Actually, my point follows rather nicely from my whole series of posts, and was firmly on-topic, since this thread has been about the effects of manipulative marketing on the society from its inception. I merely expanded the range to include the “treadmill of production” and the tragedy of the commons, which are absolutely fair game in this discussion.
Right. More weaseling.
If that’s what you wanted to discuss, then you probably should have used a better tact than disputing sarahfeenah’s initial assertion. An assertion that had nothing to do with the state of the world in 50 years.
Wait. I say “my post was on topic”, and you respond “more weaseling”. 
Are you some kind of illiterate? That doesn’t even make sense. My entire line of posts is entirely, completely, thoroughly on-topic. The 50-years number was an arbitrary fairly-distant-but-not-too-far-into-the-future span of time chosen to make a point about the (entirely on-topic) tragedy of the commons, which, I feel obligated to point out for the slow, once again, was COMPLETELY ON-TOPIC.
No it wasn’t. You specifically refuted a point by Sarahfeena, then changed the subject when she handed you your ass. On top of that, you tried to pin an opinion on her that she never stated. It’s all there in black and white for the world to see in post 101.
Except that her post exactly reflected the attitude which I was talking about in post 76, which led to the whole discussion, and which, I appear to be forced to pint out again, was very much on-topic.
Nice spin. Except, of course, that her post reflected no such attitude.
Yes, it did.
I can do this all week, dude.
I just hate it when other people buy things that I don’t think they need.
That’s glib.
It was a hell of a good point, though. If you’re going to complain about other people’s business, why be surprised when they tell you to mind your own?
You’re the one who started babbling about people not caring what the world be like in fifty years, so suck it up, buttercup. If you don’t like people challenging you, a public message board is the wrong place to spout your opinions.
And fifty years into the future? Yeah, that’s precisely what I’m saying. The world will be completely different from your expectations.
Wow.
What, saying shit that you can’t back up? Hell, I bet you could go longer than a week.
Please quote some of Sarahfeena’s opinions for me. I doubt that you’ll be able to do so.
No, it wasn’t. It was reducing a whole, complex, complicated discussion into one dismissive idea that really misses the point of the whole thread in the first place.
Oh, i have no problems being challenged. I’m quite capable of handling myself, and I’m certainly not going to start thinking that rampant consumerism at the expense of the commons is a wonderful or sustainable idea, just because a couple of internet cranks snipe at me because they receive a biweekly paycheck from interests who make a living marketing largely useless shit.
^Note: ON TOPIC^
Also, the only way the world will be different will be if we crap up the commons so much that we are forced to change, and if that happens, my predictions will have come true anyway.
Sure. She (and you, I note) refused to engage the idea of the tragedy of the commons or of the treadmill of production (NOTE: ON TOPIC) by hand-waving the whole thing away because she gets a paycheck (or, in your case, because your P&G friends get one).
I also “refused to engage” the idea of the tragedy of the Chilean earthquake. That doesn’t mean I’m hand-waving the whole thing away because I get a paycheck. Seriously, that is one stupid fucking thing to say, and you damn well know it is.
I asked for a quote of an opinion. You failed. Neither I nor Sarafeena made a value judgement one way or another. We were talking factually about what happens in an economy when someone buys a product.
You’ve been defending consumerism all the way from post #6, without actually intellectually engaging any real idea in the thread, and now I’m supposed to believe you don’t care SO MUCH that you keep visiting this thread and posting drivel? Are you trolling me? Your very first three posts were nothing but hand-waving.
Now that the world can see that you’re backing off the monumentally stupid “refuse to engage” bullshit, we can continue.
-
Again, please provide a quote demonstrating Sarahfeena’s opinion. This is the 3rd time I have asked.
-
Please show a quote from me where I defended “consumerism”. I defendied marketing, and specifically disagreed with the idea of artificial demand.
I’m not refusing to engage anything. I’ve been working at my job where I help companies sell useless shit so I can get my paycheck and put food on the table for my kids.
As Labrador Deceiver points out, I’m not making a value judgment. I’m making a statement that moving money around keeps the economy going.
You have not once engaged the entirely on-topic ideas of the treadmill of production or the tragedy of the commons. Both of these ideas are pertinent and central to this thread. Do so now, or shut up.
Sigh, since you’re such a pedantic snot, here you go:
Both of these quotes are trivial responses intended to dismiss the entire idea of the treadmill of production (or, more accurately, to refuse to even consider it), since, obviously, the only important thing to consider is your own paycheck, and not any potential consequences inherent in constantly ramping up both demand and supply of useless bullshit which will haunt the planet for centuries.
Oh, right. It’s all about the supply-side, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Again with the dismissiveness, huh?