- Nick Naylor tells his son, "If you know how to argue, you're never wrong." What does he mean by this? Do you agree?
- Does the film itself make an argument? If so, what for or against? If not, what does the film say or suggest about argument?
- Should cigarettes carry a skull-and-crossbones label? Should Vermont cheddar?
- Who was your favorite character in the film, and why?
- Do you want to be a lobbyist when you grow up?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thank You for Smoking
Feel free to use this thread to discuss anything related to the film or issues that you think it raises. But here are a few potential topics:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
During the Congressional hearing scene in the film, I found myself nearly persuaded by Nick Naylor that if cigarettes have to carry a skull and corssbones label, so should Vermont cheddar. His line of thinking seemed so logical and reasonable (he IS a lobbyist who talks for a living). But then I remembered it's cigarettes we're talking about, not cheese. On one hand, I like the idea of cigarettes carrying some sort of terrible pictoral warning on them. But on the other hand, I liked what Nick was saying about "What else should carry a skull and crossbones label? Boeing planes?" This goes right to the heart of the debate over how big of a roll the government (particualrly on the federal level) should play in our lives. Do we, the people to whom the government is supposed to answer, trust ourselves to choose correctly- whether it be cheese, cigarettes, or trans fats? Or do we need the government to tell us what is bad or good for us? Each side has its merits: there are some people out there who need guidance as to what to do (should we be directing them?), but should government take that role (because this means government grows and acquires more power)? Yet, I think cigarettes lie in a category all their own: not only are they unhealthy (like trans fats), but they are addictive (which trans fats have not really been shown to be). In this instance, my view is that government does need to step in and try to curb cigarette usage as much as possible because it's a public health issue. (And after all, who's really going to think straight over an issue that involves his or her nicotine addiction and be able to stop even when he or she knows that it's unhealthy?) If those who are governed like the government's action, they'll send the congresspeople back to work next election. If they don't like it, they'll "fire" their government. After all, it's the people who rule. But I think my original question remains: how big of a role should government play in regulating our health choices, or, for that matter, what we do in our "private" lives?
I think that the government should only be concerned with the public health issue of cigarettes. So, no smoking in public places, so that the public doesn't have to deal with smokers. However, I don't think they should interfere with an individual's right to smoke on private property just because its unhealthy or addictive. The government allows a lot of other unhealthy things out there. Maybe they're unhealthy to a lesser degree, but we live in a pretty unhealthy place right now. They should provide objective education (which no one really does anymore) and then let Darwinism run its course (which would be "inhumane").
I only think this because of the type of government we're supposed to be. Now, if we wanted to go back to times where the government rules rather than the "people" as we claim, than sure, go as far as to ban cigarettes for all I really care. Its been tried before though, I think it was by the Ottoman Empire (been awhile, I might have it mixed up with another), when tobacco was first becoming popular. It didn't work very well.
"If you know how to argue, you're never wrong."
I think that Nick means as long as you have proof behind what you are saying or can disprove what the other guy is saying, people can disagree with you, but they can't say you are wrong. I agree with this. Last year in English class, my teacher would talk about making an argument and then going back to the "wall" of text to support it. She said that as long as we were "touching the wall," we couldn't be wrong, even if we were arguing the complete opposite of somebody else. I think that if you have support to back up what you are saying, you can't be wrong.
My favorite character from the film was Nick Naylor. I know it was his job to be a lobbyist, but he was better than anyone I know at convincing people to believe him. Like Ryan said earlier, I too found myself being convinced that Vermont cheese was just as harmful as cigarettes. I am not very familiar with lobbying, especially lobbyists defending negative items such as cigarettes or guns, so Nick could have been a terrible lobbyist and I wouldn’t have known it. But Nick made me think about cigarettes in ways that I never considered before. How can he make me think that cheese and cigarettes are somehow on the same level? But he did. He reminded me that everything has 2 sides and we can’t jump to conclusions without looking from all angles.
The best character in the movie for me byfar had to have been Bobby Jay Bliss. I love his about if a jet crashes because of piolit error do you sue Boeing. This argument I though was not only funny but very good. You can't really blame accidents on things if the accident actually occured from the error of a person. I also find that Bobby is the funniest character with his random lines and his betting against Nick. They should make some M.O.D. squad bumperstickers for Face Book.
When we first started this movie, I wasn't quite sure how it was going to relate to the class. However, I quickly realized that we could all learn something from the argument techniques displayed throughout the film. I was extremely impressed with Nick Naylor's power of persuasion. He is a charismatic speaker and is able to keep his opponents guessing. He often used unconventional arguments to help portray his stance and viewpoint on an issue. He caught people off-guard with his arguments, which prevented them from responding with a strong counter-argument. This movie helped me realize that creativity is an important part of persuasion and argument.
My favorite character in the film was Nick Naylor. Though he can be thought of as an easy target to pick on, he was great at arguing. He knew how to persuade others in a manner that seemed so effortless. I find this trait to be very important skill that one should acquire. Though at times it can be used to hurt others, he somehow turned this trait to display an important lesson--the power of choice.
Post a Comment