I’m using a perfectly normal definition of ad. I’m not changing the definition. You are, by trying to include basic labelling as advertisement. It is a trick of language used by people in marketing to inflate their importance and minimise their personal responsibility. Advertising is the process of one party, as in person, group or organisation, paying a second party to send/project/play/display/etc. media to a third party with the purposes of manipulating their decisions, usually, though occasionally not, without the request and/or consent of the recipient. Only particularly obtuse people who want to justify this malign behaviour, which is harmful to individuals and society, try to conflate communication (a general concept encompassing everything from a nod to a multi-volume multimedia experience, including advertisement) and advertisement itself. (A particular form of communication) The problem is with the particular form and you cannot defend it by ignoring the distinction and defending the general, any more than you would accept defending a rapist by claiming their prosecution was an extremist attack on all men.
My use of ‘lie’ is also pretty routine, collectively referring to various forms of deceptive use of communication. There are a few people who would claim lies are only verbal and auditory, or don’t count as lies if the speaker/writer/originator intends no harm, or intends happiness, to the recipient, or that a statement’s truth value is dependent on it’s usefullness as a meme which perpetuates its host’s survival, etc. but those definitions are both less common and less useful, so I tend to ignore them.
Ergo, using deception, whether in outright falsehoods, (blatant lies) intentionally misleading truths, (lies of omission) or simple BS, (claims without regard for truth value; still deceptive, even when technically true when reviewed later) is inherent to advertising because even it’s most benign forms are BS. The truth of the matter is not changed by your denial of it, nor by blaming me for holding a more common definition of advertisement than the more vague and thus less useful one you are trying to foist upon me.
Now, it’s true I have taken the slightly risky position of stating an absolute as truth, but you should welcome that because it should have let you debunk my claim in a simple sentence or two. ABC.
A. Definitions of lie and advertising seen above.
B. Advertising is a subset of lies.
C. Lies are not a subset of advertising.
Where is there an advertisement that is not a lie?
I’m using a perfectly normal definition of ad. I’m not changing the definition. You are, by trying to include basic labelling as advertisement. It is a trick of language used by people in marketing to inflate their importance and minimise their personal responsibility. Advertising is the process of one party, as in person, group or organisation, paying a second party to send/project/play/display/etc. media to a third party with the purposes of manipulating their decisions, usually, though occasionally not, without the request and/or consent of the recipient. Only particularly obtuse people who want to justify this malign behaviour, which is harmful to individuals and society, try to conflate communication (a general concept encompassing everything from a nod to a multi-volume multimedia experience, including advertisement) and advertisement itself. (A particular form of communication) The problem is with the particular form and you cannot defend it by ignoring the distinction and defending the general, any more than you would accept defending a rapist by claiming their prosecution was an extremist attack on all men.
My use of ‘lie’ is also pretty routine, collectively referring to various forms of deceptive use of communication. There are a few people who would claim lies are only verbal and auditory, or don’t count as lies if the speaker/writer/originator intends no harm, or intends happiness, to the recipient, or that a statement’s truth value is dependent on it’s usefullness as a meme which perpetuates its host’s survival, etc. but those definitions are both less common and less useful, so I tend to ignore them.
Ergo, using deception, whether in outright falsehoods, (blatant lies) intentionally misleading truths, (lies of omission) or simple BS, (claims without regard for truth value; still deceptive, even when technically true when reviewed later) is inherent to advertising because even it’s most benign forms are BS. The truth of the matter is not changed by your denial of it, nor by blaming me for holding a more common definition of advertisement than the more vague and thus less useful one you are trying to foist upon me.
Now, it’s true I have taken the slightly risky position of stating an absolute as truth, but you should welcome that because it should have let you debunk my claim in a simple sentence or two. ABC. A. Definitions of lie and advertising seen above.
B. Advertising is a subset of lies. C. Lies are not a subset of advertising.
Where is there an advertisement that is not a lie?