Friday, June 21, 2013

The rudeness shown in the Kent water purifier advertisement ..

I was shocked the first time I saw the advertisement; it takes the concept of safety to a paranoid level and showcases a very rude behavior. For those who have not seen the ad, it shows Hema Malini and girls in somebody's else house, being served tea (remember that tea is boiled, which means that the water is also boiled). Hema Malini asks about where the water was taken, and when she heard that the water was taken from the water purifier of another brand, she refused to take the tea. This would be so humiliating for the person doing the inviting, and the gesture seems so rude on behalf of Hema Malini that it seems odd that somebody from the product company approved this advertisement, and how Hema Malini actually did this advertisement.
The concept of this advertisement was that the purifier from other companies could remove part of the impurities, but not all of them, and it is only Kent that could remove every form of impurity. Seems very prim and proper, but the utter rudeness of the behavior in the advertisement put me off the product. And this could be a big problem, since although not everybody would feel the same way, there would be enough people who would not like the advertisement, and hence would not buy the product. This is a fundamental problem with advertising, knowing where to draw the line between trying to push the product and evoking a negative reaction from a potential consumer.
The other problem of course is that it is pushing consumers towards an era where they would like water to be 100% pure. You might be able to do this at home, but what about when you travel somewhere or go to some restaurant, or travel in a train, or are served tea / coffee / some refreshment at somebody's house. Not everybody uses filtered water, there might be people who are just using tap water which is certainly not going to be as clean or pure as water that comes from a highly efficient water cleaning system. Even the bottled water you get when you travel on a train will not be so pure; and when you make your body such that it only gets used to very pure water, it will not be able to digest water from elsewhere.
I realize that the company is in the business of selling products, and for that, it needs to do everything, but consumers need to have an overall realization of their health. For most people in middle age, they certainly did not grow up by filtering their water or even boiling it, what to talk about using reverse osmosis filtering mechanism, and everything seemed fine. We were not sicker than people are now, and so I wonder about this mania right now for ensuring that everything is super-clean. 

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Ashish Agarwal @ 2:37 AM    

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Weird judgments - Madras High court judge rules that sexual relations means instant marriage

What kind of judgment is this ? Seems like an incredibly repressive judgment, and one wonders whether there will be any efforts made to overturn this judgment ? What is this judgment ? Well, a judge of the Madras High Court gave a judgment which effectively turned over years and centuries of liberalization, and said that if a man and woman had sexual relations, then in effect this meant that they intended to marry and hence should be treated as married. And if they had a sexual relationship, then this meant that they were married for all practical purposes and could approach the family court and get such a declaration (read more about this judgment):

In a ruling which might have a far reaching impact, Madras High Court has said if a couple in the right legal age indulge in sexual gratification, it will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed as husband and wife. "..if any couple choose to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations," Justice C S Karnan said in his order. He said that marriage formalities of tying a mangalsutra, garlands and rings were only for the satisfaction of society. Either party could approach a family court for declaration of marital status by producing documentary proof for a sexual relationship.
There are numerous implications of such a judgment. One of the biggest one is that there will be a large number of people who will want to use this judgment to apply for marriage, and there could be a number of such court cases getting filed.
And what happens when somebody has a sexual relationship with more than 1 person, it is considered that the person is at liberty to decide which one of the persons to be deemed to be married to, or is bigamy (with multiple wives or multiple husbands) permissible.
What is the kind of proof that is permissible in the court to prove that a relationship like this happens ? 3D video proof along with semen and DNA proof ? Other than this, there are no clear confirmatory ways that the relationship to be proved in a sexual way.
What gives a judge the right to set their own policies as legal policies ? So far, even the Supreme Court has not gone this far in setting a sexual relationship to be a total life-changing event in the lives of 2 people. So how can a court go this far ? Further, the concept of having a willing and short-term sexual relationship is part of the essential right of an individual, to be governed more by social norms than by a legal context. We are not living in a harsh puritan country and do not need such laws.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by Ashish Agarwal @ 9:23 AM