"Logical Fallacies"

One of the biggest logical fallacies shown in the movie, “PCU,” is the depiction of social groups. In the movie, we see a preppy social group, a vegan group, a womanist group, an African-American group, and a rebel group. In real life, college does have its separate social groups but they are not nearly as elaborate as the ones depicted in the movie. We do have sororities and fraternities but the people in the sororities and fraternities socialize with other people outside of their sororities and fraternities. In the movie, the groups did not even bother to talk to other students who weren’t in their social group. College really isn’t like that. Students interact with other students regardless of their social status. In the movie, it seems like the students are defined based on what social group they belong to and judge each other that way. The fallacies in the movie depicting the social groups are extremely over exaggerated.

"Death of an Innocent"

I do believe that there a still characters like Chris McCandless in society. Although society has changed a lot in the past fifteen years, there are still people who hold tight to dreams such as McCandless’s. But with society evolving every few days, it is probably a lot more difficult to pursue such goals. Not only has society severely changed in the past fifteen years, but is has also expanded. Chris McCandless just wanted a quiet and peaceful place to go and be apart from the rest of the world and its temptations. There are not many places nowadays where a person can go and be completely away from society.
Admittedly, with new upgrades in technology, society is making it extremely difficult for anyone to focus their thoughts towards anything other than economics. Most of society does not concern itself with why people do bad things or why we have people starving in such a prosperous-looking economy. Instead we concern ourselves with what new technology will help us speed up the process of life. In short, society’s goals ore focused on technological economics as opposed to ethical economics.
Chris McCandless’s aspirations surpassed the aspirations of many Americans, then and now. I believe that there are people who share the same thoughts and beliefs and Chris McCandless. I think there are individuals who choose to “live off the land” and not interact with the rest of society. But I also believe that those individuals are few and very far between. Wishing for a better world and wishing to help those in need is a want that millions of people share but are hindered to act because of the world we live in. I think the brave people, like Chris McCandless, are the ones who do not let society prevent them from following their dreams and accomplishing their goals. I do believe that there are adventurers who, on the occasion, get “itchy feet” and need to get away from society and clear there minds or find themselves. These individuals may share the same goals as Chris McCandless but may not take it to the extreme he chose to take it to. They may let someone know where they are going or have some means of communication with the rest of the world in case something happens. They also may bring food with them, which in this case, it would not be the same as completely letting yourself be taken away from society. And if their life was in danger, they may have chose to kill a few trees and wildlife in order to live, unlike McCandless. So, I fully believe that characters like Chris McCandless still do exist in society but not to the same extent. The evolutions in society in the past fifteen years have definitely changed most of society goals, pointing them toward the economy. And those who think like Chris McCandless, may be thwarted by the changes in society to act as Chris McCandless, to a certain degree if at all.

"AIDS and Advertising"

This ad does not appeal to consumers at all. United Colors of Benniton is a clothing company, and the AIDS epidemic has nothing to do with clothes. I believe many consumers were turned off by this ad. As a whole I think the ad forces people to think about AIDS and completely forget about clothing. The consumers aren’t considering buying clothes anymore. Instead they will be realizing what a big issue AIDS is around the world. Most people’s initial reaction to those infected with AIDS is a negative one. We assume they must have made some very poor decisions sometime during their life, whether it to be infidelity, promiscuity, or drugs. Most of us do not consider that some people are born with AIDS or may have come in contact with someone who has been promiscuous or has done drugs. Furthermore, we do not stop to realize the devastating effect AIDS has on its victims, as well as those close to them, such as family and friends. This ad forces people not to think about the negative cause of AIDS but of the lasting effects it brings. The ad also makes consumers wonder how many people are affected by this disease and understand that it really is a global problem. I think the idea of the ad was to get people who support AIDS campaigns the buy the clothes because the producer of the clothes also supports AIDS campaigns. I think most consumers will see past the picture and realize the underlying message: buy United Colors of Benitton. In truth I believe the ad should be presented like this: BUY UNITED COLORS OF BENITTON (to support AIDS). The real point of the ad is to get the consumers to buy the product by making them think they are buying for a good cause and supporting a huge issue. It is an evil but extremely clever scheme. The ad definitely appeals to pathos. When looking at the ad, you can see the pain the family in the picture must be going through. The producer of the clothing wants its consumers to feel sorry for the people in the ad and feel obligated to help by supporting the AIDS campaign by buying their clothes. I do not think that this is a honest way to get people to buy clothing. The producer of the clothing is using a real problem just to make profit. Anyone who is looking hard enough at the ad can see the real underlying message. It is kind of like subliminal advertising without words. Some consumers can see what the ad is “saying” and some cannot. Clothes are completely forgotten as soon as your eyes look at the ad. People start to question the connection between clothes and AIDS and realize that there is not one. Overall, the ad does not appeal to consumers in the way the company may have wanted it to. The ad brings to light a controversial issue, AIDS, and suppresses a trivial one, clothing.