3 ms·

> If someone has no options left but to abuse their fellow man in order to survive - that doesn't make it respectable. Respectable as an activity, no, but unde

by alxlaz 8y ago

> If someone has no options left but to abuse their fellow man in order to survive - that doesn't make it respectable. Respectable as an activity, no, but understandable -- yes. From the comfort of your own home after a light lunch, it's easy to say that you should refuse to participate in the advertising industry, even if that means starving on the streets. The people who choose advertising over seeing their kids grow up without a childhood certainly don't deserve the kind of wrath and disrespect that we (justly!) show to those who engage in this dubious kind of activity so that they can get a bigger yacht.

esotericn 8y ago
> From the comfort of your own home after a light lunch I don't think this sort of ad hominem attack is productive; it instantly puts people on guard and stifles debate. I may be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware, you know nothing about me or my background. That out of the way; I think the idea that people work in advertising because otherwise they'd be homeless and starve is a falsehood. It might be true in some cases, but there are literally millions of counterexamples.
- alxlaz 8y ago
  It wasn't an ad hominem attack -- I didn't mean you specifically :-). I'm sorry if that wasn't more obvious in the post. It's the same as "You generally want to double-check before you run rm -rf" -- I mean, you probably do, too, but it's meant as a general statement. Edit: other than that, I obviously agree that's an extreme (and rare) case. I just want to emphasize that it's worth keeping the exceptions in mind. The advertising industry is what it is, and everyone who chooses to work in it is responsible for what they do -- but that's true of every mentally-able adult, that doesn't mean everyone is also truly free to make a choice.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Sure. On the latter point - I strongly disagree that people don't have a choice, but I think this is outside of the scope of the comment thread. It's the sort of thing I wouldn't mind discussing over a pint rather than in front of a screen. :P
    - alxlaz 8y ago
      Indeed -- perhaps it's best saved for when we have a pint nearby.

by alxlaz 8y ago

esotericn 8y ago

> From the comfort of your own home after a light lunch I don't think this sort of ad hominem attack is productive; it instantly puts people on guard and stifles debate. I may be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware, you know nothing about me or my background. That out of the way; I think the idea that people work in advertising because otherwise they'd be homeless and starve is a falsehood. It might be true in some cases, but there are literally millions of counterexamples.

alxlaz 8y ago
It wasn't an ad hominem attack -- I didn't mean you specifically :-). I'm sorry if that wasn't more obvious in the post. It's the same as "You generally want to double-check before you run rm -rf" -- I mean, you probably do, too, but it's meant as a general statement. Edit: other than that, I obviously agree that's an extreme (and rare) case. I just want to emphasize that it's worth keeping the exceptions in mind. The advertising industry is what it is, and everyone who chooses to work in it is responsible for what they do -- but that's true of every mentally-able adult, that doesn't mean everyone is also truly free to make a choice.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Sure. On the latter point - I strongly disagree that people don't have a choice, but I think this is outside of the scope of the comment thread. It's the sort of thing I wouldn't mind discussing over a pint rather than in front of a screen. :P
  - alxlaz 8y ago
    Indeed -- perhaps it's best saved for when we have a pint nearby.