The form of it being an argument using a hypothetical is important. The audience has been trained to think that if a message is delivered using that form, it is legitimate. They don’t necessarily know how to evaluate the truth content within that message, simply whether it comes in the right form and whether it confirms what they already believed.
i.e. say something in a way that reminds the audience of a smart professor and they’ll agree with you
That is a good analysis of it, I think because ours is a culture of “metaphor” and fiction, and as such, people trust an idea more when it is presented that way, especially when someone is like a smart (movie) professor, who uses analogy and big words to say things. I’ve never met a libertarian type who doesn’t love to overuse big words.
The form of it being an argument using a hypothetical is important. The audience has been trained to think that if a message is delivered using that form, it is legitimate. They don’t necessarily know how to evaluate the truth content within that message, simply whether it comes in the right form and whether it confirms what they already believed.
i.e. say something in a way that reminds the audience of a smart professor and they’ll agree with you
That is a good analysis of it, I think because ours is a culture of “metaphor” and fiction, and as such, people trust an idea more when it is presented that way, especially when someone is like a smart (movie) professor, who uses analogy and big words to say things. I’ve never met a libertarian type who doesn’t love to overuse big words.