Arguments for: Sorry, I can't see any. "Marketers will benefit" hardly seems like a strong argument -- an entity that belongs to nobody (and therefore everybody) ought to be defaced so that a small number of profiteers can make more profits? I don't see how that is an argument that would convince anybody other than marketers. So, you're left with: It
could be used for a good cause, e.g., teaching everybody on the planet how to use condoms in order to avoid the spread of HIV.
Arguments against: Could start wars over access. Would certainly hasten global warming due to the extreme greenhouse gas emissions associated with rocket lift-offs. Would surely contribute to the growing "space junk" problem. Defaces an entity considered sacred by a number of faiths (sort of like putting up a McDonalds on the Dome of the Rock.)
In a Rogerian argument, you don't come up with a compromise. Instead, you find common ground on which everybody agrees. On abortion, for example, there is no compromise possible. However, all sides agree that unplanned pregnancies are unfortunate happenings. Furthermore, no unplanned pregnancies means (virtually) no demand for abortion, making the controversy essentially moot. Therefore, the Rogerian argument is that all sides should work together to end unplanned pregnancies.
So, the question becomes: What would both opponents and proponents of moonvertising agree? Is there something that, based on this agreement, could be done to make the moonvertising controversy moot?
Simone, EssayForum.com