journal 3

3/5/2013

2 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.)
2 Comments
Stephanie Arnold
3/9/2013 01:17:46 am

Nick Naylor’s job is to advertise smoking. This isn’t very easy, since pro-smoking advertisement is prohibited. Hence, Nick Naylor uses many strategies to do it anyway. He is a great rhetorician. He manipulates people just by talking.
For example in the very beginning scene, when he performs in that TV-show, he leads the discussion in a ridiculous direction. In contrary to the other guest stars, he knows that everyone hates him. So he has to turn the tables. When the moderator introduces him, he doesn’t say anything; the audience has no idea what to expect, he even makes people curios and wondering, because he keeps silent. Then, as soon as the moderator wants to start the discussion, he interrupts her “politely”; and by what he says he “turns the table”.
He starts with the prejudice everyone has against his company: That they want profit, no matter for what cost. His company doesn’t care whether people die from smoking or not. So he argues that that wouldn’t make any sense. Why should his company want kids like the cancer sufferer next to him to die? Then his company would lose an important client. The audience of course is disgusted, but he just continues and attacks the other guest star Top Aide for Health & Human Services. Naylor argues that Aide’s association would rather profit from cancer sufferers than his. Certainly this argument is ridiculous, but logically –not morally– true. The audience seems to protest, but Naylor just throws another argument: His company is going to spend 50 million dollars on a campaign to prevent endangered teens from smoking. Everyone is surprised and enthusiastic.
What Naylor did was, first reply to the prejudice everyone had against his company, even though he hasn’t even been asked about it. Then he weakened his apparently strongest opponent, and finally he argued why his company tried to safe people. As soon as people hear a huge sum of money they believe that it is going to have a great impact on something. However, no one questions how this campaign is going to look like. In reality, Naylor’s company just spends those 50 million dollars to have a good reputation, and still tries to have the smallest impact as possible by using inefficient techniques of advertisement. As I said, no one reflects on that.
Actually, his argumentation is so ridiculous, that there can’t be said anything against, and therefore Naylor wins. He is right: It doesn’t matter whether the argument contributes to a discussion or not as long as it is reasonable.

Reply
William Wijaya
3/16/2013 10:55:29 am

Truly, "Thank you for Smoking" is a really controversial movie, during that time, almost everyone knows that smoking will affects his/her health negatively, it could easily leads people to death; however instead of doing the stereotype persuading to help people stop smoking, it makes fun of that fact to twist the truth.
Nick Naylor, the main character of the movie is such a great orator, he could easily manipulates any of his audience by using his "fallacies". Nick Naylor arguments can't simply be ignored, truly, it is ridiculous, yet it's also brilliant. Naylor never proves himself that his statement is logically right, but he ridiculously proves that the opponent statement is wrong; therefore he is right.
There was this one scene that really struck as something unusual, in which Naylor meets up with "The Marlboro Man" to give him gift; whereas it is actually a simple act of bribery. It was very obvious of him that The Marlboro Man knows what Naylor is planning to do just from looking at his silver suitcase. However Naylor who blatantly accepts The Marlboro Man statement, manages to talks the Marlboro man into accepting the gift. Perhaps the Marlboro man is just attracted by the money from the beginning , or perhaps it is affected by Naylor fallacies. This is where a TOK issue arises, Nick's bias arguments (fallacies) could actually influence the Marlboro Man perspective of truth.
Isn't it hard to think that invalid arguments similar to Nick's could make it difficult for us in knowing the truth? But that's just how fallacies work; in order to avoid that, we should analyzes arguments, we can't just simply change our perspective of truth.

Reply



Leave a Reply.