Yesterday at the flea market there was a seller I've known for a long time but hadn't seen for a year asked me if I got the jab, I told him no (I thought he was a little more based) and he responded "everybody is getting it" I responded "I am not just everybody" he rolled his eyes, so I came back with "freedom of choice, man, and I choose NOT to" He shrugged and I went on my way.. He did get the jab.. Trickle down tyranny kills minds..
When we come across people who say "everybody is doing X," one of the best ways to counter is to say, "Oh, actually a lot of people are not doing X."
There is a logical fallacy called "Ad Populum" or "Appeal to Popularity." The idea is that if some idea is popular, it must be right. It is popular to believe that 9/11 was done by 19 hijackers from Afghanistan (never mind they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, etc.). But just because it is a popular opinion does not make it a true fact.
Here, the flea market guy thinks that if a lot of people are getting the jab, it must be a good thing. By saying in response, "No, actually a lot of people are NOT getting the jab ... it might even be more people not getting the jab that are." It doesn't really matter if it is true or not. The point is to break through his logical fallacy and through his false sense of reality.
It doesn't matter if 99% got the jab, it still would not prove it was a good thing to do. But since he is stuck in simplistic thinking, respond with counter-simplistic thinking.
You don't talk a 6-year old mentality the same way you do a 60-year old mentality.
Maybe we should respond to immature thinking in a way that they can understand. People like this do not understand the concept of independent action and critical thinking. They don't understand why someone would want to stand out from the crowd. But they do understand that they "should" do what the crowd does, so they convince themselves that what they are doing is what "everybody else" is doing. Break through that, and maybe the start thinking.
Yesterday at the flea market there was a seller I've known for a long time but hadn't seen for a year asked me if I got the jab, I told him no (I thought he was a little more based) and he responded "everybody is getting it" I responded "I am not just everybody" he rolled his eyes, so I came back with "freedom of choice, man, and I choose NOT to" He shrugged and I went on my way.. He did get the jab.. Trickle down tyranny kills minds..
I just ordered my "pureblood" t-shirt gonna trigger some Karen's lol
When we come across people who say "everybody is doing X," one of the best ways to counter is to say, "Oh, actually a lot of people are not doing X."
There is a logical fallacy called "Ad Populum" or "Appeal to Popularity." The idea is that if some idea is popular, it must be right. It is popular to believe that 9/11 was done by 19 hijackers from Afghanistan (never mind they were mostly from Saudi Arabia, etc.). But just because it is a popular opinion does not make it a true fact.
Here, the flea market guy thinks that if a lot of people are getting the jab, it must be a good thing. By saying in response, "No, actually a lot of people are NOT getting the jab ... it might even be more people not getting the jab that are." It doesn't really matter if it is true or not. The point is to break through his logical fallacy and through his false sense of reality.
It doesn't matter if 99% got the jab, it still would not prove it was a good thing to do. But since he is stuck in simplistic thinking, respond with counter-simplistic thinking.
You don't talk a 6-year old mentality the same way you do a 60-year old mentality. Maybe we should respond to immature thinking in a way that they can understand. People like this do not understand the concept of independent action and critical thinking. They don't understand why someone would want to stand out from the crowd. But they do understand that they "should" do what the crowd does, so they convince themselves that what they are doing is what "everybody else" is doing. Break through that, and maybe the start thinking.
My second response to him indicated I was for freedom NOT "safety"... Being a 76 YO "at risk" person gives my argument substance.