DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/07/2013 08:33:06 PM · #251
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

I just found a new use for guns.

Arguable a large capacity clip and assault rifle would be excellent for larger trees.


Are we supposed to be impressed? A 10-year-old could have taken that tree down with her bare hands.


Nope... You were supposed to laugh. Sorry about your impaired sense of humor! ;)


If he'd been trying to cut down a much larger tree and a couple of bullets had ricocheted back at him... that would have been funny!


Huh. So, since he owned a gun, you'd like him to have been shot?

Superb line of illogical thinking.

Honestly, I find your ignorance and attitude disgusting.

Cheers.


Let's see, who would you rather take a bullet to the face? Guys like this, who need deadly weapons to play with like toys, and who are responsible for this country's inability to make sensible gun laws, or 5- and 6-year-olds in their kindergarten class?

Logic indeed.

Oh, and the feeling (re: your ignorance and attitude) is mutual.
01/07/2013 08:52:28 PM · #252
look guns are not the enemy here...The criminals that get the guns (whether they are legal or not) are the enemy.
01/08/2013 02:17:51 AM · #253
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Maybe you should stick to talking about cars.

Stick with me, maybe read a little slower, and ponder what I'm saying. Maybe you'll get the gist of it. I'm *not* making one single all-encompassing statement here about anything. I am passing along observations that I've made from having a forty year career working with the cars I'm talking about, the people who own them, and my compatriots in the industry. Whether you want to continue to try and bust my chops by obfuscating the relevant parts of the discussion is up to you, but it's really just kind of annoying. I do feel that with my experience having been entirely in the niche of which I speak that yes, I feel that I have some veracity when I make a *GENERAL* statement

I've emboldened my previous observations below so that you may be able to understand that there are *NO* finite claims......perhaps you'll take notice this time.
Originally posted by Spork99:

So you've observed that some percentage of people that buy cars that can accelerate and handle fit some profile?

See below....
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It was an *observation* of quite a few people that I have run into over the four decades that I was involved heavily in the sports and muscle car business, from when they were new cars all the way up through the resurgence and recreation of the popular ones. It *was* a generalization, but based on the fairly broad spectrum of people in and around the industry of which I was familiar. I honestly wonder why you're arguing this point, because it *IS* a stereotype, and for good reason. Of course other people than guys looking to bolster their ego and/or compensate for some inadequacy either real or imagined aren't the only owners, but seriously.....

Originally posted by Spork99:

Plenty of people who own those kinds of cars don't fit your stereotype.

Again.....I even stated this myself, so it seems redundant, don't you think?

Oh, and by the way, it is certainly not *my* stereotype.....you're mistaken there. It's a common one. You might go to your Wikipedia, and look up the phrase "Mid-life crisis". Perhaps you'll better understand my point.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Who do you think that Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler are making the new Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger for? You ever see much of anyone driving those cars other than fifty-something guys? Have you seen the price tags on one of those cars nicely equipped? There aren't high school kids buying Hemi cars or Camaros with rat motors that have bench seats, column shifts, and radio delete. These new muscle cars have *ALL* the bells & whistles. They're tapping into the very market you're arguing with me about.

Originally posted by Spork99:

They may be a target market for the manufacturer, but people buy and drive cars for all manner of reasons.

Yes people *DO* buy and drive cars for all manner of reasons.....let's stay on track here.....

Multi-billion dollar corporations, the three automotive giants, build cars that are effective recreations of the cars from the muscle car era. You pretty much can't touch one of the "hot" ones for less than about $40K, and the killer cars......the Shelby, and the ZL1 Camaro will both go over $60K. You think there might be a stereotypical buyer they have their collective eyes on? They're not doing it for their own coolness factor.

Now really......ponder on those facts, and ask yourself.......who is really buying those cars?


You really should ponder these questions in a car thread. You're continuing to make a fool of yourself by completely missing the point. Let me explain it to you one more time...I'll try not to use any confusing words, but do consider a dictionary if you get stumped.

Manufacturers market products targeting certain types of people. That doesn't mean only those types of people buy and use those products, nor are they necessarily motivated by the reasons the manufacturers emphasize in their marketing.

It's that simple.

I bought a dishwasher for my house. None of the marketing or advertising is directed at my demographic...yet I bought one.

The "doc" on the football team regularly bought boxes of tampax. He was hardly the target market for FHP's, yet he always had a bunch in his bag.

01/08/2013 06:41:57 AM · #254
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Of course other people than guys looking to bolster their ego and/or compensate for some inadequacy either real or imagined aren't the only owners, but seriously.....

Originally posted by Spork99:

Manufacturers market products targeting certain types of people. That doesn't mean only those types of people buy and use those products, nor are they necessarily motivated by the reasons the manufacturers emphasize in their marketing.

Duh!

How many times do I have to embolden the part above before you actually read it? I've said time and time again that I made no absolute statements, and that of course others than the demographic group I mentioned will own these cars. Which part of that don't you get? Are you really that dense, or simply that annoying?
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Multi-billion dollar corporations, the three automotive giants, build cars that are effective recreations of the cars from the muscle car era. You pretty much can't touch one of the "hot" ones for less than about $40K, and the killer cars......the Shelby, and the ZL1 Camaro will both go over $60K. You think there might be a stereotypical buyer they have their collective eyes on? They're not doing it for their own coolness factor.

These companies do not spend that kind of money on a market segment without being real darn sure it's a viable endeavor.


Originally posted by Spork99:

You're continuing to make a fool of yourself by completely missing the point.

No......I'm making a fool out of myself by thinking you'll ever get a clue, follow a discussion point with one iota of sense, or ever admit that someone other than yourself might actually know what they're talking about.
01/08/2013 09:47:10 AM · #255
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Of course other people than guys looking to bolster their ego and/or compensate for some inadequacy either real or imagined aren't the only owners, but seriously.....


Thanks for making my point.

...seriously, what?

You've focused on the target marketing demographic for these cars, your anecdotes about who owns these cars and your psychological analysis of them, but not who actually buys them.

How does this girl fit in with your "Car Guy with a small penis" stereotype?

But mostly I get a kick out of getting you spun up and watching you make giant mountains out of molehills.

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 09:48:05.
01/08/2013 12:04:58 PM · #256
Originally posted by Spork99:

But mostly I get a kick out of getting you spun up and watching you make giant mountains out of molehills.

Then I think you need to review Forum Rule #12.
01/08/2013 12:56:42 PM · #257
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Of course other people than guys looking to bolster their ego and/or compensate for some inadequacy either real or imagined aren't the only owners, but seriously.....


Originally posted by Spork99:

Thanks for making my point.

How do you figure that? I'm merely reiterating what I've said multiple times.....you're just finally acknowledging it. But it's not your point......you point out below that you're mostly just trying to be antagonistic. I'm used to that from you......it seems to be your only function here on DPC, as opposed to actually participating in anything that has to do with photography.

Originally posted by Spork99:

You've focused on the target marketing demographic for these cars, your anecdotes about who owns these cars and your psychological analysis of them, but not who actually buys them.

Really???? I don't recall any analysis, per se, I *did* say that I observed a certain type of individual who was likely to have a predilection for this type of vehicle. I base that on 40 years of experience in the sports car, muscle car, racecar, high-end car business. As I stated before, that might just have some veracity as it was the particular spectrum upon which I was focused for my career. I *will* state, acknowledge again, that yes, other types of people also have these cars, but I certainly saw the majority of these folks to be of the 50-something+ age bracket.
Originally posted by Spork99:

How does this girl fit in with your "Car Guy with a small penis" stereotype?

Well, again, not *MY* stereotype, and you seem to be the one with the genitalia fixation.....I see the people who purchase(d) these kinds of cars as guys who are trying to rekindle their youth, perhaps have that hot car they never could afford before, identify with some kind of image of themselves, perhaps fulfill a lifelong dream to make that cross country trek they always wanted to a la Cannonball Run.

As to this woman with the stolen Supra, yes, she's the exception.....one of those women who likes hot cars. Did you scroll down through the comments to see how many you had to go through to see if women were involved in the discussion? I would guess not.

Oh, and by the way......my wife drove for four hours to get the limited edition supercharged Mini Cooper S that she drives. She has *always* driven hot cars since I met her 35 years ago. My girlfriend is co-owner of the LBC (That's Little British Car in case you're not familiar with the common car-guy vernacular) that we have, and drives it whenever she has about half an excuse.

So I'm not really sure what your point would be about bringing a *girl* into the discussion. I'm sure the 30-something model & TV host would be thrilled to be referred to as such.

Anyway......I'm done thinking there would be a snowball's chance of having any kind of intelligent conversation with you, much less civilized. You can go try and torment someone else, I don't feel any need to play any more.
Originally posted by Spork99:

But mostly I get a kick out of getting you spun up and watching you make giant mountains out of molehills.

That's *SO* special! Kisses!
01/08/2013 01:11:05 PM · #258
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Of course other people than guys looking to bolster their ego and/or compensate for some inadequacy either real or imagined aren't the only owners, but seriously.....


Originally posted by Spork99:

Thanks for making my point.

How do you figure that? I'm merely reiterating what I've said multiple times.....you're just finally acknowledging it. But it's not your point......you point out below that you're mostly just trying to be antagonistic. I'm used to that from you......it seems to be your only function here on DPC, as opposed to actually participating in anything that has to do with photography.

Originally posted by Spork99:

You've focused on the target marketing demographic for these cars, your anecdotes about who owns these cars and your psychological analysis of them, but not who actually buys them.

Really???? I don't recall any analysis, per se, I *did* say that I observed a certain type of individual who was likely to have a predilection for this type of vehicle. I base that on 40 years of experience in the sports car, muscle car, racecar, high-end car business. As I stated before, that might just have some veracity as it was the particular spectrum upon which I was focused for my career. I *will* state, acknowledge again, that yes, other types of people also have these cars, but I certainly saw the majority of these folks to be of the 50-something+ age bracket.
Originally posted by Spork99:

How does this girl fit in with your "Car Guy with a small penis" stereotype?

Well, again, not *MY* stereotype, and you seem to be the one with the genitalia fixation.....I see the people who purchase(d) these kinds of cars as guys who are trying to rekindle their youth, perhaps have that hot car they never could afford before, identify with some kind of image of themselves, perhaps fulfill a lifelong dream to make that cross country trek they always wanted to a la Cannonball Run.

As to this woman with the stolen Supra, yes, she's the exception.....one of those women who likes hot cars. Did you scroll down through the comments to see how many you had to go through to see if women were involved in the discussion? I would guess not.

Oh, and by the way......my wife drove for four hours to get the limited edition supercharged Mini Cooper S that she drives. She has *always* driven hot cars since I met her 35 years ago. My girlfriend is co-owner of the LBC (That's Little British Car in case you're not familiar with the common car-guy vernacular) that we have, and drives it whenever she has about half an excuse.

So I'm not really sure what your point would be about bringing a *girl* into the discussion. I'm sure the 30-something model & TV host would be thrilled to be referred to as such.

Anyway......I'm done thinking there would be a snowball's chance of having any kind of intelligent conversation with you, much less civilized. You can go try and torment someone else, I don't feel any need to play any more.
Originally posted by Spork99:

But mostly I get a kick out of getting you spun up and watching you make giant mountains out of molehills.

That's *SO* special! Kisses!


Just entertaining time well spent disproving your histrionic reaction about who buys powerful cars when I asked if it was only people who were compensating for something that purchased such vehicles. That's it.

If by intelligent conversation, you mean your wailing on about how true stereotypes are based on your anecdotes and insight into people, then yes, that is impossible since your posts are anything but intelligent.
01/08/2013 02:50:44 PM · #259
"Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction."

Gabby Giffords Launches Gun Safety Group
01/08/2013 02:53:28 PM · #260
The weapons are not a dangerous product. The criminals that will get firearms whether their legal or not are dangerous.
01/08/2013 02:59:45 PM · #261
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product. The criminals that will get firearms whether their legal or not are dangerous.
We're already have many discussions, along with numbers and facts to show the number of accidental deaths from the weapons being discussed to show definitively they are dangerous.
01/08/2013 03:01:19 PM · #262
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product.

You seem to have left out the sarcasm tags ...
01/08/2013 03:02:37 PM · #263
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product.

Folks, this says it all. This is the very picture of a state of denial.

I'm willing to acknowledge that the "NRA People" have a constitutional argument to be made against the restriction of firearms, but when they flat-out deny that firearms are dangerous products, they lose me. Big time.
01/08/2013 03:10:10 PM · #264
ok slightly taken out of context here......Can you accidentaly shoot yourself...yes. Can you accidentally shoot someone else...yes. Should we punish the whole because a few people have had accidents...no...Oh and by the way I have a good friend that almost died because his rifle fell and he got shot in the leg...He had to drive himself to the hospital and he almost didnt make it...
01/08/2013 03:19:31 PM · #265
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The weapons are not a dangerous product.

Folks, this says it all. This is the very picture of a state of denial.

I'm willing to acknowledge that the "NRA People" have a constitutional argument to be made against the restriction of firearms, but when they flat-out deny that firearms are dangerous products, they lose me. Big time.


Yes, there's a constitutional argument for not banning all private ownership of firearms outright, but there is NO constitutional argument for absolutely zero restrictions. All rights come with certain limitations, and there is no reason to make an exception in this case.

ETA: You probably agree with me on this point, Bear_Music; my statement is not directed at you personally.

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 15:20:54.
01/08/2013 03:19:40 PM · #266
Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.
01/08/2013 03:20:01 PM · #267
I have a son, Ceiran. He's 21 now but i remember a great moment from when he was 11 or 12.

He'd had an argument with his mother over something. I forget what it was; maybe he hadn't come home at the right time or not tidied up when he was meant to. Anyway, there was a huge bust up and his mum banned him from playing on his Playstation for a couple of weeks. He came running to me almost in tears and full of frustration and anger. He always came running to me when he'd had a a big argument with his mum. I'm the laid back one; always sitting them both down and sorting out the issues quietly and calmly if i can. I'm probably the 'push over' when it comes to the parents as well i guess. Anyway, he was livid. So angry and frustrated. I remember sitting him down and talking about why he was being punished and why his mum was so upset and angry and how he should just take it but think about his actions and the effects they have on others etc etc.. And i remember he came out with this classic line which i'll never forget...

'But..but Dad. It's not the Playstation's fault!'

Kids eh!

Not entirely relevant i know, but the memory popped into my head whilst reading this thread.

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 15:20:59.
01/08/2013 03:20:26 PM · #268
Adam, if you'd just acknowledge that guns ARE dangerous, we'd all have a lot more respect for you. Of COURSE they are dangerous! So are cars, for that matter.
01/08/2013 03:22:51 PM · #269
Originally posted by Cory:

Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.
Why can't you have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
01/08/2013 03:24:20 PM · #270
Originally posted by Cory:

Safety or freedom. Which will you choose.


A stupid argument to make to folks who feel less safe AND less free in an environment with so many guns.
01/08/2013 03:51:19 PM · #271
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Adam, if you'd just acknowledge that guns ARE dangerous, we'd all have a lot more respect for you. Of COURSE they are dangerous! So are cars, for that matter.


Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller. A hammer doesn't pound in a nail (or someone's skull) by itself.
01/08/2013 04:00:39 PM · #272
Originally posted by Spork99:

Not in and of themselves. A gun doesn't break into a house and shoot someone. A car doesn't run over a baby in a stroller. A hammer doesn't pound in a nail (or someone's skull) by itself.
And we're back to the semantic gymnastics yet again.
01/08/2013 04:27:56 PM · #273
Originally posted by Cory:

Safety or freedom <insert any other non-relevant word here>. Which will you choose.


Message edited by author 2013-01-08 16:28:17.
01/08/2013 04:28:53 PM · #274
well actually if we adopted an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...I believe it would drastically reduce crime.

Ya know if a thief broke into a house and stole something....if he was found guilty cut his hand off. If he does it again..cut the other one off. Crooks would start getting the hint. (that would be a great way to control crime and allow us to have our freedoms)
01/08/2013 04:35:16 PM · #275
Originally posted by cowboy221977:

well actually if we adopted an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth...I believe it would drastically reduce crime.

Ya know if a thief broke into a house and stole something....if he was found guilty cut his hand off. If he does it again..cut the other one off. Crooks would start getting the hint. (that would be a great way to control crime and allow us to have our freedoms)
Until you wrongfully convict a person, even once.

Message edited by author 2013-01-08 16:36:15.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 03:23:38 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 03:23:38 PM EST.