Thank You for Smoking by Nick Naylor

Sneha Maknojia Professor Christopher Dunn slope 1302- Essay One 27 February 2013 Thank You for Smoking Thank You for smoking is or so a lobbyist telephone Nick Naylor who is the vice-president of Academy of Tobacco studies. The word-painting revolves around how Nick smooth-talks e rattlingone into believing that Tobacco is not very harmful. Nick Naylors main job was to make nation aware of the research his academy does and answer questions on television regarding health claims against tobacco. Nick believed everyone has some sort of giving and he has the talent to talk populate in or out of an course.He always knew what to say and when he needs to say it. In the movie Thank You For Smoking the main character Nick Naylor shows the actor of how argument when it is done in a correct way, which can make everything seem right. There were many instances in the movie when Nick showed the position of argument. In the movie he argued himself out of some other argument. Throughout t he movie Nick showed the power of art and power of argument from the smallest of things to very serious matters.The first instance I thought he showed his knowledge about argument is when he is with his son in Los Angeles and teaching him how you do not choose to be right to win an argument. He is teaching his son an art of argument by verbal expression that to win an argument all you have to do is to prove other persons argument wrong. The reason wherefore I thought it was kind of an interesting philosophy of Nick Naylor is because it is kind of true sometimes you do not have to prove yourself right.All you have to do is that prove the other person wrong which go forth automatically make you correct. The second time I thought Nick Naylor showed his power over disceptation is at the beginning of the movie when he is at a television talk show and he was being criticized of how the academy is not doing anything to prevent the number of deaths of children because of tobacco. Here again victimisation his great acquirement of smooth talking saying that why would a tobacco company would want their customers to die. Again he made a point which I thought was very logical.He put an end to this argument by claiming how academy is putting their own money to help warp kids not to smoke. Nick again using the power of his argument skills by putting the on us on the other guy sort of of himself and let the other guy prove his case instead Nick trying to prove his. The third base evidence of Nicks argument abilities is shown at the congressional hearing towards the end. When he was arguing on the issue of people being not informed luxuriant about the dangers of tobacco, he was asked to come in to prove that otherwise.Here again instead of proving his own point, Nick Naylor brought up a whole new argument to get peoples focus off from the tobacco argument. He made another valid point by saying that if tobaccos perilous warning needs to be more spectacular on its packaging because it is great danger to American people health than cheese have to have hazardous warning too. He argued that a lot Americans died because of cholesterol so they should put a more prominent danger warning on cheese related products too.Nick gave a great analogy about people being knowledgeable enough to make their own decisions. Just like cheese do not need a warning sign because people are aware of the danger of cholesterol by eating too much cheese, people who smoke are aware of the harm of tobacco. Its a person own choice what they want to consume and what they do not, people are knowledgeable enough to know what is harmful to them and what is not. These claims that Nick have made about the beauty of arguing supports my thesis about how throughout the Nick Naylor showed the power of argument if it is done correctly.He argued with his counter parts in a manner that it never looked like he was arguing. He talked in such a soft, smooth tone that sometime he was not t he one who was defending the argument and it is the other way around. Some people turn over arguing never brings any good, but in this movie Nick Naylor showed how arguing, if done correctly, can persuade people to change their way of thinking. I thought the last dialogue of Nick Naylor sums up his talent of arguing quiet brilliantly. Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent.