Talk:Buy Nothing Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whether the so-called First World's consumption is wasteful is purely a matter of opinion. This definition contains a discernible leftist bias. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be above politics.
It is.
Contents |
[edit] wastefull consumption a matter of opinion!?!
Buy Nothin Day has as much right to be in here as whoever the unfortunate individual who decided to enlighten us with his/her mental diarreha regarding wastefull consumption being a matter of opinion. At least Buy Nothing Day has a message based on substance and proof, not uninformed shit for brains opinions.
that buy nothing day is celebrated is a fact and should be noted in wikipedia. BM nov 22, 2005
- You didn't make a point. You can't spell. Stop attacking people. One could assert that First World consumption is not actually wasteful because, arguably, the consumption leads to some worthwhile result (like, I dunno, people's happiness.) and so wasteful consumption is a matter of opinion. The article deserves to be there, but mustn't state opinion as fact. I think it's fine as it is now ("what many see as the wasteful consumption habits of First World countries"). You could also refer to it as "consumption that many see as excessive (and/or) wasteful," since it is not in debate that we consume at all, just whether it's too much or to an unjustifying end. -VJ 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it should be stated as an opinion rather than a fact. However, is the consumption of random products what our society has actually adopted as substitution to real happiness? Why would somebody have to spend money to gain pleasure in themselves? If that is what it has actually resorted to, then we should slap ourselves upside our heads for being so ignorant. What ever happened to enjoying the simple things in life like spending quality time with friends and family talking and laughing? I know i don't have to go and spend half of my paycheck just to bring a smile to someones face.Da Dutchman 06:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the links =
Why is a myspace blog linked to in the article? Certainly there are critiques of BND, but isn't this astroturfing? Daniel
I think it would be worthwhile to include a link to a critique of BND, but I agree that the current link to the MySpace blog is out of place and a poor reference. Anyone know of a better critique? --Daryl Thomas 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sustainability
I am removing this article from the. I don't see any connection to it. It might be questioning consumerism, but it has nothing directly to do with Sustainability. -Cacuija (my talk) 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, some of the organizers [1] don't see it that way:
-
- Others use it to expose the environmental and ethical consequences of overconsumption.
-
- Two recent, high-profile disaster warnings outline the sudden urgency of our dilemma. First, in October, a global warming report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern predicted that climate change will lead to the most massive and widest-ranging market failure the world has ever seen. Soon after, a major study published in the journal Science forecast the near-total collapse of global fisheries within 40 years.
-
- Kalle Lasn, co-founder of the Adbusters Media Foundation, which was responsible for turning Buy Nothing Day into an international annual event, said, “Our headlong plunge into ecological collapse requires a profound shift in the way we see things. Driving hybrid cars and limiting industrial emissions is great, but they are band-aid solutions if we don’t address the core problem: we have to consume less. This is the message of Buy Nothing Day.”
-
- As Lasn suggests, Buy Nothing Day isn't just about changing your habits for one day. It’s about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment to consuming less and producing less waste. With six billion people on the planet, the onus if on the most affluent – the upper 20% that consumes 80% of the world’s resources – to begin setting the example.
- ~ender 2006-11-17 8:29:AM MST
[edit] Is this right?
"Critics of "Buy Nothing Day" point out that consumers would simply buy more the next day instead, rendering their protest pointless. However, participants argue that this is a false assumption and beside the point."
Something just seems off with this quote. As if it wants the reader to agree with the critics. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem neutral to me. 65.96.103.25 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
