Smokin Mom,
I don't think it's unrealistic. Yes, the media is everywhere, but so are children when theyre with their parents. We have family filters on numerous technological products to prevent our children from viewing certain things. I can filter out any and all pornographic or non rated G material from my internet connection, television, etc. I can control what music CD's my child purchases. I can control what magazines they read, so on and so forth. We let our children grow up without any control in their lives, and we get a society like we have today, full of arrogant know-it-all youth that want to sag their britches down to their knee caps and spit ebonics and other slang at anybody they see. Yes, not all children are like this, but I doubt the one's with supervised structure in their life turned out this way. I didn't.
In regards to the potheads comments, I can't see them being successful either, using the term. Not with its negative connotation throughout the better part of 80-90 years. The image would have to be turned around. That's not the point I was addressing, though. My point is, as Potheads, we shouldn't be offended when someone calls us one. We are potheads. We smoke pot frequently. Why deny what we are because society has applied a negative connotation to it? And you most certainly can embrace your potheadery... embracing it doesn't mean that you dress like a hippie with a blunt tucked in behind your ear, smoke it around your children, etc etc. It merely means accepting that you are, indeed, a Pothea; in our community, it doesn't have that negative connotative that society has applied to the word.
And yes, we can agree to disagree on that point, SM... something some users seem to have difficulty doing!
Roddy-
Maybe he didn't, but I did. I saw your point and addressed it. He has the right not to do so if he so chooses. That's part of debating. Of course that route will generally bring you into a loss. I find that, in debating, addressing all points whether your argument is weak or not, will yield better results and generate better respect for your ideology by those who share it. Nobody wants a fool supporting their cause. not saying you're a fool Hammy, just making a general statement about not addressing every point in a debate.
No, it's not a constitutional right to buy candy. It's a constitutional right for the store owner to be able to carry the candy if they want to, and market it how they see fit as it is not regulated by the government like pornographic material, alcohol, and cigarettes are. Socialstic and dictatorship governments could straight up tell the store owner that he's not allowed to have the product in his store, and he has to get rid of it or face persecution, whereas it cannot be done under our loosely-democratic government. It's my right to be able to walk into that store and buy that product if that's what I want to do. Whether that product is candy, Kleenex, or a gun. Our constitution gives us that right. Let's not twist words around, my friend; afterall, This isn't politics.
Yes, you can shut a whole store down by Boycotting them. GM had to shut down a lot of plants in the last decade because of Christian activists in the US and abroad boycotted their support of homosexual marriages. No, they didnt have to shut down, but these stores are on a much smaller financial scale than what GM is, and you could most certainly drive them out of your own, if not shut them down completely (assuming its a mom and pop store without moral values [they do exist]). I'm sayingi f you have enough support from your peers, you can shut them down. That doesn't mean that you're controlling the minds of the rest of your community. It means that you are persuading enough people with your argument to interfere with the business levels the store experiences, pressuring them into getting rid of the product from their shelves, or moving it to a different location in the store. And no, the right being a store owner does not political name free speech, but using one right to walk on someone else's right is the same as trampling on someone's rights.
Yes, youthfulness is an attractant. Go google it. Go look at make-up advertisements, skin care advertisements, etc. The only products you will find that are appear to be marketed explicitly toward the elder generations, are products specifically used by them: Adult Diapers, for instance. Not saying there aren't men and women in their 30s or 40s that don't use them. Hell, it's even been an orgoing to debate behind the ethics of marketing; it's a fixation we share in our society and people jump all over it. Just saying, Poise understands that older people more frequently use their adult underwear, and as such, target them specifically. Other products, like make up and skin care, can apply to all races and ages, and as such use younger models in marketing their products. You may be a bit more enlightened than the next guy... hell, they might even be a bit more enlightened than even you! But the majority of our nation is filled with ignorance. Not many people understand marketing; more accurately, they probably don't care.
You can stop being sarcastic. I haven't been sarcastic with you. you're trying to use it as a tool to bring down the validity of my statements, because you don't think they're accurate. I'm not doing that to you, and I share the same thinking in retort. Putting a baby on the front? Come on now, man... what an absurd suggestion. I said youthfulness. Not infantness. Do you think kids are interested in being kids? No, they're kids because they're kids. The older they get, the more they wish they were adults. How many times do we see kids who are too eager to grow up and get older and then wish they had those youthful, worry-free years back, when they get older? The only advertisements you see kids participating in, are the ones geared toward kids. Your idea that we'd be seeing more kids and teens in advertisementa is preposterous. Kids and teens aren't the only one who are young. Hell, I know people who've had modeling careers well into their late 30's and early 40's because of their youthful appearance. We can argue the condition of youthfulness in advertising all we want; bottomline is, it has little to do with point in the arguement we have now reached; that being parents using the government as a buffer to what their children are subject to in their community, rather than doing the parenting themselves. You don't see Viagra being touted by Neil Patrick Harris, because he is not old. Most young people don't need viagra. What sense would it make to have him hock the product? But let me ask you this, the older people that appear in those commercials... are they 80 and wrinkled all over? Or do they have few wrinkles, and appear younger than they actually are? That's what I'm getting at when I say youthfulness. It some to do with age, but to say that youthfulness is directly impacted by age, is way off the mark. I will say, though, that I've had 3 years of post-secondary marketing courses during my secondary education, and have since backed it with certifications. Call me out of the loop if you want, though I believe I'm more in the loop than either of you are.
We won't talk about my childhood. I did not have parents who supervised me closely. I don't consider my parents to have been proactive in raising me. Yes, I turned out fine, but most of the time that is not the case. I lucked out in that I was the quiet kid growing up, and as such wasn't invited to tag along to the events other kids were going to. I watched them get in trouble due to not being supervised, and learned from their mistakes.
In short, no I don't have children, but I have a ton of close experience with raising and caring for children over the course of the last few years. I raised my ex's child for her, basically, because she didn't know how to do it. I turned her attitude around from being a snotty little brat, to becoming in angel. While she was busy playing video games and ignoring her kid, I was playing with her, answering her 400 million questions, and teaching her right from wrong, and why. The process took a couple years, but I proved my methods worked on her, and other children I have baby sat for extended periods of time for my friends, as I have free reign over disciplining them as I see fit. I regularly babysit for friends and family alike, because they know their children will be taken care of, and won't come home acting like roughians, nor will they be abused.
But no, I do not have any children of my own. In answer to your other question, no, my parents didnt know exactly what I ate, when I ate it, what I watched and did. Nobody can control what people think, only instill the right thinking patterns in those children. If my parents had, I wouldn't have turned out to be a cynical a-hole with no respect for my elders BECAUSe they are my elders, and I most certainly would not be overweight. It's just my belief that you earn respect... you aren't entitled to it because you're older than me. I probably wouldn't have been obese throughout my teenage years, had healthy eating habits been instilled in me during my youth, and I would most likely have taken them into adulthood. I have since readjusted my eating habits, and have been enjoying a much healthier lifestyle; one I wish my parents would have taught me when I was younger, instead of letting me eat all the junkfood and candy that I wanted to, and letting me eat a large snack right before bed every night. For this reason, I am very strongly for proactive parenting.
---to be continued... apparently my post is too long by 737 characters---
***Edited for language. Sorry.. told you I tend to lean toweard the profane and provocative.
