Discuss: Advertising

1- ShannonV on May 4 2007

So if I die in an earthquake is it my fault cuz I live in california? :(

Not at all. You choose to live in an area, you take the risk. There' snothing ridiculous about it. You weigh the odds, you make a choice. No one should have to pay anything when disaster strikes, you knew it was a possibilitiy. Where i live, flooding on the river, winter blizzards, and occassional hurricanes are the risk. I believe the risk is reasonably low, and i live with it.

If something bad happens, it ain't your problem, it's mine. I choose to purchase some insurance to cover taht contingency. Sorry Shan, it's not ridiculous, that's life. We all take risks every moment. I have compassion, but feel no guilt or responsibility.

-----

stephan

5- ShannonV on May 5 2007

ehhh.

you know i'm 100% personal responsibility, seriously. BUT it's ridiculous because, uh, where do you draw the line? there are downsides and possible disasters that could occur in ANY area, so nowhere is safe. fine. but that kind of logic is like.. when people say.. when a chick gets raped, its because she was walking around at night. she shouldnt have been doing that. her fault. which is kinda a stretch but really operates on the same logic.. that youre responsible for EVERYTHING bad that happens to you as a result of your physical location in the world. but it seems like you have to reconigze choice, or lack thereof. when you grow up in a poverty-ridden natural-disastery area you have no money you cant just LEAVE. and then when natural disasters go down, thats your fault? dude, lame. i guess that IS life, but it doesnt stop it from being ridiculous. and just going "eh, its their fault" wont accomplish anything other than maybe make YOU (a general you) feel not crappy about lacking compassion. (and it DOES seem like lacking compassion, because i think compassion is defined not by you feeling bad about it but by DOING something to help, like, if we cant see your compassion, it's worthlesS) and i'm not trying to be a dick, i totalllly know where youre coming from and i talk like that a lot, but i guess its getting to me.

lskjflajksdfk

6- Anstey on May 5 2007

There is a vast difference between an act of God and the act of a malevolent person.
Not lame at all. People, poor or not, choose where they live in this country. The fact they're too scared or ignorant or comfortable to do anything about it, I have compassion, but no guilt or sense of responsibility.

7- ShannonV on May 5 2007

oh dear jesus. the transformation is complete. i'm liberal.

take me to your "911 was an inside job" meeting, liberals. lets hug trees. i'm ready.

8- Anstey on May 5 2007

it's ridiculous because, uh, where do you draw the line?

I don't draw the line. What are you asking? Do I feel guilty when a woman is raped? No. I don't. Angry, sure. Do I feel obligated to give her money? To pay her medical bills? To put her up in a home? No. I don't. I don't blame her, but i don't thnk anyone is responsible to help fix things, except the one who hurt her and herself. On the other hand, if someone i know is ever in that position, I'll do everything i can to help them because I have compassion. There is a vast difference though between someone feelign compassion and being kind, and someone being held accountable for things that they have no stake in.

That youre responsible for EVERYTHING bad that happens to you as a result of your physical location in the world. but it seems like you have to reconigze choice, or lack thereof.

I don't think 'responsible' in the particular case is what we're talking about. certainly no one is responsible for a hurricane, an earthquake, a blizzard,.. no one has any choice about them happening. Still, once they do, they do.
It isn't anyone's fault, but then again, we aren't all obligated to fix things. In each of our lives, we do what we can, and that's it. Some of us get it worse than others.. some get it better. Society isn't obligated to equalize things

guess that IS life, but it doesnt stop it from being ridiculous. and just going "eh, its their fault" wont accomplish anything other than maybe make YOU (a general you) feel not crappy about lacking compassion.

Life is ridiculous. It's no one's 'fault' -- storms happen. It's not about 'blame' or fault. A person lives in an earthquake area, they take a risk. When that risk is realized, I feel somewhat bad, but I think it's offensive to expect society to pick up the tab. The truth is, if people die in those areas where risks are often realized, eventually, no people iwll live there, and then there will be no further risk.

(and it DOES seem like lacking compassion, because i think compassion is defined not by you feeling bad about it but by DOING something to help, like, if we cant see your compassion, it's worthlesS)

I don't think one always has to help or do something to be compassionate. The value of that compassion might not be particularly high, but, that doesn't mean a person is heartless, merely impotent to help.

and i'm not trying to be a dick, i totalllly know where youre coming from and i talk like that a lot, but i guess its getting to me.

Well. Let's just both hope you don't die in an earth quake. I'd feel bad.

-----

stephan

9- Julie on May 5 2007

Just wanted to toss into this match the point that the ad was for the children affected by the hurricane. So, with that in mind and the arguments you've already made, Stephan, lets go further: I agree with the idea of "you are where you are because (on some level) that's where you wanted to and decided to be," but what about the kids? I mean, a resident of the 9th ward may have lacked the motivation to get out of the way of the looming danger of "the big one", but what say does his/her 3 year old have in the matter? The footage from Katrina aftermath that will always haunt me was of a mother with her ~1-year-old who was limp with hunger and dehydration. I was angry at the circumstances, but knew the mom would be fine and held some level of responsibility for their situation, but the baby...

...same goes for disabled, etc.

The way I see it, yes it's important to hold capable adults responsible (and children on different levels) but we also, as human beings (not as members of a given society or subjects of a government) are responsible (NOT required, mind you) for those who cannot make such decisions for themselves.

Of course, next time I see a 12-month-old buying a Greyhound ticket to Atlantic City, maybe I'll change my mind...

10- Anstey on May 5 2007

Like i said, it's not about not wanting to help people out. Still, those adults put their kids in that situation. They shouldn't be putting their kids in a dangerous situation...and if there is a danger, they should have some contingency plan. Regardless, i'm putting this out there in a lot less emotional way than I intend it. I just don't think ti's a good idea to use tax-payer money for disaster relief. On the other hand, I do thikn people should help out and get their ass out there to help when it's needed.

-----

stephan

11- Leanne on May 6 2007

I have to say I've read this argument with great amusement, which is a most inappropriate response. Why? Because when your government (not just yours, anyone's) provides humanitarian aid to a foreign country they can put a couple of strings on it and expect to get something in return (oh, not overtly but come on, that's what happens in reality) -- but what can you get out of providing aid to your own people? Overseas: a chance for overwhelming gratitude to get you an extra vote in the UN or an extra helping of natural resources. Domestic: those lazy ignorant bastards are bleeding us dry and they're not going to be earning enough to pay decent taxes now that they're homeless.

But hey, if the government had provided acceptable levels of safety in the first place by restricting the kinds of building materials used in hurricane zones or not letting anyone live in California (I think this would be the best solution to the earthquake dramas myself) they wouldn't find themselves needing such deep pockets.

I don't mind clicking once or twice on the ads. Can you ask for some slightly more interesting ones though?

12- ShannonV on May 6 2007

Heyyy, I don't want to move! I've lived in California 20 years and never felt an earthquake. Though I have now officially jinxed myself.

13- ShannonV on May 6 2007

For clarification, there HAVE been earthquakes, just not ones that were big enough for me to FEEL, peronsally (though I have friends who have), and I must not live near a fault-line or something. Or maybe I'm so out of touch with reality I don't even notice when the earth shakes. That can't be good.