This ad is taken from the Sean John's perfume advertising website. The fine print in the ad says, "Life without passion is Unforgivable."
The ad shows Sean John with two other females half naked. This is an example of a sexist advertisement.
There is an appeal to popularity as the ad portrays Sean John, the famous rapper.
There is also a Fallacy of Distraction as the advertiser presumes that partial nakedness of Sean John and the two other women can be used to sell their perfume successfully.
The statement in the ad says, "Life without Passion is Unforgivable." The statement is vague and absurd as it is difficult to understand what it means.
Does it mean that a Life without Passion is his perfume? If this statement is true then there is a Fallacy of Deduction as they are advertising for the sale of a perfume, but who would really want to buy a perfume which will lead to a life without passion.
OR Does it mean that a Life without Passion is truly unforgivable? If this statement is true then there is a Fallacy of False Dilemma as the advertiser presumes that a life without passion is nothing else but unforgivable. "Unforgivable" is a verb which is used in context of a sin or a crime committed. "Unforgivable" has nothing to do with a life without passion.
2 comments:
The advertisers probably thought it sounded smart, so most ordinary, follower people (unlike you) would look at the ad and say "wow, my life must be unforgivable until I buy this perfume!" I wish everybody would put as much thought into things as you obviously do.
Not only is it misleading and absurd but it is associating passion with debauchery. Does passion mean have a threesome? Is that what makes life exiting and passionate? Or does simply being Sean Combs make life passionate? Their defenition of passionate is twisted and you're right, vague.
Post a Comment