[superdug]

Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil. Taking into account that the onus of every advertisement is to entice you to do something that you may have otherwise not considered we still do not negate the need for an advertisement to be evil. Now, you may very well be enticed to do something that is not in absolutely everyone’s best interests in mind, which does indeed qualify as evil. And I believe we agree that there are far too many advertisements prevalent that are indeed evil when referring specifically towards advertisements on a digital medium. So I think that the argument is valid that ending all advertising would ultimately prevent all evil advertising it would also prevent any not evil advertising from ever happening as well. Now again, that may be perfectly acceptable to you, your argument that advertising should not happen at all isn’t really practical for absolutely everyone who does or doesn’t support your absolute opinion on advertisements, as contrary to you, but they want you to simply affirm that their opinion is not absolutely based on them supporting the evil ads that you both abhor.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil.

Interestingly, I agree that it doesn't have to be evil, but in practice it is, so close to 100% of the time that the exceptions are actually not worth discussing.

[superdug]

That’s not an invalid personal opinion but does not make it true for absolutely everyone else at the same time.

[matheusmoreira]

I'm not sure what your point is but I'll respond to this:

> advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil

Advertising has inherent and irreconciliable conflicts of interest that make it worthless to any rational person. They're trying to sell you stuff, it's literally guaranteed that they will be overstating the pros and downplaying the cons. When you want to make an informed decision, the last person you want to listen to is the advertiser. You want to listen to people you personally trust or independent third parties, not the seller who has every incentive in the world to lie to you.

Therefore the existence of advertising is incompatible with a rational society. There is no such thing as "non-evil" advertising. It doesn't inform anyone. On the contrary: it is disinformation, inherently untrustworthy.

[superdug]

But again, why is selling stuff abhorred by you as an absolute. A transaction which is facilitated by money is the key component to guaranteed assertion that a single valued skill can be exercised for any good or service at any time so long as everyone agrees that the compensation is fair and reasonable by all concerned parties. It’s one of fundamental components of an interdependent system that furthers the entire race at the same time and regulates itself to follow the current definition of justice needed to ensure continued success of all parties involved. As progress moves forward so then does the equality shared benefit of a longer and more fulfilling existence than would have otherwise been impossible.

[matheusmoreira]

I have no problem with buying and selling stuff or with transacting in general. I have a problem trusting sellers. I refuse to take them at their word. I do not want to hear what they have to say at all. I want to decide what I want to buy based on completely independent factors and then, after I have decided, come to the seller to finalize the purchase. I do not want or need advertising, I need its antithesis: quality, trustworthy information.

[superdug]

But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin with? Again with specificity at advertisements on a digital medium where there is an enticement to spend money suggested by a third party and they are not evil?

[matheusmoreira]

> why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization?

Because I don't consent to it. I don't want it. That's all the justification necessary. They violate my boundaries despite the fact I say no.

[superdug]

But how is it beneficial to those who don’t feel violated beyond the point of absolute necessity to always refuse consent because not every advertisement is guaranteed by nature to always be evil and have not yet come to a similar conclusion as yours as they believe that advertisement as a whole on a digital medium specifically in regards to transactions on a monetary level has not yet met their personal defined level of it being ultimately net evil. And therefore feel arguing against a ban of the practice entirely is not currently the most pressing issue with advertising that you keep telling them, their argument holds no merit, which lends itself to the personal assumption that what they are doing is ultimately wrong and therefore they should feel ashamed for it. They are not currently experiencing a feeling of guilt or shame about expressing their opinion and you are insisting, but not projecting, that they should. Ultimately this devolves into a basic summation of simply having their feelings hurt and wanting you to stop arguing your point, as you both actually understand each each other and can therefore continue this civil discussion we’re having and all continually agree that ultimately our shared responsibility society is working and we are still progressing despite the challenges.