You’re lying, as is evident by my reply. Not only a fool but a liar.

Yes, of course, people are more likely to show for a party if invited. I’m not denying that people are more likely to purchase a product or go to a party if they know about it. It’s the efficacy of the invite or speech act I’m rejecting, the so-called perlocutionary act of speech act theory.

There may be the intention to achieve certain effects with speech, but that the intended effects are never forced, rather predicted (one is never destined to go to a party if he is invited), I think sheds doubt on that certain speech act.

That’s one of the dangerous aspects of this theory: it risks absolving people of guilt in certain crimes, as in the murder example you’ve given. So we must tread carefully in matters such as that. My main point is not that the speaker is always innocent—the husband may actually want and seek the murder of his wife, the consequences of which lead to the actual act—but that the words are always innocent.

You’re lying, as is evident by my reply. Not only a fool but a liar. — NOS4A2

"I wasn’t aware there were other threads on the topic".

:brow:

"Well, there was that one thread, but... [makes excuse]".

And it's pretty funny that you'd call me a fool after that thing about being arrested.

Well, there was that one thread, but... [makes excuse]

That thread topic was “Should hate speech be allowed”, genius.

That thread topic was “Should hate speech be allowed”, genius. — NOS4A2

That was the title. The discussion quickly lead on to the related topic, which is the same topic of this discussion you redundantly created, and it stayed on that related topic for page after page after page after page...

“Say two companies want to sell similar consumer products. Company A hires an ad agency and spends a couple million on various forms of advertising. Company B does not advertise at all.

If company A sells more of its product then that is evidence that the advertising was influential.”
—praxis

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they are “influential”.

But I cannot say the advertisement acted upon the one who saw it, which terms such as “influence”, “encourage”, “incite” presuppose. The advertisement cannot act upon the viewer in such a way that alters or even effects their buying choices, for the simple reason of the first law of motion. — NOS4A2

This is mind-numbingly self-contradictory. You agree with ad influence (in one sense) and then claim that, due to the first law of motion, ads cannot act upon buyers.

He not only contradicts himself, but he sees contradictions where there are none, like in his priceless gaff over law enforcement.

Although of course the whole thing may well be an act, and probably is.

This is mind-numbingly self-contradictory. You agree with ad influence (in one sense) and then claim that, due to the first law of motion, ads cannot act upon buyers.

There is no contradiction, unless you mind-numbingly assume, without evidence, that an ad’s “influence” is how it acts upon buyers.

Another lie. The topics of the threads are different. I bet you also pretend that that thread was about how law enforcement can arrest you without you committing a crime.

You admitted that ads influence with the following:

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they are “influential”. — NOS4A2

Then you claimed that, due to the first law of motion, ads cannot act upon (influence) buyers.

This is an idiotic contradiction.

His trolling tactic is to treat something perfectly ordinary and uncontroversial, and pretend that it's absurd.

Not a contradiction. You or I reading or hearing an ad is us acting upon the ad, not the other way about.

His trolling tactic is to treat something perfectly ordinary and uncontroversial, and pretend that it's absurd.

Looks like someone is living rent free in another’s head.

I don't have to be in your head to see what you're doing.

That’s one of the dangerous aspects of this theory: it risks absolving people of guilt in certain crimes, — NOS4A2

If it is true that speech acts increase certain effects, then we have to deal with that danger. IOW you are saying that a problem with what I am saying is that it might lead to certain negative consequences. But that has nothing to do with it being true or not. It is as if you are conceding it is true, but it would be better not to believe it since it will lead to X. But of course if the effect is an increase in crime, then the people committing the crimes are still those easily influenced by certain speech acts. They are dangerous people. Speech acts continue, people have violent potentials, some of them. This could be seen as why both groups are dangerous. The guy who drives the bank robbers to the bank and knows they are planning to rob the bank, well, he didn't make them rob the bank. They could have chosen to go into the florist's next door and buy flowers. Yet, we manage to hold him responsible for the crime also. Even though driving to a bank is legal, generally. So we are not forced to treat the direct violent criminals as responsibility free. IOW if we put the driver in prison it does not mean that the guys who went into the bank with guns are not responsible for their actions.

I've just had a great idea. I'll go to a philosophy forum and pretend that adverts have literally no effect on anyone, ever. Even though that's absurd. It's obvious that they do. But that's the point. It will provide me with some entertainment.

Is that roughly how your thought process went?

Not a contradiction. You or I reading or hearing an ad is us acting upon the ad, not the other way about. — NOS4A2

You wrote that ads inform and in that sense they’re influential. The information contained within ads is received from the ads and our actions may be influenced by that information. Prior to acquiring ad information, you or I act in particular ways, like buying a specific brand of tea, for example, but subsequent to experiencing an ad we might switch to a different brand of tea. In this way, an advertisement may act upon us, may affect our behavior.

You might say that you or I could interact with an ad, if indeed the ad were interactive. Do I need to explain what interactive means?

interact with an ad — praxis

There we go. :up:

You wrote that ads inform and in that sense they’re influential. The information contained within ads is received from the ads and our actions may be influenced by that information. Prior to acquiring ad information, you or I act in particular ways, like buying a specific brand of tea, for example, but subsequent to experiencing an ad we might switch to a different brand of tea. In this way, an advertisement may act upon us, may affect our behavior.

You might say that you or I could interact with an ad, if indeed the ad were interactive. Do I need to explain what interactive means?

No, you don’t need to explain what “interactive” means. I can interact with a rock. It doesn’t mean the rock is “interactive”.

As in your example, yes we may switch to the brand of tea, but “acquiring ad information” and the act of switching to a brand of tea are acts performed by and chosen by us, not the advertisement.

the act of switching to a brand of tea are acts performed by and chosen by us, not the advertisement. — NOS4A2

No one has claimed otherwise. Ads influence, as you have admitted yourself.

I think it goes without saying that people are more likely to purchase a product they know about than one they don’t. In that sense they [advertisements] are “influential”. — NOS4A2

Words provoke thought, thought invokes feeling, feelings causes action. This is the basis of censorship ideals which is true, but the part they forget is that action comes with choice, and choice is determined by the individual NOT the words of someone else.

Democracy is the freedom to choose. Censorship strips you of your freedom to choose.

yes, we are not slaves to our base impulses, which censors often imply. But they would make us slaves to their base impulses, their fears of future calamity, chaos or incited mobs.