Posted on 10/19/2016 8:13:45 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Here’s a little thought experiment for you:
If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?
Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.dilbert.com ...
Which is more dangerous to you and your loved ones future?
A lewd, crude, bombastic President facing a hostile media and a suspicious Congress/Judiciary or a corrupt, lawless bribeable President with an slavishly adoring media and a lapdog Congress/Judiciary?
He is. He endorsed Gary Johnson. Far out, man.
bookmark
Good article, but in fairness, I turned it around in my head —
I think Hillary is a globalist who will damage the country, destroy the Supreme Court and the constitution and completely change the demographics of this country, ushering in a future of mass dependency on an increasingly totalitarian government.
That’s the pink elephant I see.
Scott Adams would likely tell me I’m wrong, because other people don’t see what I think I see. So my pink elephant of Hillary is a mere hallucination.
So I’m not sure how useful this article actually is.
It’s the dems stock in trade. Make you afraid of the other guy, and they are damned good at it.
AMEN ! ! !
I've been thinking exactly the same thing for quite some time now; and most recently in NYC last night when I overheard a couple of conversations about what a low-life idiot Trump is. (It was a real struggle to keep my mouth shut. But I remembered the old adage: Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.)
ML/NJ
Right.
It’s rhetorically persuasive, but not actually logical. By its very nature, what he is asserting in this article can’t be true.
As Adams always says, he’s in the Persuasion business.
He never claims to be in the Logic business.
I am hallucinating. No way I have a friend who sees pink elephants.
Except that Hillary being a globalist (admittedly dreams of open borders) is a given. The other things you listed could be chalked up to pink elephant stuff. Filter out the pink elephants and you’re left with “Better Together” vs “Drain the Swamp”.
He went a little off the rails when the Billy Bush tape came out. But it looks like Scott is back on track now. He has taken a lot of heat, death threats and considerable loss of income over his observations and support for Trump. I wouldn't place a lot of credence in his “endorsement” of Gary Johnson. At one point he also said he was “endorsing” Hillary for his and his family's safety. The Johnson “endorsement” is the same.
So, don't stretch what you see so far into the future. She is for open borders and what is generally called "free trade." She thinks Heller was wrongly decided (so do 4 SCOTUS justices), etc.
The article is plenty useful, because the attacks against Trump are risible and require a ridiculous misinterpretation of what he has said or done.
His reasoning seems faulty, but hopefully it converts some from Clinton.
Some people can’t be convinced of the truth so to them that is in addition to reality. By his reasoning the person who believes the least or has the least cognitive ability to perceive the world around him is correct most of the time. He seems to claim a monopoly on the knowledge of reality.
The same reasoning could be used to prove Hillary is not what we say she is.
https://www.periscope.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1OwxWrgAnbpJQ?t=4
Scott Adams’ ‘Coffee with Scott Adams’ this morning (video)
(—I haven’t watched it yet—just FYI here)
Scott Adams endorsed Clinton, then Johnson, because he literally got death threats etc when he endorsed Trump. It’s well understood that his “endorsement” is B.S.
I said pretty much the same thing to my sister-in-law last night at dinner and her eyes welled up and she said while choking back tears "That's crazy. Do you know how crazy you sound?"
I fought the urge to quote Michael Corleone responding to Kay in a similar situation. It would not have made matters any better.
I considered that to, but we have actual & mounting proof of the corruption, while the “Trump is a racist” etc accusations actually have no proof whatsoever.
Before you scoff at mass, shared illusions as being unlikely, keep in mind that everyone with a different religion than yours is experiencing exactly that. Mass shared illusions are our most common experience.
Intelligence does help against being persuaded by a false belief--but only if it is applied. If he is saying not applying one's intelligence is what he means by "illusion" or "hallucination" then indeed mass illusion is common.
However it is only with actual hallucination cases in a less metaphorical sense that the "extra" information is necessarily a "hallucination"--this does not apply to thinking a hypothesis through where you are trying to figure out if something exists. For example, if most people can see there is such a thing as atoms based on applying intelligence, but a minority can't, it does not follow the minority is right because the atoms are an "extra".
On the other hand, if he means by "illusion" or "hallucination" an actual subjective experience that someone else present ought to see if it were real, then the claim that mass hallucinations are common seems completely unsupportable.
The gripping hand is, that he has snuck in an equivocation fallacy here, I suspect by accident.
Saw my formerly estranged sister of 20 years yesterday...she was watching MSNBC and told me she was obsessed and would be making calls for Hillary. I said nothing. After about an hr of conversation on other topics she asked me if I was voting for Hillary - I said no. I also said I wasn’t going to discuss it. (no use). She looked off into the distance and said “I don’t know how anyone could be so STUPID”.
I know how she can be so stupid...she watches MSNBC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.