I appreciate the good debate. It's my mistake, too, if my argument were not clear enough.

It would be strange for me (though I wouldn't much care) being 19 and waking up Christmas morning without gifts from my family. Though I wouldn't mind, the idea of there being no gifts would be extraordinary, for the norm says that people give gifts on Christmas. Further, had I not purchased gifts for my family, I would have appeared cheap, or thoughtless. Why though does this have to be? Why can't I simply tell my family that I love them, respect them, and simply want their presence for Christmas? It's because it's not typical. Family members EXPECT to receive gifts on Christmas and feel disease at not receiving any.

These values, though fostered by capitalistic advertising, ultimately derive from individual mentalities. These mentalities can be traced back to those (whoever they are) responsible for the outburst of capitalism. Though capitalism's presence further embeds the idea of extravagant gift giving in our minds (i.e. brand name perfume), these endeavors are put forth based on what consumer feedback says is profitable. The advertisements appeal to what past consumer purchases have told them. If a commercial for Paris Hilton perfume attracted millions of people to the store each year to purchase some for their family members, then I can assure you that these advertisers would be conditioned to present that commercial each year to receive their reward (many customers). However, even though it would be unwise for them to discontinue the commercial, or to instead advertise spending time with one's family rather than spending money on their perfume, it may not considerably change the amount of people who purchase the perfume. If every advertiser decided to sponsor a message encouraging family togetherness--without advertising their product in any way, I don't think it would be reasonable to conclude that viewers would decide not to purchase gifts for their family. It's simply expected. It's a norm in our society, and societal values must change before we see a change in capitalism (if it is needed).

Society is defined as an organized group of PERSONS associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes. People is what fuels society, and society fuels capitalism. One can argue that capitalism should be changed--and I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't--but who is going to change capitalism? A PERSON, with their own individual values! In order for this to happen, individuals must be reached and their attitudes changed. Individuals come first.

I agree that majority-held beliefs occasionally mask the truth, but (and I know you didn't say it) it's still no excuse for irrationality. Newton can discover the fundamental theory of calculus, but cannot contemplate the origins of god? I don't think so. Maybe he found it unnecessary, maybe he was pressured by society not to. Nevertheless, it was newton's decision to give in to irrationality. Those irrational beliefs are still irrational, no matter what the circumstances.

Also, rationality most certainly helps us choose the means to reach ends. If I lay landmines in my yard to protect my family from intruders, or if I set up a security system for the same reason, then my ends would be rational: protecting my family. One of those means, however, is not rational.

If a large number of individuals hold a belief, that does not mean in the slightest that those beliefs are rational.

I have never said that it does. I have said that people can't be considered guilty of sharing beliefs whose falsity they have very little real chance to discover. And if majority of the society shares some belief, it's a good indicator that the chances for finding the truth are quite small.

Moreover, what we are speaking about are not only beliefs, but also values. Values can be wrong, but I have problems understanding what is a(n) "(ir)rational value". Rationality tells us how to reach the desired ends, but not how to choose them.

To give an example, I don't see it as his individual fault when Isaac Newton was a devout Christian. Nor would I condemn a tribesman from New Guinea for cannibalism when it is common practice in his tribe. This I say in spite of seeing Christian belief as irrational and cannibalism as totally unacceptable and wrong. That the society didn't start as religious (or cannibalistic) has no importance - it was already so when the respective people were born.

Anyway, we got quite far from original topic in this discussion.

If that's so, and productive dialog is your intention, then point out the inconsistencies of the premises. I'm more than willing to hear them.

The abstinence only sex-education program isn't even near analogous. The failure of that paradigm is that it does not focus on altering behavioral skills, but rather emotional and cognitive constructs. Focusing on emotion and cognition alone is not enough and never will be. Further, I don't see anyone who remotely suggested that it would (hell, the research doesn't even support it).

I never concluded that people should settle for inward reflection in order for their problems to be fixed. Rather, that reflection is a good step to actual awareness and action. I don't deny that people make decisions based on societal norms. I deny that those norms are independent of individual cognition and action. If you want to change the norms then you must start with the individuals.

Also, people in a capitalist system would not try to convince people that they need things (like a bigger tv, a more powerful computer, etc.) unless individuals already held a value that indicated such. Advertisers target individual values, but more than that, they target a large conglomeration of individuals and their values. They target the majority. When individuals start to change their preferences such that the majority does so, the advertisements change (in presentation, type of product sold, etc.)

If, for example, atheists were a majority in this country, then don't you think the advertisements would change to reflect those new individual preferences?

The advertisements would prove unsuccessful if consumers examined the values that were actually important to them. Consumers buy into the idea that they need things (a new tv, a new car, etc.) because many of them don't realize that what they have right in front of them is sufficient enough.

Societal norms influence what people sell and what people buy. Thus, I take issue in your causal sequence. If societal norms (created directly by individuals' values) dictate that gift-giving is an important value, then you HAVE to expect that people will capitalize on that to make a profit. If our norms were different, i.e. spending time with family and friends was the norm, then I guarantee you'd notice different advertisement strategies.

If individual values are modified by the capitalist system, then if the owner of every company chooses to advertise products differently, then your claim sounds to me like you would expect to see a change at the individual level. But WHO would choose to make the decision to change that advertisement strategy? The individual and his/her values!

Societal expectations influence what is produced. Advertisements reflect societal expectations. Societal expectations are derived from individual expectations. Individual expectations are derived from individual values.

The whole idea of capitalism is to sell products that will make you money. Why sell products contrary to what the individual wants?

This entire line of argument is premised on a set of assumptions about how most people actually make decisions which simply do not hold in the real world. Unfortunately, like most people reasoning more or less correctly from Weapons-Grade Wrong premises, you don't seem to be aware of these assumptions or the tenuousness of your position if they are not treated as given. (I don't know yet whether you share the further premise of most people who think this way that subjecting their preconceptions and assumptions to critical examination is somehow a betrayal of their identity/group/culture/WTFE but wouldn't be surprised). This is the root of your problem and until you're willing to seriously examine your premises in an empirical manner, as well as a "logical on paper" manner, productive dialogue is probably impossible.

Sorry to be unclear—I meant that beliefs held by a majority says nothing concerning the nature of those beliefs. If a large number of individuals hold a belief, that does not mean in the slightest that those beliefs are rational.

So when I say that we can "call them faults," we can do so by examining the (ir)rationality behind them. Just because they are held by society as acceptable, does not implicate those beliefs as rational.

A majority-held belief can be rational or irrational. Rather than looking at the number of people who hold those beliefs, I think we should examine the actual beliefs themselves. Upon doing so, then we can certainly call those beliefs faults (if again, we can establish them as such).

We can absolutely call them faults (if, of course, we can establish that they really are faults). Why? A presence in the majority says nothing.

Of course presence in the majority does not exclude anything from possibility being clasified as a fault, but I don't agree that it says nothing. At least it can give you some idea of what can one rationally demand.

For example, most people are uncapable of making paintings comparable to works of Michelangelo or Rubens. We can probably agree that the world would be better if ordinary people had this capability, but that does not mean that its lack is a fault.

Concerning Catholicism, if someone's faith is a result of religious upbringing and life in a dominantly religious society, I would not call it fault. Or at least not his individual fault.

I'm aware of the studies on advertisement. I agree internal reflection isn't enough, but it's a good start. Without reflection, then you do not know what to change or to look at more closely.

Individual values are derived from societal values and expectations. Some things aren't linear, and causality in human societies is a two-way street (really more like an infinite-street intersection).

Also, advertisements work on a sub-conscious level as well as a conscious one, so internal reflection isn't always enough to dispel the affects. Numerous studies have shown that even annoying ads end up being successful; people remember the product, not the annoyance.