Archive for September, 2009

Hello world! (Chapter 2)

September 26, 2009

Hello world! This is my first blog post. Let’s see if I have anything interesting to say…

I’ve always appreciated the abovetheinfluence ads. They cleverly portray the evil side of drug use… you know, to make it cute and funny. I can’t figure out how to put a picture in this thing, so I’ll link you to one such ad. What is implied by this ad? Considering this is Philosophy class, let’s throw in the textbook definition of an implication– “a logical relations of statements such that one being true makes the other true.(20)” This ad is implying that the good friends are the ones discouraging drug use. In stressing that living above the influence is preferable, this ad implies that people living under the influence are making a poor decision.

On to contradictions, which, as we’ll all remember from the book is “a logical relation between two statements such that when one of the statements is true, the others must be false. (23)” The cute and fuzzy portrayal of this ad contradicts the fact that drugs are serious business. The tag line of “good friends will back you up” is visually contradicted because the supposedly good friends are way further away than the druggie no-good friend.

The turning device on the side of the drug addict is consistant with the idea that the bad friend is only doing exactly what he is expected to do and not thinking. The presence of more non-drug-users is consistent with the message they are attempting to portray, that only wound up losers do drugs.

Let’s get some more practice!! For my second example, I think I’ll do an article about the suspicious events surrounding Michael Jackson’s death, because I’ve been meaning to see whatever happened regarding that situation, anyway. This one will do.

Talking about the doctor’s multiple shady reputation blips implies that the author wants to tell the readers more about the suspicious side of the doctor. Michael Goyr saying “It’s almost as if when I read the paper, I’m reading about another doctor” implies that the doctor acts very differently in different situations.

Our understanding of medical care tells us that the doctor saying he did nothing wrong is contradicted by the fact that his main client died suddenly at a young age. The quote: “He neither prescribed or administered anything to Michael Jackson that should have killed him,” is contradicted by the fact that he died minutes after being given the medicine.

The explanation of the sentences are consistent with the attempted unbiased-ness of the article, as they give both options of what could happen. The discussion of the doctor’s past debts, illegitimate children and general irresponsibility is consistent with the attempt to cast dispersions upon the character of the doctor that was established early on in the article.