[Ax]

Originally Posted by Bryan

how?

To the first. http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...3/#post3451765

To the second:

Computer monitors are not "perceived obsolescence", new ones have better resolutions, refresh rates, response times... They're actually better for our eyes, old CRT monitors were more likely to give you migraines than current LCD monitors.

Well, I buy new shoes because mine actually wear out.

"50's consumption mania exploded"... our happiness peaked then? Lets look at what we were coming off... Starts with the "roaring 20's" a time when consumerism was just as big if not even BIGGER than now, hence the name "ROARING 20s"... Thirty's come, the great depression... then World War II... 5 years after end of WWII, the 50's come along.

In truth, I'd say that happiness in the 50s was only a cover... The cold war was beginning, Korean war, Sputnik, Joseph McCarthy...

Also, Sex is the big motivator, not commercials on TV. In fact, I don't really see clothing commercials on TV... I don't think I've ever seen an American Eagle or Abercrombie and Fitch commercial...


Also, some materials are non-recyclable and you have only two options for disposal: land fills and incinerating. And land fills can be just as bad as incinerators. And nobody purposefully designs things to not be recyclable, she makes it sound like corporations are out there purposely polluting... It's like she's living in Captain Planet.

Also some other stuff... She makes it sound like all production is adding dangerous contaminated chemicals (her words) to natural products that can NEVER EVER be renewed... Because in her model there are no renewable resources.

Also her $4.99 radio argument is complete ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. If you weren't paying for the stuff you buy, then nobody would ☺☺☺☺ing make it. The thing she doesn't realize these things are made in BULK. I mean seriously. If there was no profit then why would radio shack exist?

I got a particular laugh at her comment about kids dropping out of school in the Congo... because the kids went to school in the congo in the first place... :rollseyes: Especially when in the congo parents have to pay for their kids to go to school. If the kids need to go to work then they couldn't afford the education in the first place. The bigger injustice here is that the education is you know... not universal....

I could go on.. but it's just ridiculous...

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by Ax

If you didn't need the new and improved software then why upgrade to it? I mean if your comp from several years ago was doing just fine, then why did you upgrade it?

Mainly because the internet has become this bloated, infest, RAM hog. I mean, the large portion of websites, have video ads, large skyscraper ads, and other various junk on there which allow them to gain revenue. Basically, if you want to accomplish anything on the internet you have to eventually upgrade. Dial-up would be fine for the large portion of what the general public does which is just e-mail, message boards, instant messaging, etc. It's not really all that intensive stuff when you get right down to it, it's all the additions that make it a headache. However, because of all this extra stuff, you are almost forced to upgrade to high speed.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Ax

Also, some materials are non-recyclable and you have only two options for disposal: land fills and incinerating. And land fills can be just as bad as incinerators.

Forest, meet trees. That's, erm, the point of the video, that we need to begin looking at newer ways, including rethinking the way we produce and consuming.

And nobody purposefully designs things to not be recyclable, she makes it sound like corporations are out there purposely polluting... It's like she's living in Captain Planet.

Except that they do.

Also her $4.99 radio argument is complete ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺. If you weren't paying for the stuff you buy, then nobody would ☺☺☺☺ing make it. The thing she doesn't realize these things are made in BULK. I mean seriously. If there was no profit then why would radio shack exist?

Again, that's the point. Why are we buying $4.99 radios in the first place? Do we really need a $4.99 radio?

[Ax]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Forest, meet trees. That's, erm, the point of the video, that we need to begin looking at newer ways, including rethinking the way we produce and consuming.

Her point was that burning is bad. But she doesn't present an alternative. The problem is that there IS NOT an alternative. I wont argue that incinerating is good, it's really bad.

Except that they do.

Neither were polluting just to pollute... rather they were saving a cluster**** of cash. I mean, both cases are horrible, but they weren't polluting just to be evil.

Again, that's the point. Why are we buying $4.99 radios in the first place? Do we really need a $4.99 radio?

Lets see... emergency radios in case of power outages, storms, national emergencies. We relied on them here in GA in 1993 when the blizzards left us without electricity for over a week.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Ax

Neither were polluting just to pollute... rather they were saving a cluster**** of cash. I mean, both cases are horrible, but they weren't polluting just to be evil.

"just to be evil" ... as in, to accomplish the goal of being sinister? Hmm. Intent is one thing, but actions are equivalent. I think the dots are easy to connect here. Corporations -- which are groups of people, remember that -- thought that saving a ton of money at the expense of others' safety was okay. That's evil. This is just about always how people do things that are evil: out of the sinful desires of their hearts.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by athanatos

"just to be evil" ... as in, to accomplish the goal of being sinister? Hmm. Intent is one thing, but actions are equivalent. I think the dots are easy to connect here. Corporations -- which are groups of people, remember that -- thought that saving a ton of money at the expense of others' safety was okay. That's evil. This is just about always how people do things that are evil: out of the sinful desires of their hearts.

Ahh... but that's not how the video presented it. She presented it, in a video designed for school kids, that they were in fact polluting just to pollute...

The problem with this video is that most of her "facts" are skewed and misleading.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Nothing in that video was factually wrong. What's the problem?

The problem is there are many implications in the video that are wrong, misleading, deceptive or at the very least not the whole picture. I will give a few examples.

At about 2.5 minutes in she speaks of extraction or "trashing the planet". Wouldn't this be a good place to talk about "tree farming"? Most logging companies operating in the US plant more trees than they cut down.

She then says at about 3.5 minutes in that we have less than 4% of our original forest left. Since this is in the context of "trashing the planet" to make things can there be any other implication other than we've cut down 95% of the forest to make radios, ipods etc.? The reality is, on the land where most of our original forest was, now sits libraries, capital buildings, schools, houses, and yes, factories, stores and maybe most importantly farms. So unless we want to get rid of people....

At 5.5 minutes in she talks about B.F.R.s. Fire retardants. While I agree that we need to continue research for safer products, it's worth mentioning that thousands of lives have been saved by B.F.R.s and she makes it sound like we're idiots for using this product.

At 7 minutes in, speaking of factory female factory workers, she says, "now I ask you, what kind of woman of reproductive age would expose them selves to toxins except a woman with no other options". While this may be true for many women working it's not the whole picture. Many women are working in factories because they want to go to Disneyland and they want a new car or new computer, or they can't live with out 100 channels on TV and high speed internet.

At 10 minutes in she said after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush said go shopping when he could have suggested other appropriate things like grieving. Here is his post 9/11 speech. At 3:36 in he makes a liar out of this women. YouTube - CNN - Ex-President George W. Bush's Post 9/11 Speech

I could go on, but I think that's enough.

[Hopeful]

At 1:59 she makes the statement that more than 50% of our tax money is going to the military. Well, for the 2009 budget military spending was 16.85% - a far cry from being "more than 50%". Boy she started early!

File:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But, I find it interesting how she sets the debate by her first diagram showing a linear system when we all know that is to simplified and unrealistic. Here, I think we call it setting up a straw man. But, kids would not know what is happening.

[Ax]

You know what... we've angered the economy. We're feeling the economy's vengeance because stupid heathens wanted more than what they had... We must cut spending to only the essentials water, bread, and margaritas, yay!

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Ax

You know what... we've angered the economy. We're feeling the economy's vengeance because stupid heathens wanted more than what they had... We must cut spending to only the essentials water, bread, and margaritas, yay!

and beer.

[The wirerat]

We must have the beer indeed.
Interesting video. Interesting also would be that if someone were to make a video with either facts that discussed and uncovered BOTH sides of the issue, or maybe even skewed the other way *le gasp!* an uproar amongst "educators" and such would more than likely cause so much trouble, it'd never be shown.
I'm all for being environmentally conscious and all, but that lady went a little too far. I mean, I recycle my newspapers, we have a compost pile, ect. ect. ect. Some of the issues she brings up...its too late in our production cycles and demand to stop. I mean, think about it. If Radio Shack, for instance, just stopped making its 4.99 radios right now, there would still be millions out there. The environmental impact has already been made. Not to go and say, "ohhh man too late, i guess we might as well finish destroying the earth"...but some of the demands they make are just ridiculous.

[nolidad]

Wal-Mart is not a good corporate neighbor -- what planet are you living on?!

Well lets see:

They created nearly 1 million construction jobs by their building stores.
All of the stores they have built in this o☺☺☺☺ry over the past decade or more have been fitted with solar panels to reduce the use of carbon fuels.

Their parking lots are designed to filter the rainwater so sludge isn't sent down the line.

They were the first major retailer to hire th eelderly or handicapped to do nothing but greet people anmd then to thank people on the way out.

They have helped create a middle class inChina outside of the 8 special economic zones.

On charitable giving: After hurricane Katrina wal mart gave $15,000,000 to help the people, as well as sending nearly 50 tracto trailer loads of emergency supplies to the region to pass out. As well as having management and labort (on comapny time as well as their own time) go down and help with distribution of the supplies.

Whenever a charitable organization is approved by Wal mart (local level), not only does walmart donate many goods (and if the charity is serving food giving the food as well). But they will send paid emplyees to the event and much hour for hour th evolunteers for the organization in many mnay cases.

Have they had their problems? You betcha! In some districts pressuring people to work off the clock and other time labor law violations.

Their wages are comparable with their similar competitors (Kohls, Kmart, Target)

All in all Walmart is an asset to America

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Consumerism is evil.

I am sure bythis you mean unbridled consumerism.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I am sure bythis you mean unbridled consumerism.

Consumerism is "the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable" i.e. unnecessary consumption should be encouraged for economic growth. As such the people trying to sell you these things have an overriding fiscal incentive to get you to believe that purchasing their goods/services will make you happier. Most adverts you see feature people who're ecstatic, with the implication being that you'll be too. It's a charade.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Consumerism is "the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable" i.e. unnecessary consumption should be encouraged for economic growth. As such the people trying to sell you these things have an overriding fiscal incentive to get you to believe that purchasing their goods/services will make you happier. Most adverts you see feature people who're ecstatic, with the implication being that you'll be too. It's a charade.

Yes.

Consumerism is above-and-beyond consuming to survive or to have some measure of a quality standard of living. Consumerism thrives in a capitalist environment, because their ends are the same. Or rather, if capitalism is the tsunami, consumerism is the surfer riding the wave all the way to the top. Consumerism goes past comfort and contentment to envy, greed, materialism, and "keeping-up-with-the-Jonses".

In a sense, consumerism/materialism are the spiritual side-effects of capitalism. We must weigh the pure economic benefits of capitalism against the great spiritual cost of the consumerism and materialism that come along with it. Consumerism and contentment are competing values in a capitalistic system. The Bible says to be content, and so the Bible stands in direct opposition to what the church of capitalism preaches.