Dubstepforum.com

in what way do commercials infringe private property? if you're talking about the big signs and shit on buildings, afaik people get paid for that or give their consent in some way

nah publicity is invasive, imposible to avoid it

I hate commercials

DiegoSapiens wrote:

hubb wrote: Commercials infringe on private property aswell.

No they don't. When you own a buildig and a person asks you if they can use it for ad-space, it's a voluntary transaction of goods and services and not an infringement of property rights.

If coca-cola asks me to tattoo their logo on my forehead and I agree to it, it's a sound transaction. No property has been violated.

If private property is viewable to the public and it contains a message of any kind, commercial or non-commercial, this falls under speech rights.

When people start saying that 'they have a right not to see ads' they're saying that freedom of speech should be diminished for things that they do not like

DiegoSapiens wrote:nah publicity is invasive, imposible to avoid it

It's impossible to avoid someone calling you an asshole too, but you can hardly call that an invasion of private property.

not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

DiegoSapiens wrote:not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

So you support censorship.

Urban landscapes per definition can't be public if the buildings within said landscapes are privately owned.

It's like saying that forests shouldn't be comprised of trees.

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

So you support censorship.

maybe yes, it pisses me so much that the government is trying to fuck me with the national anti drugs plan when the city is plagued with billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, i mean im a lost cause but the kids ffs you are introducing that shit in their eyes who are you trying to fool? your are getting money from it stnuc. Advertising is based in lying and supporting the company that has more money to afford a massive propaganda. And even if you think your are so developed that you can handle publicity all this shit get stuck in your subconscious.

DiegoSapiens wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

So you support censorship.

, it pisses me so much that the government is trying to fuck me with the national anti drugs plan when the city is plagued with billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, i mean im a lost cause but the kids ffs you are introducing that shit in their eyes who are you trying to fool? your are getting money from it stnuc. Advertising is based in lying and supporting the company that has more money to afford a massive propaganda. And even if you think your are so developed that you can handle publicity all this shit get stuck in your subconscious.

You're discussing a separate issue now, different from property rights or censorship. Unless you are advocating for censorship now.

People have been drinking alcohol and smoking tobaco long before modern widespread advertisement came about. I doubt people do it because it's advertised. I think people's TASTES in those things are influenced by advertisement, but mind altering drugs or stress relievers have been apart of human civilisation since day one.

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

So you support censorship.

, it pisses me so much that the government is trying to fuck me with the national anti drugs plan when the city is plagued with billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, i mean im a lost cause but the kids ffs you are introducing that shit in their eyes who are you trying to fool? your are getting money from it stnuc. Advertising is based in lying and supporting the company that has more money to afford a massive propaganda. And even if you think your are so developed that you can handle publicity all this shit get stuck in your subconscious.

You're discussing a separate issue now, different from property rights or censorship. Unless you are advocating for censorship now.

People have been drinking alcohol and smoking tobaco long before modern widespread advertisement came about. I doubt people do it because it's advertised. I think people's TASTES in those things are influenced by advertisement, but mind altering drugs or stress relievers have been apart of human civilisation since day one.

yeah im advocating censorship for people that get corrupted with selling their properties to benefit the companies thirsty of money.
nah people didn't smoke so much before massive advertising lying to people about it and showing it as a cool thigto do even as a lot of people don't understand why do they smoke, and of course intoxication has been with human since day 0 but now is even worse people seing pretty models having success and fun because the smoke malboro, drink johney walker in a massive bar thinking that that particular brand is going to make them "truly happy" and not a cheap beer in your shitty pub with your lads,
and maybe people get the same fucked as someone 500 years ago but paying the 500th of it´s price. And iix not just drugs is everything make people constantly desire stuff to find happiness, sex bombardment, thirsty of being successful.
ahhg maybe im talking nonsense is difficult to debate this stuff being drunk and in another language

i think that what im trying to say is that nobody is paying me the damages of being affected by tons of shit , stereotypes and faux desires that get stuck in or sub conscious seven though the owner of the building get payed.
so thats why advertising shouldn't be placed in public spaces, inside your house business or whatever do what you want.

DiegoSapiens wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

DiegoSapiens wrote:not for the one that owns the building but for the one that sees iy, urban landscapes should be public

So you support censorship.

, it pisses me so much that the government is trying to fuck me with the national anti drugs plan when the city is plagued with billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, i mean im a lost cause but the kids ffs you are introducing that shit in their eyes who are you trying to fool? your are getting money from it stnuc. Advertising is based in lying and supporting the company that has more money to afford a massive propaganda. And even if you think your are so developed that you can handle publicity all this shit get stuck in your subconscious.

You're discussing a separate issue now, different from property rights or censorship. Unless you are advocating for censorship now.

People have been drinking alcohol and smoking tobaco long before modern widespread advertisement came about. I doubt people do it because it's advertised. I think people's TASTES in those things are influenced by advertisement, but mind altering drugs or stress relievers have been apart of human civilisation since day one.

yeah im advocating censorship for people that get corrupted with selling their properties to benefit the companies thirsty of money.
nah people didn't smoke so much before massive advertising lying to people about it and showing it as a cool thigto do even as a lot of people don't understand why do they smoke, and of course intoxication has been with human since day 0 but now is even worse people seing pretty models having success and fun because the smoke malboro, drink johney walker in a massive bar thinking that that particular brand is going to make them "truly happy" and not a cheap beer in your shitty pub with your lads,
and maybe people get the same fucked as someone 500 years ago but paying the 500th of it´s price. And iix not just drugs is everything make people constantly desire stuff to find happiness, sex bombardment, thirsty of being successful.
ahhg maybe im talking nonsense is difficult to debate this stuff being drunk and in another language

People do everything 'more' now than they did 300 years ago because we're economically more well off now. We can spend money on frivolousness more than we could years ago.

Here is the first known image of someone smoking tobacco, in 1590). Indulging in these things is ancient.

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I barely drink because I don't enjoy most alcohol. I'm an exception, I realize this. But it does show there is more at work here than just advertising.

DiegoSapiens wrote:i think that what im trying to say is that nobody is paying me the damages of being affected by tons of shit , stereotypes and faux desires that get stuck in or sub conscious seven though the owner of the building get payed.
so thats why advertising shouldn't be placed in public spaces, inside your house business or whatever do what you want.

When you get in the area of the subconscious, you get into the area of the untestable. No one's paying you any damages for the things you read on this forum or for the conversations you overhear from people on the streets.

Genevieve wrote:
People do everything 'more' now than they did 300 years ago because we're economically more well off now. We can spend money on frivolousness more than we could years ago.

Here is the first known image of someone smoking tobacco, in 1590). Indulging in these things is ancient.

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I barely drink because I don't enjoy most alcohol. I'm an exception, I realize this. But it does show there is more at work here than just advertising.
maybe you are right i this, but saying that advertising does´t affect in a massive way the consume is wrong imo

DiegoSapiens wrote:i think that what im trying to say is that nobody is paying me the damages of being affected by tons of shit , stereotypes and faux desires that get stuck in or sub conscious seven though the owner of the building get payed.
so thats why advertising shouldn't be placed in public spaces, inside your house business or whatever do what you want.

When you get in the area of the subconscious, you get into the area of the untestable. No one's paying you any damages for the things you read on this forum or for the conversations you overhear from people on the streets.

they are not the same. the things that we see on advertising is done by people that have studied so this shit product and the messages behind them affect you in a stronger way than anything you hear in the streets by someone you know. plus the idolization of the tv and it legitimized position makes it more impressive and appealing to us than a hippie chatin boring stuff in a bench of a park

publicity is no more invasive than seeing someone wearing shoes on the street. if you have an issue with it, it's on you.
and urban landscapes can't (and shouldn't) be public as long as you have private property

DiegoSapiens wrote:maybe you are right i this, but saying that advertising does´t affect in a massive way the consume is wrong imo

Of course it does, so what? People want to consume, advertising helps guide people to what they want to consume.

DiegoSapiens wrote:they are not the same. the things that we see on advertising is done by people that have studied so this shit product and the messages behind them affect you in a stronger way than anything you hear in the streets by someone you know. plus the idolization of the tv and it legitimized position makes it more impressive and appealing to us than a hippie chatin boring stuff in a bench of a park

The effects are exactly the same. You subconsciously pick things up, that may either be at your detriment or to your advantage and you make decisions based on that. Whether you overheard people talking about it or not. Think about how much more clever advertising would get once it's banned from buildings and bilboards too; people will be hired to talk about said products in public places. Should those people be arrested?

And you're avoiding the clear issue of censorship that you're propopsing. If buildings aren't allowed to advertise, than someone isn't allowed to wear a Coca-Cola T-shirt either, since both would be located on private property (a building, a body), but viewable in public. You would be telling people what clothes to wear.

I know that publicity is always going to exist and I'm not talking about cutting out, advertising is necessary, it´s just the way of advertising and the ridiculous quantity that we get exposed, and what i mean is that we should protect the public urban spaces the same way as we protect beaches or forest from and generally reduce advertising in places in which they shouldn't be. i think that the general overdose of images that we see everyday is very bad and corrupts a lot of people.

protect them from what? you can't compare urban environments with beaches and forests - those fall under environmental protection. banning of adverts would just be more state involvement into consumer habits, as well as the economy

DiegoSapiens wrote:I know that publicity is always going to exist and I'm not talking about cutting out, advertising is necessary, it´s just the way of advertising and the ridiculous quantity that we get exposed, and what i mean is that we should protect the public urban spaces the same way as we protect beaches or forest from and generally reduce advertising in places in which they shouldn't be. i think that the general overdose of images that we see everyday is very bad and corrupts a lot of people.

You're not saying anything new or directly adressing my points, you're just repeating your opinion, which I'm aware of. But what about wearing a Coca-Cola T-shirt on the streets and the censorship that you're endorsing?

garethom wrote:Also just realised that's the first post I've seen from Harkat in ages. Did you go somewhere bro?

self inflicted exam-ban m8

ultraspatial wrote:protect them from what?

ideology bombardment and ugliness

Genevieve wrote: But what about wearing a Coca-Cola T-shirt on the streets and the censorship that you're endorsing?

im not a fan of wearing brands in tshirts and clothes but that is a personal choice of the individual, but as an adverting method a t shirt is ok imo but a massive billboard in the centre of the city and constant adverts in all the bus stops and everything is too much