Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 26, 2006, 06:52:49 am

Title: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Rictor on January 26, 2006, 06:52:49 am
Quote
The rock star Bono has launched a new global brand, Product Red, with a share of profits to go to the fight against Aids in Africa.

Launch partners American Express, Gap, Converse and Giorgio Armani announced a range of "red" branded products.These will include T-shirts, footwear, sunglasses and a credit card.

"Here we are, fat cats in the snow," said Bono at the start of the launch, only to correct himself: "I should say winners in the snow."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4650024.stm

Godamn brilliant. A pampered millionare rockstar is partnering with several multinational corporations to sell what I can only assume will be overpriced "designer" brands, including a line of credit cards, and it's all to help the poor little AIDS-stricken bastards, living in poverty in the global periphery. And the best part, the very best part, is that the lot of them with their $600 sunglasses and mansions, made by either the labour of gulibility of others, will go down in history as selfless humanitarians.

Truly, one of the most perversely cunning marketing campaigns in history. This is the type of thing only the devil could think of, while sitting in his Madison Avenue office and grinning like a maniac. This is some sort of marketing Zen, some whole new level of deviousness. It's like watching Hannibal Lector eat a person, it's awesome precisely because it's so evil.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 26, 2006, 07:00:11 am
A 'share' of profits.

Ah, what senseless, thoughtless charity they give.

EDIT; so all they've really  promised, is to reinvest the profits straight back into their sweatshop workforce?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: vyper on January 26, 2006, 07:34:57 am
At least we're getting some interesting google ads to click thanks to this thread.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Nuke on January 26, 2006, 11:59:29 am
this is why u2 sucks.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: vyper on January 26, 2006, 12:00:33 pm
No U2 suck because they sound awful.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 26, 2006, 01:06:25 pm
From your description...it sounds like the already overpriced designer brands will be donating money to AIDs in Africa...problem with that is what?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: ionia23 on January 26, 2006, 01:09:11 pm
Certainly, because it would be preferable they gave no money at all.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Rictor on January 26, 2006, 01:45:34 pm
No, because they are using the suffering of others to sell merchandise and fill their wallets. Then, they will generously donate maybe 5% of the earnings to AIDS treatments, make out like bandits and be treated like kings. Because taking from the rich to give to the poor only works if you don't keep 90% of the money for yourself, as the middle-man. Also, because the lot of them, starting with Bono and Armani are douches of monumental proportions. Like Bill Hicks said: the only good marketers can do in this world is to remove themselves from it. Becuase charity to the dying should not be subject to corporate profit margins. Do you disagree?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 26, 2006, 01:49:39 pm
No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 26, 2006, 01:49:42 pm
From your description...it sounds like the already overpriced designer brands will be donating money to AIDs in Africa...problem with that is what?

Because in many ways this sort of lip-service is worse than just ignoring the problem; it creates this sort of ideal that, here is this problem, and we've set the absolutely maximum we're willing to do as being just slightly more than bugger all.  It's actually devaluing the crisis; now middle classed kids can buy sunglasses with a 120% markup, and feel free to disregard the problem because they've 'done their bit'.  I mean, it's not any different from Pepsi brining out a special 'patriots edition' can in October 2001, with 3 cents of every can sold (collectors edition!) going to a victim support group.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 26, 2006, 01:51:32 pm
Damnit, you replied before I did. Where did the notification go? Anyway, read my post above yours please :)
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Rictor on January 26, 2006, 01:57:03 pm
No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that all recognized religions, including atheism, consider putting a single dollar in Bono's pocket a sin of the worst kind, for which there is no redemption or forgiveness. Pope Leo IV based his entire tenure on the principle of "Thou shalt pay no dividends to assholes", and IIRC the Dalai Lama issued a decree to the same effect.

edit: also, what aldo said. I don't know about you, but the suffering of million is maybe not the right thing to make a buck, or a million, off of.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 26, 2006, 02:04:50 pm
No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

The problem is that it's not just xxp or nothing; it's a sticking plaster solution that encourages people to believe they're donating more than they actually are, and assuages any sense of guilt they may have at actually giving bugger all to the actual people.  It's just like how the National Lottery (in the UK) has hit general charity donations; because people look at the 'good causes' part of the ticket price, and ignore the whopping great chunk of that pound going to Camelots coffers, so the pound they would have given to charity becomes some small percentage the lottery allocates to build a new opera house for working class single mothers or some rubbish.

 It's not like people aren't only going to buy this stuff because 'it's for charity' (although arguably thats worse - why not just give that money all to charity?) and the charities are getting xx they wouldn't want.  this is people taking the money they would or could have given, and spending it on themselves, using the tiny percentage cut as an excuse for their selfishness (if you're not going to donate, fine, but don't be so bloody shady and claim you do it all via your purchase of Bono-branded merchandising).
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Ulala on January 26, 2006, 02:41:07 pm
Hm, interesting points from both sides.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Dough with Fish on January 26, 2006, 02:48:28 pm
Bono = biggest douche ever? You be the judge (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst)
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: ionia23 on January 26, 2006, 02:56:47 pm
Well, sure, one way to look at it is the suffering of others is used to move merchandise (example, that self-centered piece of crap Chumbawumba album "Starving Children Sell Records").  This is the voice of the cynic.

Another way to look at it is that the suffering of others can be alleviated by the shopping needs of the wealthy.  This is the voice of the misguided idealist.

The smartest way to look at it is this:

"The socio-economic problems of Africa cannot be solved by merely throwing money."

This is the voice of the truth.

Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 27, 2006, 12:35:27 pm
I can't be the only one who thinks we should just let Africa burn, can I?

I mean, we tell them to wear condoms and they think we're trying to put a ****ing voodoo infertility curse on them. They gang-**** AIDS infected hookers on a Friday night.

Then they have 15 kids and sit around whining about not having enough food. Here's a ****ing clue: Disease and mortality rates would fall if you STOPPED HAVING HUNDREDS OF KIDS! And there'd be more food.

They should just forcibly sterilize them with chemical attacks. That'd solve everyone's problems.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 27, 2006, 12:40:34 pm
I can't be the only one who thinks we should just let Africa burn, can I?

I mean, we tell them to wear condoms and they think we're trying to put a ****ing voodoo infertility curse on them. They gang-**** AIDS infected hookers on a Friday night.

Then they have 15 kids and sit around whining about not having enough food. Here's a ****ing clue: Disease and mortality rates would fall if you STOPPED HAVING HUNDREDS OF KIDS! And there'd be more food.

They should just forcibly sterilize them with chemical attacks. That'd solve everyone's problems.

Ah, anon.  The voice of being dropped on your head as a baby.


Repeatedly.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 27, 2006, 01:01:59 pm
Tell me I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 27, 2006, 01:21:31 pm
You're wrong.

Better?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: vyper on January 28, 2006, 02:00:51 am
Educate the people.

kthxbye.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 09:49:44 am
They've been trying to do that for the past 20 years. But the stupid ****s apparently can't grasp the concept that their culture is what's killing them.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: TrashMan on January 28, 2006, 10:19:54 am
Am I the only one who thinks An0ns view has some turth/merrit to it?

I mean, if they breed like rabbits and can't feed the x childern they have, why on earth do they go for the X+1+1+1+1' th child?

Education is one thing, idiocity is another.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: karajorma on January 28, 2006, 11:20:32 am
Cause when you have very high infant mortality (even without starvation) then putting all your eggs in one basket by only having 1 or 2 kids is the fast track to extinction.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 28, 2006, 11:22:25 am
Am I the only one who thinks An0ns view has some turth/merrit to it?

I mean, if they breed like rabbits and can't feed the x childern they have, why on earth do they go for the X+1+1+1+1' th child?

Education is one thing, idiocity is another.

Hmm.  Would be a mite more effective if you had spelt 'children', 'truth', 'merit' and 'idiocy' correctly, methinks.

Anyways, if you want to blame someone for Africa having too many kids born, blame the Vatican; they're the ones pushing the anti-birth control 'every sperm is sacred' agenda over there.  Perhaps the last Pope liked the idea of rampant AIDS thinning population growth or something.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: vyper on January 28, 2006, 12:09:04 pm
Educate the people.

Kill the missionaries.

Better?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 28, 2006, 12:18:45 pm
Educate the people.

Kill the missionaries.

Better?

How about

Cook the missionaries
Feed the people
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 02:26:20 pm
Kill the people,
Kill the missionaries,
Build an airport,
Surround it with a super-mall.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 28, 2006, 02:31:07 pm
Except Africa is, by the majority, not Christian. You can't blame the pope on this one.

And anyway, the deal is in Africa, like karajorma said: you need lots of kids, because lots of kids die. it's also still a mostly agrarian society, so in order to grow food, you need workers, and what's a better labor pool than your own children? The only problem is that they're not producing enough food to feed their kids, so once they die, they still need people to work the farm, therefore, they have more children.

While an0n's view may be more "morally uplifting" in the sense that you're transferring the blame from everyone who should be helping them, to the people themselves, thus saying that they can all go to hell because it's their fault and as thus they deserve it, it's not the right view.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: karajorma on January 28, 2006, 02:33:15 pm
Except Africa is, by the majority, not Christian. You can't blame the pope on this one.

You'd be surprised how much clout the catholic church has over there.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 02:34:45 pm
Sure it is, UT.

If you stop helping them, the mortality rate will sort **** out. Infertile people will **** just as much as fertile people, but have less kids, so they'll be more likely to be able to feed them.

AIDS kinda throws it outta whack a little, what with it's indescriminate killing, but eventually things will sort themselves out if you just let the excess starve.

Darwin wins again, Africa stops starving and all it costs is the lives of a few hundred million people whose net worth is about -$3.50/person.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Unknown Target on January 28, 2006, 02:47:20 pm
I could say a few pointed things about an0n's character, but I won't.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 02:53:03 pm
The simple fact is that we can't fix the problem, and by donating food and water and **** we're just prolonging it and upping the final death toll.

But if we spend the next 10 years watching Africa slowly depopulate itself, 20 years from now they'll have an actual economy and no more starvation.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 28, 2006, 02:58:54 pm
I could say a few pointed things about an0n's character, but I won't.

He only really does it for the attention, anyways.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 03:01:47 pm
Of course I do. What's the point in posting at all if not to get people to read it.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 28, 2006, 03:09:26 pm
Of course I do. What's the point in posting at all if not to get people to read it.

The existential pleasure of self-expression?














Hmm.  Maybe not.  :D
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: BlackDove on January 28, 2006, 06:27:00 pm
You're thinking mastrubation.

Anyway... I'm for that cooking part.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: icespeed on January 28, 2006, 10:13:15 pm
Funny thing: Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." in response to Judas saying that some chick shouldn't pour perfume on JC's feet cos it was so expensive; they should give the money to the poor instead.

so go ahead, give money to the victims of the world, but it's not gonna make any difference, really.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Grey Wolf on January 28, 2006, 10:25:49 pm
No...but 5% is better than 0%, even if it is clothed in scumbaginess, don't you think? If you were dying, would you rather recieve 2,000 dollars for your treatment (when it really costs $10,000), or nothing?

And don't forget; 5% of their sales is a LOT of money. Not as much as the other 95%, but it's still a lot.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that all recognized religions, including atheism, consider putting a single dollar in Bono's pocket a sin of the worst kind, for which there is no redemption or forgiveness. Pope Leo IV based his entire tenure on the principle of "Thou shalt pay no dividends to assholes", and IIRC the Dalai Lama issued a decree to the same effect.

edit: also, what aldo said. I don't know about you, but the suffering of million is maybe not the right thing to make a buck, or a million, off of.
Making up facts really helps your argument.

I agree with your general premise, but there's no reason to strive to be an asshole while doing it.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: an0n on January 28, 2006, 10:35:15 pm
I figure they might as well rape the cause.

I mean, someone might as well benefit from their suffering.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 30, 2006, 04:49:36 am
Funny thing: Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." in response to Judas saying that some chick shouldn't pour perfume on JC's feet cos it was so expensive; they should give the money to the poor instead.

What a selfish wankpot;  "oh, let's let the baby starve, because I want lilac scented feet".
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: copiae on January 30, 2006, 08:22:13 am
The simple fact is that we can't fix the problem, and by donating food and water and **** we're just prolonging it and upping the final death toll.

But if we spend the next 10 years watching Africa slowly depopulate itself, 20 years from now they'll have an actual economy and no more starvation.

What exactly do you think will happen 10 years from now so that the trend will be presumably completely reversed by 20 years?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Goober5000 on January 30, 2006, 09:20:49 pm
Funny thing: Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." in response to Judas saying that some chick shouldn't pour perfume on JC's feet cos it was so expensive; they should give the money to the poor instead.

What a selfish wankpot; "oh, let's let the baby starve, because I want lilac scented feet".

Everybody around them at the time had the same reaction. :) But it's important to see where he was coming from.  Think of it this way:

It's God.

On Earth.

In the same room as you.

So what do you do if you're face to face with God?  What she did was give him the most valuable thing she had on hand: namely, her perfume.  So he commended her, because it was a deep and meaningful act of worship.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Mefustae on January 31, 2006, 04:34:23 am
So what do you do if you're face to face with God? What she did was give him the most valuable thing she had on hand: namely, her perfume. So he commended her, because it was a deep and meaningful act of worship.
I can just picture it...

Woman: Should I bathe your feet in this perfume, lord?

Jesus: F*** yeah. Bathe my feet, ho!
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on January 31, 2006, 05:10:44 am
Everybody around them at the time had the same reaction. :) But it's important to see where he was coming from.  Think of it this way:

It's God.

On Earth.

In the same room as you.

So what do you do if you're face to face with God?  What she did was give him the most valuable thing she had on hand: namely, her perfume.  So he commended her, because it was a deep and meaningful act of worship.

**** worship, I'd rather save a baby. 
 
In all seriousness, my first reaction was, quite literally, 'selfish dick'.  I mean, come on.  He could at least have some degree of modesty; Judas - bloody Judas - is the one recommending giving to help others?!  Would a 'cheers, but others need it more' not be a tad more holier-than-thou?
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: pyro-manic on January 31, 2006, 08:47:01 am
So what do you do if you're face to face with God?

I'd tell him to pull his ****ing finger out and start doing something useful for once...
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Goober5000 on February 01, 2006, 10:59:46 am
**** worship, I'd rather save a baby. 
 
In all seriousness, my first reaction was, quite literally, 'selfish dick'.  I mean, come on.  He could at least have some degree of modesty; Judas - bloody Judas - is the one recommending giving to help others?!  Would a 'cheers, but others need it more' not be a tad more holier-than-thou?

See, but in this case Jesus is "holier than thou", which means he deserves it more than the poor people. ;)

In all seriousness, Jesus himself said that you will always have the poor with you, which could mean either 1) giving to the poor is futile, or 2) you can give to the poor any time you want.  (Probably the second one is what he meant.)  However, Jesus was only on earth for 30-odd years, which means that mankind had a very limited opportunity to interact with him.  So they had to make sure they made good use of it.

I'd tell him to pull his ****ing finger out and start doing something useful for once...

The problem is that God works through people (at least for tangible things, like interactions with society).  So if things aren't getting done, it's because Christians aren't doing their job. :nervous:
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Martinus on February 01, 2006, 12:12:13 pm
I don't know how good an argument that is Goober. According to the book he was willing to and did end his life in order to save mankind which kind of seems a bit strange when you think that he was unwilling to make a much less ominous, selfless act by allowing someone to use their money for the benefit of those who were worse off.

Also, someone that powerful and benevolent doesn't need to be worshipped.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Goober5000 on February 01, 2006, 02:26:57 pm
I don't know how good an argument that is Goober. According to the book he was willing to and did end his life in order to save mankind which kind of seems a bit strange when you think that he was unwilling to make a much less ominous, selfless act by allowing someone to use their money for the benefit of those who were worse off.

But those are two different areas: spiritual vs. material.  His death benefited mankind spiritually and eternally, while giving to the poor only benefits mankind temporarily.

Giving to the poor is good - God commands it in many places.  But giving to God is better, because he's, well, God.

And in any case the particular situation with the perfume wasn't a choice between giving to the poor and giving to Jesus, it was between giving it to Jesus vs. saving it for its intended purpose (to be used on a wedding night, but that's a whole other layer).  The people around the woman disapproved of what she did, and they thought she was throwing it away.  They were thinking, "If you're going to throw it away, throw it to the poor" which is completely not the attitude you should have if you're giving to the poor, or anyone for that matter.

Quote
Also, someone that powerful and benevolent doesn't need to be worshipped.

It's not a question of "need", it's a question of "deserve".  Think of an Olympic athlete who trains for years to get a gold medal.  Doesn't he deserve that gold medal?  Now think of a God who created the universe, created mankind, and then went above and beyond that by dying for a creation that rebelled against him.  That is deserving of worship.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: aldo_14 on February 01, 2006, 03:22:49 pm
Not wishing to get into a religousitily type arguement, but if you view Jesus as the well-meaning but ultimately rather deluded leader of a cult, rather than actually being the son of God sent to earth, then the whole perfume on feet rather than money to poor isn't all that defensible.  A bit of a 'let them eat cake' type moment, really.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Goober5000 on February 01, 2006, 06:43:19 pm
Not wishing to get into a religousitily type arguement, but if you view Jesus as the well-meaning but ultimately rather deluded leader of a cult, rather than actually being the son of God sent to earth, then the whole perfume on feet rather than money to poor isn't all that defensible. A bit of a 'let them eat cake' type moment, really.

Oh I definitely agree with that.  It all hinges on what you believe about him.

EDIT: In fact...
Quote
1 Corinthians 15:19

If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

In other words, if Jesus isn't who he said he is, if there's no hope of eternity, then Christians are the biggest fools on the planet.  The Bible doesn't shirk from admitting that. :)
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Sigma957 on February 01, 2006, 09:11:37 pm
Well you could look it at this way,it was her perfume and it was her choice to wash Jesus's feet in it. Selling the perfume to give the money to the poor would not have helped as the religious leaders at the time were corrupt and would have keep the money for themselves and if you gave the money to them yourself what would happen to those that missed out on the money, you might have found they would probably attack you to find out if you had anymore money or they would attack those that received the money. So it would have created a bigger problem.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: CP5670 on February 01, 2006, 09:28:12 pm
Who cares? Perfume stinks anyway.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Mefustae on February 01, 2006, 09:29:17 pm
Also, someone that powerful and benevolent doesn't need to be worshipped.
Of course they do, where do you think they get their power?

Hallowed are the Ori
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Grey Wolf on February 01, 2006, 09:48:40 pm
Read the variant from the Gospel of Mark:
Quote from: Mark 14: 3-9, NIV
While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
The part in bold is what you may want to take a closer look at in your debate.
Title: Re: Sly, sly people.
Post by: Ace on February 02, 2006, 12:56:40 am
In other words, if Jesus isn't who he said he is, if there's no hope of eternity, then Christians are the biggest fools on the planet.  The Bible doesn't shirk from admitting that. :)

For once, you're right. :p

...and for good measure:

Hallowed are the Ori. Those who resist the path to enlightenment shall be destroyed.
[/size]

Seriously though, what the hell? It was a nice debate, albeit with some an0nisms until some random silly: "JESUS HATES TEH POOR! YAYS LOOK AT ME IN MEH IVORY TOWER!!11 I DONNAH HAVE TO DO STUFF BECAUSE OF THIS QUOTE!"

You might be doing damage control on it, but it's quite obvious what the first posting of it was intended to convey...