journal 3

3/5/2013

8 Comments

 
Please reflect on one scene from the movie that you believe highlights where
we have difficulties in knowing the truth.   For example, what ways does someone
else's bias or influence persuade our perspective of truth? (This is one
approach to a knowledge issue.  You do not need to stick with this one, you may
see something else worth talking about instead.  You have a bit of freedom with
this journal entry.)
8 Comments
sabina capon
3/9/2013 01:39:55 am

I think that a great example in the movie about someone persuading someone else's perspective is when the main character is with his son in L.A and his boss tells him to give a briefcase full of money to the Malboro man. When he gets to his house he doesn't want to accept the money. The main character tells him that he can't keep the money for himself if he is going to sue the company. So he is only living the man with two potions and finally chooses to keep the money and stay quite. This is a clear case of persuasion and changing someone else's perspective because the man could have accepted the money and still sue the company but the main character was smart enough to deal with this man's mind.

Reply
Wilhelm Nustad
3/9/2013 02:10:16 am

I am going to pick the scene in the beginning of movie where the main character is telling the audience that the academy which he works for is going to donate 50 million dollars to stop teenage-smoking. The reason why he actually was there, was to take the blame for the 15 year olds cancer condition, and were to end up as the bad guy. But wound up persuading the audience that the academy actually was up to something good, namely to donate 50 million to stop teenage smoking. This is an example of how the main character turns the actuality into something good. Granted the audience did not end up liking the person, but he did manage to turn the truth around so that his biases did prevail. He evidently turned the truth around so that he did not seem like such an asshole, and actually in a way won the talk. The irony in the debate was that there were clearly predicted a winner in the beginning of the debate, but the "underdog" actually managed to persuade them into believing they were going to help the sick, thereby twisting the truth into his favor.

Reply
Yulia Shamayskaya
3/9/2013 08:00:56 am

My favorite part of the movie was the part when Nick goes to his son’s school to give a speech about his profession. The first sentence his son says is “Please don’t ruin my childhood”. However, this is what I think Nick does throughout his persuasion: taking away the kid’s childhoods’ and innocence by persuading them to think differently. Ironically, Nick is making the children believe him that they should not believe anyone else. It is interesting how Nick manages to twist the truth. He never tells the children that cigarettes are bad, but by using language he brainwashes the children and makes them believe in what they, according to the teacher, shouldn’t. He tells the children to “think for themselves, to challenge authority”, however he is the one who tells them what to do, without letting them even question him. His final sentence “Instead of acting like sheep when it comes to cigarettes, you should find out yourself” literary tells the children to try cigarettes. Nick managed to persuade the children to think what he want by telling them that they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Reply
Jisu Kim
3/9/2013 10:19:04 am

The scene that I believe highlights where I have difficulties in knowing the truth in the movie was the scene that the main character visited his son's school. When he went to his son's class, he did the speech in front of the children. He taught children that they cannot justify smoking as a bad thing just because their parents said "Smoking is bad". He gave an 'chocolate' example to children. He asked to children "If parents say "Chocolate is bad", then you won't eat a chocolate?". So he thought it is a same case. He thought to children that smoking is their choice. He said smoke or not is the person's choice and no one can say it is bad. I wondered that is it a true or not. Is it ethical to teach teenagers that when they grow up, then smoking is their choice just because it isn't illegal even though known to harm those who use them? If we teach teenagers that smoking is bad and don't smoke even after they became adults, then it disturbs their right or liberty of choice? Well, I don't think so. All of the people have a liberty of choice and it is very important to keep their rights or a liberty of choice, of course. However, some people like children cannot control themselves. That's why we educated. Get a right knowledge and became an adult who can do the right choice. However the words like 'smoking is your choice' make children justify their smoking easily. Smoking isn't just a product. It is harm those who use them and used to kill people. The word like the main character's in the movie makes children confuse 'liberty of choice' or 'debauchery'. Liberty needs lots of responsibilities and 'smoking' requires extremely hard responsibility of damage and children is so young to get the responsibility of the damage.

Reply
Ly Dong Nhi, To
3/9/2013 10:47:28 am

The way he influence our perspective of truth is trying people focus on the other topic. For example when he asked his son what kind of ice cream does he like. And his son said he love chocolate and he will only choose chocolate. This can show that he love limit his choice in every thing. However, he said to his son that he need more than chocolate, he need vanilla, chocolate... This means he loved to have multiple choice in every thing. He can influence his son ideal by showing that his son is wrong and his idea is true.

Reply
B.V
3/10/2013 06:16:46 am

I think when Nick goes to the Malboro man's house is a very good example of manipulation and unsure truth. When Nick is confesing the real plans from the company it may seem to the Malboro man that he is opening himself and betraying the company but in truth he is still accomplishing his task. Also, he tell the man that he has only two options, but that is not true. However he is very persuasive, partially because the man thinks he just betrayed his firm and will now trust him. This scene is a great example of inverse psychology.Nick knew what matter to Malboro man (his family) and how to play him around. Another key detail is that he never lied to the man, he told him the truth in such a way that he will still take the money and shut up.

Reply
Xiao yap
3/16/2013 10:55:48 am

Nick Naylor, Vice President of the "academy of tobacco studies" uses spin arguments to win over the accusers of big tobacco in order to convince the world that smoking is not conclusively unhealthy.
His job being a great spokesmen consists mainly of reporting the questionable research of the "Academy" to the public and defending the company on television programs. While he is in Los Angeles, he is told by the captain to give the "Marlboro man" (Lorne) who is about to die, a visit.
His son and him drive to his house with a suitcase full of money, he receives them with a gun on his both hands, and accepts nick's request to talk. Lutch, the cancer-stricken man who once played the Marlboro Man in cigarette advertisements and is now campaigning against cigarettes receives the offer of the suitcase for his silence. When Lutch refuses, Naylor uses his great ability to persuade and suggests he should publicly announce the bribe and say that he's using the money to start a charity for cancer victims, a new campaign against smoking but adds that in that case he can't use any of it to help his own family, because he will seem like a hypocrite. Not giving him another option than those two when he actually had them but did not realize it because of the good persuasion nick gives, and ends up convincing Lutch to take the hush suitcase and remain in silence.
Not accepting the money would have been the correct choice in my opinion, but perhaps he felt attracted for such a big amount, and i think we would all consider keeping it if we were in his situation someday. he thought about his family but nick didn't give him the option to keep only part of it, it was all or nothing. That's when the fallacy arise,nick is such a good rhetorician that the marlboro man didn't even consider anything else, he wanted time to think about it but nick said "you cannot denounce us next week, that's not how it works" maybe that's when we should wonder "to what extent persuasive speakers like nick disturb our perspective and opinions? Our perspective of truth? As nick and his son discuss about vanilla and chocolate, one being the best, later on, Nick beats his son not by proving that vanilla is the best but demonstrating his son is wrong and therefore he is right, because he believes in freedom.

Reply
Mohit Dhanwani
3/17/2013 12:26:53 pm

I think that Nick was trying to persuade the students in his son's class by saying that they should know what is wrong or right, and not think that other people are right, for example, their parents. He said that they shouldn't listen to what other people are telling you what is wrong or right.

Reply



Leave a Reply.