What are you even on about? Persuasion is not advertising. And in the absence of a material culture for advertising, there is literally no basis for the 30,000 year claim. This is pure nonsense and the worst kind of bullshit.
Advertising first occurred at 1000000000 BC when rhe first female dog advertised her availability by spraying pheromones into the air, thus persuading male dogs to etc.
The “shameless pedantry” is meant to ensure that the point you’re trying to make is clear and not an infinite exercise of “moving the goalposts”. If the premise is bad, the whole argument fails.
As for the point, the other poster that said “it’s the current reality” made the best reply, in my opinion
Technology can therefore be defined both as an ensemble of deliberately created processes and objects that together accomplish some function as well as the associated knowledge and skills used in the conception, design, implementation, and operation of such technological artifacts.
Advertising is a method of persuasion.
It’s as old as civilization.
We advertise for various reasons, selling products is just one of them.
And yes, over time, we have developed new advertising techniques.
A body of techniques is what’s referred to as a “technology”.
Advertising is a communication technique to bring attention to something.
You are mostly talking about commercial advertising, which is still not technology.
Where did you find that definition of technology?
What are you even on about? Persuasion is not advertising. And in the absence of a material culture for advertising, there is literally no basis for the 30,000 year claim. This is pure nonsense and the worst kind of bullshit.
If I address every silly claim I’ll be here all day.
Start with your silly claim that “advertising”, as you define it, occurred 30,000 years ago. Any non-suppositional evidence please.
Advertising first occurred at 1000000000 BC when rhe first female dog advertised her availability by spraying pheromones into the air, thus persuading male dogs to etc.
(I should be getting paid for this)
By your logic, a political or religious speech would be advertising.
One intended to persuade, yes.
We sometimes call that variety of advertising, “propaganda”.
It really feels like you’re trying to make any sort of persuasion = advertising, which is just stupid.
Also, calling “a body of techniques” a technology would imply that martial arts and dances are technologies.
Shameless pedantry aside, what about my actual point?
The “shameless pedantry” is meant to ensure that the point you’re trying to make is clear and not an infinite exercise of “moving the goalposts”. If the premise is bad, the whole argument fails.
As for the point, the other poster that said “it’s the current reality” made the best reply, in my opinion
If you put half the effort into your answer that you put into picking nits, a fine conversation might happen.
Why should I put any more effort in this when you didn’t put any on the initial argument or any other reply in this thread?
Do you have any understanding of your own? This secondhand, copy pasted stuff rings hollow.
I’m a scholar. It means not pulling stuff from your ass and citing your sources.
If you understand your subject then you can use your own words, no need for citation.
If you do not understand your subject then citation will only make things worse.