This is a distraction fallacy - what do dogs have to do with the scent of perfume? Or perhaps the perfume smells like dogs? Or maybe the perfume is to put on your dogs?
I must have gotten the wrong idea, but I thot the prof was going to put up examples and write the fallacies to help better understand the definitions of the fallacies. ????
The definitions were posted a while ago - you can find them on the right side of the blog under "fallacies.info" - I believe these ads are being posted to get us jump started, even after discussions about not enough blogs being posted things are still slow. :)
Again, think what message the reader or viewer is supposed to get.
Now, these are some pretty surreal scotty-dogs, aren't they? Remember, these are not real dogs. They're gesture-dogs, sign-dogs, metaphor-dogs. These dogs are 100% pure message.
But what message?
I think the little dogs are saying "I'm being little and cute; please take me home."
What does that say about the message? Are we really talking about puppy dogs?
Look at the bottle itself. What does the bottle design tell you.
Scents are sold as personality typing and as accessories to courting rituals, no?
Look at the difference in this ad and the FATALE ad eaerlier. Do we conclude anything different about the character of the presumed wearer?
OK, now, the ad must be telling someone to buy the product, right? So someone is being told that they may assume this character by purchasing the product.
What assumptions about people and courtship are made here? What's the support structure.
When these things get worked out, figuring the fallacy will probably be easy.
You're very welcome, Anastasia, almost certainly; get back to me when the explanation wears threadbare and the wind whistles through. Or when you decide to junk it for something better :<)>
Perhaps, H@pP!Ly -- although sometimes I've felt the dogs needed it more ;<)>
But if the doggies change the subject, what was the argument they changed it from? And how do the little devils do it, looking so cute and all?
The dogs are a distraction to get you to look at the ad. When I look at the dogs in the ad I think that a woman who uses this perfume probably owns dogs that look like these. Cute, small, well maintained. And if you carry that a step further - the myth that dogs resemble their owners... So in essence they are selling the image of a cute, little, well maintained female whom you would want to take home. This a fallacy based on distraction - the dogs get you to stop and look at the ad and then give an impression of what the user would be like without actually showing the user. Additionally the owner may be seen as an uptight stuffy type who's dogs are considered children. This would also appeal to the wealthy, perhaps older-want-to-look-younger" crowd who wants to be seen as a certain image.
In reality, anyone could wear this perfume and the outcome is not pre-determined. The claim is that people who fit a certain subculture, or wish to fit a certain subculture should use this product to accomplish the desired outcome. This of course is the fallacy - it is possible for a subculture to share the knowledge and fit a certain mold of appearance, but if one is not in that subculture already then they will not automatically fit in due to use of one product.
I also see a fallacy based on prestige. The bottle's shape and design spell our royalty. The initial on the front and the jewelry hanging off of the bottle. The claim is that this product is prestigious. There is no name on the bottle which gives me the impression that the seller is saying "if you are worthy you know what brand this is". This also appeals to mystery.
12 comments:
This is a distraction fallacy - what do dogs have to do with the scent of perfume? Or perhaps the perfume smells like dogs? Or maybe the perfume is to put on your dogs?
I must have gotten the wrong idea, but I thot the prof was going to put up examples and write the fallacies to help better understand the definitions of the fallacies.
????
The definitions were posted a while ago - you can find them on the right side of the blog under "fallacies.info" - I believe these ads are being posted to get us jump started, even after discussions about not enough blogs being posted things are still slow. :)
Anastasia, that sounds like a request. What would you like defined?
Again, think what message the reader or viewer is supposed to get.
Now, these are some pretty surreal scotty-dogs, aren't they? Remember, these are not real dogs. They're gesture-dogs, sign-dogs, metaphor-dogs. These dogs are 100% pure message.
But what message?
I think the little dogs are saying "I'm being little and cute; please take me home."
What does that say about the message? Are we really talking about puppy dogs?
Look at the bottle itself. What does the bottle design tell you.
Scents are sold as personality typing and as accessories to courting rituals, no?
Look at the difference in this ad and the FATALE ad eaerlier. Do we conclude anything different about the character of the presumed wearer?
OK, now, the ad must be telling someone to buy the product, right? So someone is being told that they may assume this character by purchasing the product.
What assumptions about people and courtship are made here? What's the support structure.
When these things get worked out, figuring the fallacy will probably be easy.
Thanks, I think! :)
Changing the Subject: the Juicy Couture perfume was made for human, not puppies. Luxury perfume and animals are not relevant.
You're very welcome, Anastasia, almost certainly; get back to me when the explanation wears threadbare and the wind whistles through. Or when you decide to junk it for something better :<)>
Perhaps, H@pP!Ly -- although sometimes I've felt the dogs needed it more ;<)>
But if the doggies change the subject, what was the argument they changed it from? And how do the little devils do it, looking so cute and all?
The dogs are a distraction to get you to look at the ad. When I look at the dogs in the ad I think that a woman who uses this perfume probably owns dogs that look like these. Cute, small, well maintained. And if you carry that a step further - the myth that dogs resemble their owners... So in essence they are selling the image of a cute, little, well maintained female whom you would want to take home. This a fallacy based on distraction - the dogs get you to stop and look at the ad and then give an impression of what the user would be like without actually showing the user. Additionally the owner may be seen as an uptight stuffy type who's dogs are considered children. This would also appeal to the wealthy, perhaps older-want-to-look-younger" crowd who wants to be seen as a certain image.
In reality, anyone could wear this perfume and the outcome is not pre-determined. The claim is that people who fit a certain subculture, or wish to fit a certain subculture should use this product to accomplish the desired outcome. This of course is the fallacy - it is possible for a subculture to share the knowledge and fit a certain mold of appearance, but if one is not in that subculture already then they will not automatically fit in due to use of one product.
I also see a fallacy based on prestige. The bottle's shape and design spell our royalty. The initial on the front and the jewelry hanging off of the bottle. The claim is that this product is prestigious. There is no name on the bottle which gives me the impression that the seller is saying "if you are worthy you know what brand this is". This also appeals to mystery.
Post a Comment