Philosophy Now Forum

.




I'm a little slow on the uptake.


How does the title of your thread relate to the image and article in your link?




.

The ad seems a little confused. Are they saying SID is caused by smothering? If so then SID would not be the issue!

They also appear a little confused as SID cases, in general, are of babies left on their own. In the 'third world' countries they talk about the children often sleep with and in the same room as their parents and as such its been mooted as a reason why their SID levels are much lower.

Personally I'm amazed that the american medical profession is allowing such stuff to be advertised.

.



Alright, who would be the first person in the world to answer it?



.

.



WTF?



.

That explains Fux 'News' then.

But the ad was run by a governmental agency? I'd have thought they'd at least pay attention to what the medical authorities say about such things. But I accept the "allowed" was the wrong term, 'allowed without challenge' would have been better.

Advertising is linked to the times. This ad, with baby sleeping and hatchet, says a lot about the present mind and thus the present society that thunk it.

Multiple traumas have occured to the body politic or within the group; and that image at top stands as a flag in the ground to the Now.
Morality has taken a back-seat or perhaps done a nose-dive. This image is proof of that. Or it is a sign of the New Morality, a la, A Brave New World.

I put 'ads' plural as I want to collect a few more of these kinds of images for inspection.

I can't see much wrong here, although I concede it's not immediately clear what message the picture is intended to convey. As part of a campaign (I assume it is only part, not the whole of one) it probably will play it part reasonably, if not ideally.

To quite from Wikipedia,

"A 2005 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics on sleep environment and the risk of SIDS deemed co-sleeping and bed sharing unsafe."

While bed-sharing is not the only risk factor (according to Wiki) it is still a factor, and one that can be addressed through public education. One does not ignore something that can ameliorate a problem just because it cannot cure it completely. It may even be that the debate about the poster is more effective in the goal of reducing SID that the poster itself.

All in all, I can't see what there is to object too.

Because the ad is hinting and talking about SIDS as smothering by an adult. Now I might be wrong but the pathologists can pretty much tell when a baby has been smothered and when it has died from SIDS, so what is the advert all about?

It's about creating an image that lodges itself in your mind and that doesn't come out easily. Why? So that, next time you lay your baby to sleep it'll trigger the image. Nice. It's a (mediaeval) warning of sorts.

Is it? I don't know what mechanism lies behind the co-sleeping risk-factor, but if it is a factor in SIDS then why not address it?



Doesn't that just mean it is likely to be effective? A neutral, unmemorable image would be a waste of time and money.

I think there is an element here of not wanting to be told what to do, even if it is good advice! It's as if the ad is some kind of Machiavallian experiment in social control or social engineering. Well, so it is. It is intended to change the way people behave. Given that there a any number of ways that society has to modify behaviour - from having schools to imprisoning thieves and giving medals to war heroes etc etc etc - the particular poster seems a strange thing to take particular umbrage over.

I think the problem is that the communicators (with this image) are treating/addressing the receiver as an animal or as one of Pavlov's dogs. At the heart of the image is a contempt for life, I think. The image presupposes that both itself and the receiver of the image are monsters of some kind.

There would be thousands of ways to communicate the message effectively without the use of fear but this new image would perhaps stand out as an anomaly to the times.