bono Publico is strictly for grown ups.

[Vonny]

hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to Charlotte's Web."?

Charlotte's Web is almost certainly more enjoyable but I don't think it's as informative, and whereas Charlotte's Web is sometimes read by adults as well as children, Pro Bono Publico is strictly for grown ups.

Okay, your book is for me then, you've got my review coming!

[Emil Miller]

Okay, your book is for me then, you've got my review coming!

May I give you a small word of advice? Please don't judge the book on the first couple of chapters, which are designed to set the scene for what follows. I think you will find that it gets more interesting from a character perspective as it progresses; at least that's what it sets out to do.
Your opinion will be very welcome and I'm sure from some of your previous posts that the general tenor of the book will find you in agreement with some of the situations that occur as the story develops, although I hope the ending isn't too distressing for you.

[Vonny]

May I give you a small word of advice? Please don't judge the book on the first couple of chapters, which are designed to set the scene for what follows. I think you will find that it gets more interesting from a character perspective as it progresses; at least that's what it sets out to do.
Your opinion will be very welcome and I'm sure from some of your previous posts that the general tenor of the book will find you in agreement with some of the situations that occur as the story develops, although I hope the ending isn't too distressing for you.

Usually, the only material that I find distressing is if it's gratuitous, or if someone is saying or doing something that I know they are doing on purpose to try to distress me, and I'm sure your book doesn't fit either of those categories.


I think the changes in society can be traced to about 1920 and a man named Edward Bernays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

The BBC showed this documentary in 2002, this link is to part one: http://www.archive.org/details/AdaCu...uryoftheSelf_0

The documentary is long, in four parts. I've only watched the first half hour or so, myself, but it was enough to understand what's happened to us. Even the first 2 minutes explains a lot.

Edward Bernays did things like... he figured out how to use the women's liberation movement to start women smoking and sell them cigarettes. He made a news story (more effective than advertising) which was fake news actually, and put cigarettes into the hands of suffragettes and made public smoking acceptable for women.

He realized that the masses could be more effectively controlled under a democracy than by putting people under marital law, by using propaganda (advertising) which he called public relations, and by making consumers of them. He used his cousin Sigmond Freud's ideas. If people are obsessed with satisfying their instinctual drives by trying to buy things they don't need, it keeps them busy so they aren't a threat to those in power.

And then people are obsessed with being their own unique individual selves now. Men and women pull apart from each other, children pull from adults. It used to be that children took pride in being a useful member of their family. When I was 5 years-old, my job was to set the dinner table, and that made me feel necessary. Making kids work builds their self-confidence and not just their egos. But most parents want kids to be free to pursue their own goals, to be "free spirits."

And we worship youth so that the mothers want to model after the children, instead of the other way around. And children learn from other children, both in school where there are so many kids the teacher is lost, and from child celebrities and advertising. Children ought to be with adults some of the time, learning from adults, not solely learning from other children. Well - can't remember how much of this was from Edward Bernays.

[Emil Miller]

Usually, the only material that I find distressing is if it's gratuitous, or if someone is saying or doing something that I know they are doing on purpose to try to distress me, and I'm sure your book doesn't fit either of those categories.

No, the violent ending to my book is in no way gratuitous. In fact it's intended to sum up the whole sequence of events and the last sentence is the final blow that puts it all into perspective.
Your information about Edward Bernays is interesting and in line with what I have long been aware of, but it's worth remembering that the BBC, whose documentary on Bernays you mention, is itself a pretty subversive organisation that ironically uses similar methods to those of Bernays in pursuit of its liberal agenda. It's not for nothing that George Orwell named room 101 after an actual room in the BBC's Broadcasting House.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why?

Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, it’s worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards today’s world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that today’s world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise today’s world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. I’m not old, I’m thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I don’t lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.

Of course, there are still intelligent and pretty young people. Fortunately. (I wrote "most of the teenagers": "most of" means "la plupart", does it?)

I agree, Emil, the problem is not new, even though its consequences are more visible today.

What does the prettiness or ugliness of students have to do with anything? You just sound like that stuck up smart kid who turned his nose up at everyone.


You ever notice how every generation is so much worse than the previous one, yet society still progresses? Hmmmmm. I wonder how that could be? It seems there are a couple options. One is that each generation is indeed worse than the last, and society progresses anyways. The other would seem to be that everyone looks at their own past with rose-colored glasses. My childhood was great! School was a ton of fun! I wasn't mean to my teachers! Therefore, our generations was so much better! My dad went to school in the seventies (one of those better generations, you know), and students could leave whenever they wanted, students smoked pot in the stadium while they should've been in class, and students were just as, if not more, disrespectful to the teachers. I'm sure he's just misremembering, though, because our generation is so much worse.

[B. Laumness]

What does the prettiness or ugliness of students have to do with anything? You just sound like that stuck up smart kid who turned his nose up at everyone.


You ever notice how every generation is so much worse than the previous one, yet society still progresses? Hmmmmm. I wonder how that could be? It seems there are a couple options. One is that each generation is indeed worse than the last, and society progresses anyways. The other would seem to be that everyone looks at their own past with rose-colored glasses. My childhood was great! School was a ton of fun! I wasn't mean to my teachers! Therefore, our generations was so much better! My dad went to school in the seventies (one of those better generations, you know), and students could leave whenever they wanted, students smoked pot in the stadium while they should've been in class, and students were just as, if not more, disrespectful to the teachers. I'm sure he's just misremembering, though, because our generation is so much worse.

A quick reply, because it’s not easy for me to express my thoughts in English, and because a forum on the Internet is not the adequate place to express such thoughts, which would take hundreds of pages.

Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly.

The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I don’t care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? It’s a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.

I don’t reason in years, I reason in centuries. I’m not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. I’m not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.

It won’t be useless to refer to philosophers, essayists and writers who expressed these thoughts better than I do in my poor English. Read Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Lewis Mumford, Christopher Lasch, Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Ellul, etc. I’ve seen you read Notes from the underground: do you remember what the author said about the “crystal palace”? Read Hannad Arendt, read what she said about tradition, knowledge and authority: it would be a good point for this topic about the education. Will you follow my suggestions? Or are you going to say that I sound like a child? It’s true there are neither learners nor teachers on a forum. The Internet is a marvellous progress for the importance and the meaning given to the speech...

[Drkshadow03]

In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.

Ah, those glorious Middle Ages where it was despicable to be rich, a time when any impoverished viking who needed some money and women only had to come and steal it from the unsuspecting peasantry (no hand-outs for them!), a time when Noble landlords could help the indigent in a true act of social welfare by impressing them to work their land and exploiting their labor in exchange for protection much like the mafia does today. And instead of that crude lethal injection of our times they had such humane ways of dealing with criminals!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly.

I was in France about 6 weeks ago for the first time. If I noticed you were from there, I would have probably understood better, because Paris, at least, seemed to be jam-packed with miserable, depressed, smoking, moping people who looked to be one step away from killing themselves. It's not a good look, I agree.

The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I don’t care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? It’s a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.

Man, you put a lot of words in my mouth there, didn't you? I'm from America, so OF COURSE I'm a dirty capitalist. Did it ever occur to you that when I said "progress" I didn't mean technologically or commercially? No, it didn't. You just jumped to your arrogant stereotypes.

I mean progress in terms of medicine and social issues (racism, the acceptance of gays, the acceptance of different religions, etc.). And I will even throw in technological advances, too. As far as I know, this idea that technology is dumbing down our society and turning everyone into zombies is not supported by fact, but by largely anecdotal evidence, i.e., the good ol' days.

I don’t reason in years, I reason in centuries. I’m not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. I’m not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.

Oh, I get it. Since you're a nihilistic, miserable human being, everyone else must be too. Since you don't want to live longer, no one else does. If only everyone could be as intelligent and insightful as you, to realize how horrible the world is.

I'm not an optimist by any means, but I have no time for that overly-pessimistic, whiny attitude.

It won’t be useless to refer to philosophers, essayists and writers who expressed these thoughts better than I do in my poor English. Read Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Lewis Mumford, Christopher Lasch, Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Ellul, etc. I’ve seen you read Notes from the underground: do you remember what the author said about the “crystal palace”? Read Hannad Arendt, read what she said about tradition, knowledge and authority: it would be a good point for this topic about the education. Will you follow my suggestions? Or are you going to say that I sound like a child? It’s true there are neither learners nor teachers on a forum. The Internet is a marvellous progress for the importance and the meaning given to the speech...

Why would I say you sound like a child?

If reading all that stuff will make me think the way you do, I'm not sure I want to.

[OrphanPip]

Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly.

Oh boy, where to start. First, we have an issue here of myopic classism, you assume that everyone has access to the same quality food, that all children have the same opportunities. What can a child do about their diet if all their parents can afford is Kraft maccoroni and cheese every day of the week. Where do they get the money to participate in sports activities, which are not so readily available in dense urban setting without the expensive infrastructure of organized sports. Maybe it is not even safe for them to play outside. Not to mention the nonsense of assuming video games make children stupid, or are any less valuable as a form of entertainment as any other.

The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I don’t care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? It’s a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.

Again, as myopic as the views you are criticizing. Things do get better, you are doing the exact same thing Mutatis is doing, you are arguing for the superiority of one time over another, it doesn't matter when they are placed relative to each other temporally, but there is no difference in MM saying this time is the best of all times and you insisting that the Middle Ages were better. I certainly think this time is much better for me than any other time in history. As a gay man I am acutely aware of how much more opportunity I have today than has ever existed for people like me before. It is also nothing more than idealistic primitivism to assume that people who lived in the past were better off. Prior to the 19th century most societies were rife with infectious disease, murder, rape, and injustice. It is easy to lament the pedestrian woes of the 21st century if you want to selective ignore how bad other times have been. It seems absurd to present regressive conceptions of history as an alternative to progressive ideas.

I don’t reason in years, I reason in centuries. I’m not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. I’m not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.

Bull****, lots of ****ty art has been popular in the past, it's not a new phenomena, the only new phenomena is the greater capacity for choice and the larger audience. Marxist influenced post-structuralism does little to impress me. Despite your pseudo-gnostic claims to the revelatory powers of these observations, they do nothing to address real issues of how people are oppressed under any system, and they aren't actually providing any useful critiques. In fact, they are self-defeating by their very conception, they make no positive claims and offer no solutions. Critiquing the assumptions behind capitalism, or Hegelian historiography doesn't provide any arguments for an alternative. How would we do anything about the "capitalist system" without harming people or setting up different, and likely worse, systems of oppression. Drk rightly points out that the indentured serf was hardly more humanized than the modern human being, at least I have the freedom to change occupations and to change my residence at choice, and I can't be abused with impunity by some **** with a fancy name, whatever idealistic, biased literature about noblesse oblige says.

Post-modernist thought is useless, problems of practicality should be addressed with practical solutions. If we have agreed upon goals, providing the most opportunity for as many children as possible, then we should address how to achieve that in terms of methods and funding rather than worrying about the epistemology of the question of public education.

[B. Laumness]

Ah, those glorious Middle Ages where it was despicable to be rich, a time when any impoverished viking who needed some money and women only had to come and steal it from the unsuspecting peasantry (no hand-outs for them!), a time when Noble landlords could help the indigent in a true act of social welfare by impressing them to work their land and exploiting their labor in exchange for protection much like the mafia does today. And instead of that crude lethal injection of our times they had such humane ways of dealing with criminals!

You missed the point. I was talking about money as a value, in a moral sense. Cupidity was a sin for the Christians. That’s the reason why the Church forbade during many centuries lending money with an interest rate. The dominant, exclusive value was not money for the Romans and the Greeks either. During the Antiquity, there were pre-Bourgeois mentalities only or almost in Tyre, a city not very glorious for its arts and its laws…

Now you’re allowed to say I’m a Marxist Catholic fundamentalist.


MM, stay in your cellar. You’re used to blindness. And me, wretched man, I’ll remain in my hut, smoking, drinking, and praying for the end!


Pip, what you said that is correct in many cases:

What can a child do about their diet if all their parents can afford is Kraft maccoroni and cheese every day of the week. Where do they get the money to participate in sports activities, which are not so readily available in dense urban setting without the expensive infrastructure of organized sports. Maybe it is not even safe for them to play outside.

For the rest, you misread and draw groundless interpretations. I never affirmed that the Middle Ages were a better time. I said I was neither nostalgic nor conservative, did I? Besides, you should understand that I can’t say everything in a few lines, moreover in English. I offer no solutions, no alternatives? Do you expect to read a treatise on this forum? Did you think I could make all the necessary nuances and give all the perspectives in a small post?