What, Me Worry?

Nevermind minor annoyances and drunken diatribes, though. Yesterday I woke up around 9 AM in good shape, which surprised me because Esteban, Corey and I took part in a little Friday Afternoon Clubbing (FAC). We get together on Friday afternoons and shoot the breeze while having a few cocktails. Yesterday the imbibe of choice was Absolut Los Angeles Vodka, which is nothing short of phenomenal, and it flowed for the better part of four hours. So you can understand why I was a bit amazed that I didn't have a punishing hangover.

At any rate, I'm sitting there wondering whether or not I'm developing a tolerance and watching a college football pregame show. Mostly because it amuses me, listening to the yammering of the Ted Baxters. They predict the future with such certitude they can't help but be amusing, on occasion. But Ted Baxter's entertainment value was surpassed by, of all things, a commercial. I'm sure the good people at John Hancock didn't intend to entertain. They did, nonetheless. The obvious and flat-footed attempt at scaring the audience into using their services drew a chuckle.

An appeal to fear occurs where one introduces the threat of an undesirable result to advance a position or conclusion. An arguer uses this form of argument when uninterested in proffering relevant evidence for their conclusion or position. The John Hancock commercials proved an obvious example of this fallacy.

In one of the commercials, a man is sitting at his computer and chatting with his wife. She tells him that she had to check the 65+ box on a financial form. He asks how long is plus. In response she types "For your mother it was 95." He then falls back in his chair in obvious consternation. Wow...what happens if we run out of money. Flash to the John Hancock logo. The argument: "If you don't go with John Hancock, you will run out of money."

In another, and this is the one that made me laugh, a man is chatting from his Blackberry with his wife. She's informing him that one of their acquaintances ran out of money and had to move in with his/her child. The man responds, "Move in with your kids? Ouch." Flash to the John Hancock logo. The argument: If you don't go with John Hancock, you will run out of money and end up living with your kids."

John Hancock introduces the undesirable result of running out of money during retirement. Then, as if this were not threat enough, marries the idea of running out money with moving in with your children. Then this irrelevant evidence is offered to sustain their position that you should employ the services of John Hancock. They chose this tact instead of producing relevant evidence to support their position, which is we should employ their services.

As it turns out, John Hancock chose an appeal to fear as an argument form. I suppose this isn't all that surprising or unusual in advertising, but given the current economic climate and the attending worries, it does seem a bit heavy handed and vulgar. An American population fretting over the condition of Wall St and its corollaries is an unseemly target for this garbage. I ain't making it up.