pErvinalia wrote:Forty Two wrote:Hermit wrote:{snip}
What is good about exploiting primeval (primal?) fears and desires of prospective customers to sell a product? I haven't said anything was "good" about it.
42 wrote:Advertising is just people saying what they want to say. And, yes, freedom is better than the alternative.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1763414
Given that a large segment of advertising (if not damned near all of it) is based on exploitation of common fears/insecurities, it sounds like you are saying that it is good.. because freedom. Although, I guess you could be really saying it's shit, but it's less shit than the alternative...
Or, those aren't the only choices, and perhaps I said what I meant and meant what I said, and recasting it as a moral judgment about goodness is not what I said.
I do think freedom is a "good," of course. I won't deny that. Freedom is the power and right to speak, think or act as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Freedom appears to be something humans value -- evidence of that would seem to come from what appears to be the human preference for not being oppressed, dominated, or ordered around, imprisoned, or made to do things against our well. Freedom is a feature of humanity that would allow us "choice" and the right to "consent" or not "consent" to the actions of others. We have the "Freedom" to exclude others from our bodies and brains, the right to think what we like, and, yes, the right to express our opinions as we like. If you take this "freedum" (as you like to call it) away from a human being takes away something that a human being typically values. We oppose slavery, because it is the denial of freedom. We oppose indentured servitude, because it is a denial of freedom (even if consented to once at the beginning). We oppose arbitrary imprisonment of individuals, and we take very seriously when one person "Trespasses" on the rights or property of another person, precisely because "freedum" is valuable to most humans.
We have a system of laws which, in the west, typically must be applied in a way that gives equal protection of the laws to people -- i.e., there has to be equal application of the law, because of another value that humans hold as valuable and important - equality, equal treatment, etc.
So, it's not some mindless attachment to "freedum" -- duh, advertisements are "good" because, duh, "freedum." That's not the argument.
What is an advertisement? It's expression. It's words. It's pictures. It's a message. Someone is saying something, verbalizing an opinion or statement about something. Yes, it's about selling a product or service, but it is, nevertheless, a person writing or broadcasting a message - information - an opinion.
You may feel that it's just "duh, freedum!" to say that the right of people to express the views they want, say the words they want, and voice the opinions they want is rather important, and not to be trifled with lightly, and not to be handed over to a bureau or ministry to determine when a message is "fact based" and when it is "exploiting a primal fear" improperly. That may be your view, but it isn't mine.
I think a lot of good discussion could be had about what advertising can and should be restricted or regulated. Some aspects may be clearer or more conducive than others. But, this nonsense that you constantly interject, trying to sully other people's arguments by recasting them as some sort of simplistic bleat after "freedum" is both tiresome and stupid. You have a lack of nuance, and a lack of critical thinking ability, and it causes you to blurt out dopey things like "42 just says freedum!" - what's next? You'll start spelling America with three "k's" -- Amerikkka! You'll start calling Republicans "Repugnicans" or liberals "Libtards?" That's the level you're at.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar