Just short of 20 years ago (around the time I stopped listening to what pretended to be “country” music around that era), some cookie-cutter nonentity shat out a “song” which was so transparently gimmicky it made me want to throat-punch whoever thought it would be a great idea to release it.
Wikipedia sums the “shtick” up nicely:
The song is an uptempo tune that describes the narrator’s love for a woman. He wants to “drink from your loving cup”, “swear to never give you up”, “steal all your kisses underneath the moon”, and “lie close to you”. 
Now, these sort of “double entendre” gimmicks aren’t “clever”, in the least.
I haven’t found this sort of “word-play” amusing since I first encountered it when I was a child.
My first exposure to this sort of “humor” was by way of the following “jokes”:
Q.: “How do you get down from an elephant?”
A: “you don’t – you get down from a goose”
Q: “When is a door not a door?”
A: “When it’s ajar.
Now, here’s the thing: no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot find this sort of thing to be “clever” – at all.
This sort of “word-play” tacitly – or explicitly – trains us all – from early childhood – in the dubious “art” of deliberate imprecision – to find deliberate slovenliness and gross equivocation “funny”.
This isn’t even an issue of whether words can have “multiple meanings” (which is slovenly in a different way, but at least excusable). This is deliberately resorting to a logical fallacy merely because you think that doing so is somehow “clever”.
Now, if you follow the link, you see that there is an “exception” where “deliberate attempts at humor” are concerned. Personally, I think this would only be excusable in a cultural context where actively taught – from an early age – the sort of “critical thinking skills” which are (virtually) absent from most of this culture.
Of course, if they did learn those skills, “advertising”, “new age” bullshit, and pretty much everything else which relies on Edward Bernay’s propaganda techniques would cease to “work” – because the “mark” would immediately see through the con-game.
Edward Bernays is the slimy fuck who originated (and/or systematized) pretty much every method of institutional mind-fuck used to manipulate (I mean “persuade”) the ignorant and gullible into uncritical, mindless, reflexive obedience.
The tragic thing is: in the vast majority of cases, Edward Bernays (and the slimy fucks who came after him) are absolutely right. Far too many “individuals” function at what is effectively a subhuman level – because consciousness is just too damned hard.
Uncritically aping, parroting, and following the rest of the herd is easier.
What is really tragic is: the reason the slimy fuck’s ideas became so pervasive in the first place:
Describing the response to his campaign for Ivory Soap, Bernays wrote: “As if actuated by the pressure of a button, people began working for the client instead of the client begging people to buy.”
Businesses found these covert methods irresistible. Strother Walker and Paul Sklar wrote in Business Finds Its Voice (1938) that Bernays had offered a solution to popular skepticism of business which arose in the depression: better “to implant an idea in a group leader’s mind and let him spread it than to write up an idea and send it to the papers as a release, in the old-fashioned way…”.
Think about that. Let the fact that our Governmental, religious and corporate “leaders” tacitly view their respective constituencies as nothing more, less or other than the bipedal equivalent of Pavlov’s dogs. – fit only to be trained to salivate on command.
Think about that fact, next time they manage to trick you into buying a specific brand by tugging at your “heart-strings” (and, essentially defrauding you as a result.)
Any sane and rational person who knows how “branding” works knows that (in the vast majority of cases) there is little to no difference between “store brand”/”generic” vs. “brand name” products — nevertheless, a significant proportion of the target population can be CONDITIONED to “pay for the name”.
So, no: I don’t believe that it is a good idea to train children to deliberately engage in a logical fallacy before they even comprehend the fact that it is a logical fallacy.
Unless, of course, you want to ensure that they never actually become “adults” (in the cognitive sense of the term):
I am genuinely bemused by the fact that B. F. Skinner, Edward Bernays, and their ilk were not tortured to death by their victims. In a sane and rational society, B.F. Skinner and Edward Bernays specifically – would have been dragged into the street by the “human herds” they had tried to “control’, and ever so slowly tortured to death, in the middle of the “public square”.
Those who would train humans to be “beyond freedom and dignity” should be reduced to abject, broken, agonized shells, groveling in their own filth – as an object lesson for any other such “planner”.