PhiloPsycho Freedom

Today I thought I'd talk about advertisement. Do we actually pay as much attention to them as we think? or are we persuaded by external factors?

To start, I thought sexual content would be good because it's used over-abundantly. As they say, Sex Sells. But is that really the case? What research has actually been showing for the past while is that women aren't as persuaded by sexual content in advertisement, which isn't entirely a surprise. Obviously, the sexual content is there to sell the product to the male viewers, right? Well, that's what they're hoping, but what research is now showing is that when there's sexual content directed at males, men pay more attention to that content rather than the product; they're more likely to remember the girl (if they're straight) than they are to remember what the commercial was selling.

For almost my entire life, I've lived without a cell phone. Only some brief stints within high school (parents requirement to use their car) and 1 year during university (no land line in the house 2nd year) did I have one. It's come to be part of my identity to not have one and I kind of pride myself on having the ability to both survive without one, as well as keep that $30+/month in my pocket.

So now, It looks like I may be getting one because my parents are buying a bundle deal and there will be one waiting for me when it comes in. There goes a piece of my identity, only to be replaced by this synthetic, mainstream, hollow piece. Great.

For those who don't know me and want to know why I don't enjoy cell phones, here are some of my reasons:

When it comes to interpreting rules or laws, there are two main interpretations for them. In law, there are several different jurisprudences (the science or philosophy of law) other than just spirit or law (for example, feminist jurisprudence), but I feel that these two are the most pervading and easily understood when applying to everyday situations.

Mother parking. Such a novel idea, isn't it? Let's have a spot right near the front of the store, beside the handicapped spaces, for expecting mothers and mothers with young children! Brilliant! So Courteous!

Indeed, it may be a courteous thing to do, but I say it's a little too selective and misguided. Misguided because since when is pregnancy a disability? Why do these women need that much more help? As well, exercise helps everyone, including pregnant women.

How about we replace "pregnant women" with overweight people? It may seem ridiculous, but in both cases it is a self-inflicted "ailment" (maybe less so for overweight people) that are both just as in need for this extra boost of help. I'm not talking about morbidly obese people, either. A guy with a big beer belly, how is he in any less need of that closer spot than a woman who chose to have this child, but doesn't want to walk that extra 50 yards? Another example would be the elderly: they did not choose their outcome (the ailments, not their age). They've just been lucky enough to survive long enough to have to deal with the problems of getting old, so we can't say they don't deserve a little extra help because these are, generally, not self-inflicted problems. If anything, they're more deserving, and yet they will have to give up these spots and park further away in order for these fertile, younger women to get a helping hand. While we're at it, what about injured people? If I have a broken left leg, I can still drive, but I have problems with mobility. Or how about people with athlete's foot? It hurts to walk!

Aside from the obvious technological problems, let's look at some different possible theoretical outcomes involved with time travel. I'm only going to focus on traveling to the past because that's the only one I can see any problems with at the moment.

To start, let's say there's something I want to change. I think it's impossible to go back and change that particular problem without causing yourself to be sent off in some sort of infinite loop. Think about it. You have this problem, you go back and you fix the problem. Simple right? wrong. You go back and fix the problem, which means that the problem, as you knew it and had instigated you to go back, no longer exists. Thus, you didn't go back to change it, causing it to never be fixed (and subsequently remain), causing you to go back again. This loop will continue on forever, since you'll constantly be altering the time-line and you will have no memory of any of the activities.

I came across a blog named Atheist Spirituality and thought that I’d write a reply to one of their posts.

First, I'd like to say that I like the quote that they took from the movie "Waking Life". Great movie, check it out - though, be prepared to take a break halfway through. It's very philosophy heavy.

Personally, I'm not entirely convinced with the idea of existentialism. I'm not for the idea that god controls our actions, but I don't believe that we have entirely free will, either. Through this post, they discuss what reality we're left with if we discard the idea that god is a guiding force in our lives. They propose that we should seize the day; Carpe Diem!

Has anyone else noticed that there's this artificial inflation going on in stores? For example, "Williams" coffee pub only has three sizes: Medium, Large and Extra Large. Yes, you read correctly; there is no small. Though their medium is the size of a small of any other restaurant, they insist on calling it a medium.

My thoughts on this are that they're trying to make us believe it's larger and, more importantly, more valuable because it's perceived to be larger than it actually is. They don't actually change anything about the size of their drinks at all, but people may not realize that their medium is actually a small and are okay with paying that extra $0.50 over other shops for their drink.