I was responding to your straw man ("if you think that sometimes people can be influenced into having different genuine desires, then you must think this is tru

I was responding to your straw man ("if you think that sometimes people can be influenced into having different genuine desires, then you must think this is true any time someone is manipulated, even in the case of spousal abuse") with another to demonstrate that there's a spectrum and more subtlety here than your initial response was acknowledging. > especially when the manipulator has a conflict of interest I think the conflict of interest argument is a good one for why advertising is generally dangerous. > it's ethically dangerous to cloud that over with a philosophical fog. Eh, fuck that noise. "Advertising is definitely bad so we shouldn't ever try to be clear about why exactly it's bad, since that might involve discussing some ways in which advertising is not bad, and we know it is bad."