Help a Brother Out

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Got into a huge argument with my original bass player about the dangers of advertising, especially in regards to kids. He refuted my claim that advertising (or, as it is in America, blatant psychological manipulation and abuse) can be harmful by falling into a straw man argument, in which he called into question my authority on the subject (because I am not an authority, all my arguments are invalid). Not only did he continue to defend immoral and outright dangerous advertising techniques (despite the fact that he has a young daughter, the most susceptible target of said ad practices), he also was incapable of understanding that calling my character into question was not a logically viable means of argument, leading to invalid counterpoints in regards to my original premises.

I have just printed up a packet for him, including guidlines to a logically cogent method of argumentation, as well as a definition of "fallacy" and a description of a straw man fallacy in particular, as well as a few articles from science weekly that help illustrate my position, but not as well as I would like. Does anyone have links to good, preferably pier-reviewed, articles that can help bolster my argument?   

Which dangerous advertising techniques did you cite?

The main thing that came to mind is that Playboy agreed to license their logo for children's merchandise. I'd like to see the bastard try to defend that.

Also, an abundance of ammunition for your argument can be found here:

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I sense you are bringing articles of war to a mudfight.

I refer you to Cain's Rules for Life (IntermittensXX p32)



Arguing Rarely Persuades People

More often than not, if you argue
with someone, they will become
more set in their ways and more
stubborn, less open to criticism.  If
you have to convince someone, use
examples, not words.


From what it sounds like, your case will be better argued using image macros and snippets from Culture Jam or Adbusters.

Yes, you need to be careful about these things, see this for more info (I can't remember if I was linked to this from here or not, so sorry if it's a repost).

I like that article. It pretty much confirms everything I've ever said to anybody ever.

[Cramulus]

If I were to attempt to poinpoint what I hate about advertising -- it's not that it's dangerous, it's that it makes us boring.

The contemporary theory of Branding is that a good brand weaves itself seemlessly into its target's lifestyle. If you're an active go-getter sort, Nike's "Just do it" is an emotion that you resonate with. You wear Nike clothes, you are dressing yourself in the symbolism connected to that brand. The brands become tools we use to present and identify ourselves. In a world where we are more consumers than citizens, and our financial health is given more cultural value than other facets of our identity, we are presented with a limited palette with which to build ourselves.


from Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents (page 9)----------------------

The freedom of conversation is being lost. If earlier it was a matter of course to take interest in one's partner, this is now replaced by inquiry into the price of his shoes or his umbrella. Irresistibly intruding upon any convivial exchange is the theme of the conditions of life, of money. What this theme involves is not so much the concerns and sorrows of individuals, in which they might be able to help one another, as the overall picture. It is if one were trapped in theater and had to follow the events on the stage whether one wanted to or not, had to make them again and again, willingly or unwillingly, the subject of one's thoughts and speech.
    -One-Way Street, Walter Benjamin, 1928


Raoul Vaneigem defined the terrain of values such a situation produced: "Rozanov's definition of nihilism is the best: 'The show is over. The audience gets up to leave their seats. Time to collect their coats and go home. They turn around . . . . No more coats and no more home.'" "The spectator feels at home nowhere," Deboard wrote, "Because the spectacle is everywhere."