3 ms·

Never claimed it was altruistic. Is altruism the only acceptable way to make a living? And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of

Never claimed it was altruistic. Is altruism the only acceptable way to make a living? And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of lying. So does the dictionary.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Look man, you responded within a context. Maybe you didn't claim they were being altruistic, but in context, you're posting in defense of statements made by people who are claiming altruism, or at least helpfulness, by advertisers. If you want to argue that presenting partial information with the intent to deceive isn't within the strict lying, fine, I'll concede that pedantic point. That's a rather silly hill to die on, though: do we really care about the difference between two different ways advertisers might attempt to deceive us? I think it's pretty reasonable for me to say that I don't like people who try to deceive me, regardless of whether they do it by lying, or by presenting an unbalanced, partial section of the facts.
- nickelcitymario 7y ago
  I honestly have no idea who claims advertising is altruistic. I don't know too many businesses or industries that could make such a claim about themselves. Yeah, I'm here to make money. Do you go to work out of an altruistic desire to help your employer? Or is that incidental to your goal of earning a living? As for deception, I don't think we're going to agree, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. But for the sake of clarity: - If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal. - If I say something is technically true but implies something that is untrue, I still consider that a deception. (For example, I recently saw an episode of Patriot Act that said clothing from H&M had labels that something about being made from recycled material, but in truth the only recycled item was the label itself. Technically, not a lie. But obviously deceptive, because they relied on our assumption that they were referring to the clothing item and not the tag that the claim was printed on.) - If I say something that is true but is used to cover up other things I don't want you to know, that's deception. So if I promote that my product uses recycled materials, and it really does, but it also pollutes the environment in other ways, that's deceptive too because I was trying to imply that my product was good for the environment when it really wasn't. - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal. It's not illegal in any meaningful way. Whatever law you think makes it illegal, is not being effectively enforced. Companies lie in advertising constantly. Subway "footlongs" are less than a foot long, "Bifidus Regularus" in Activia yogurt is literally two made up words, Dr. Oz can make all sorts of claims about new medical products because it's "not a medical show", Vitamin Water supposedly "boosts your immune system" and "helps fight free radicals", many herbal supplements are literally grass clippings. Even in cases where companies have been successfully sued (which is different from it being illegal) settlements have been meaningless compared to the profits: the possibility of being sued is a line item in the expenses of a lying advertising campaign. I think we're on agreement in your middle points, but I'm a bit confused about how you think this applies to advertising. The vast majority of advertising is dishonest under these points. > - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that. I think it depends on context. You have people on this thread claiming that their job as advertisers is to help consumers find products that fit their needs. The implication here is that they're providing a valuable service to consumers. If that's the case, then you're absolutely misleading people by only providing information that's favorable to your product. But if we're honest that the job of advertisers is to sell people products, regardless of whether those products fit consumers' needs, then sure, they're giving all the information they're obligated to give. But let's not pretend that that's altruistic, or good for consumers and society. It's not--it's actively harmful. You can't have it both ways. Either: 1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job... 2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers. Either way, advertisers are a blight on society.
    - nickelcitymario 7y ago

Never claimed it was altruistic. Is altruism the only acceptable way to make a living? And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of lying. So does the dictionary.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Look man, you responded within a context. Maybe you didn't claim they were being altruistic, but in context, you're posting in defense of statements made by people who are claiming altruism, or at least helpfulness, by advertisers. If you want to argue that presenting partial information with the intent to deceive isn't within the strict lying, fine, I'll concede that pedantic point. That's a rather silly hill to die on, though: do we really care about the difference between two different ways advertisers might attempt to deceive us? I think it's pretty reasonable for me to say that I don't like people who try to deceive me, regardless of whether they do it by lying, or by presenting an unbalanced, partial section of the facts.

nickelcitymario 7y ago
I honestly have no idea who claims advertising is altruistic. I don't know too many businesses or industries that could make such a claim about themselves. Yeah, I'm here to make money. Do you go to work out of an altruistic desire to help your employer? Or is that incidental to your goal of earning a living? As for deception, I don't think we're going to agree, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. But for the sake of clarity: - If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal. - If I say something is technically true but implies something that is untrue, I still consider that a deception. (For example, I recently saw an episode of Patriot Act that said clothing from H&M had labels that something about being made from recycled material, but in truth the only recycled item was the label itself. Technically, not a lie. But obviously deceptive, because they relied on our assumption that they were referring to the clothing item and not the tag that the claim was printed on.) - If I say something that is true but is used to cover up other things I don't want you to know, that's deception. So if I promote that my product uses recycled materials, and it really does, but it also pollutes the environment in other ways, that's deceptive too because I was trying to imply that my product was good for the environment when it really wasn't. - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal. It's not illegal in any meaningful way. Whatever law you think makes it illegal, is not being effectively enforced. Companies lie in advertising constantly. Subway "footlongs" are less than a foot long, "Bifidus Regularus" in Activia yogurt is literally two made up words, Dr. Oz can make all sorts of claims about new medical products because it's "not a medical show", Vitamin Water supposedly "boosts your immune system" and "helps fight free radicals", many herbal supplements are literally grass clippings. Even in cases where companies have been successfully sued (which is different from it being illegal) settlements have been meaningless compared to the profits: the possibility of being sued is a line item in the expenses of a lying advertising campaign. I think we're on agreement in your middle points, but I'm a bit confused about how you think this applies to advertising. The vast majority of advertising is dishonest under these points. > - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that. I think it depends on context. You have people on this thread claiming that their job as advertisers is to help consumers find products that fit their needs. The implication here is that they're providing a valuable service to consumers. If that's the case, then you're absolutely misleading people by only providing information that's favorable to your product. But if we're honest that the job of advertisers is to sell people products, regardless of whether those products fit consumers' needs, then sure, they're giving all the information they're obligated to give. But let's not pretend that that's altruistic, or good for consumers and society. It's not--it's actively harmful. You can't have it both ways. Either: 1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job... 2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers. Either way, advertisers are a blight on society.
  - nickelcitymario 7y ago