> Through the various replies here, there's more than enough evidence of harm. It seems you are, at this point, merely defending your prior statement and not addressing the issue in any way.

What's the original statement you think I'm defending? It sounds like you and a few others are responding to the claim "maybe advertising is completely fine all the time", which is not what I'm saying. I'm responding to one specific argument against advertising, namely the idea that "implanted" desires are fundamentally worse/different than "true" desires.

> We can attempt to nullify all harmful things by redirecting them with some philosophical meta-analysis, e.g.: harm is good because it leads to growth/development/character. Ultimately, that's an easy way to abstract your way out of recognizing facts.

It sounds like you're saying you're against this kind of low-level philosophical argument analysis? Like, if advertising is bad, we should only ever be talking about how advertising is actually bad and never talk about anything else?

If someone said "advertising starts with an A so it's bad" and another responds "are you sure? I think some things that start with A can be good", would you say that's a bad thing to say since advertising is bad overall, so why defend it in any way?

I think if you think advertising is bad and dangerous, it's all the more important to have robust, clear arguments on why exactly it's bad.

> If you want to be philosophical, a better position would be to view such as enslavement because that is the logical endpoint.

"If you want to be philosophical, a better position would be <my position> because <it's correct>".

I guess there's no pulling you through the loop, out of your constructions. So to clarify: implanted desires are worse. This is demonstrable if we only consider the unaccounted cost of profiteering, whether it be ecological or the debasement of other humans. There is no need to transcend to philosophical inquiry because the harm imposed is so evident. You have to acknowledge that, but you chose to elevate your position in argument to the abstract where harm is only theoretical. Second, this is a somewhat absurd oversimplification of my position to create a strawman and, again, elevate your position in some moralistic superiority hierarchy built around meta thinking (all too common) The reason they killed Socrates? Mayhaps. Then you repeat yourself and again strawman my argument. No Advertising isn't bad. There are insidious techniques that the mind cannot distinguish. These are evil/wrong/bad, whatever Newspeak you prefer. Once they are known, they must be prohibited, e.g. as subliminal political messaging was banned. Lastly, it is clear you think highly of yourself and your thoughts... this is clear. However, I believe your rhetoric falls short in this instance