I’m not disagreeing with you in any way, but things like ejecting a person out of a vehicle before it bursts into flames, where they woke up and the vehicle was on fire, and they would have been unconscious and burned alive in other scenarios.
Same with the drowning argument of being unable to get out of the seat belt due to panic.
In every one of these scenarios, it’s extreme and the possibility of it happening is so remote it’s not worth considering. But it still comes up in the “argument” (speaking from experience arguing with someone who was anti-seat belts for years).
All I was highlighting is that if we’re going to be able to argue with the people who believe this stuff, we have to acknowledge the extreme edge case view they hold as theoretically possible under the most absurd conditions; and then that allows us to move forward in the conversation to convince them that the odds of something like that happening to them vs the seat belt saving them are so remote they may as well plan to win the lottery 8 times in a row.
I say this from experience, that’s what finally allowed me to break down the walls of my anti-seat belt acquaintance over months/years of arguing. He’s wearing a seat belt now, even though he still snarks about it. But it keeps him safe, and deep down, he understands that now because I took the time to acknowledge that his concerns, while theoretically possible, were not real concerns for anyone in the world to think about on a day to day basis anymore than worrying about getting struck by a meteorite would be.
I’m not disagreeing with you in any way, but things like ejecting a person out of a vehicle before it bursts into flames, where they woke up and the vehicle was on fire, and they would have been unconscious and burned alive in other scenarios.
Same with the drowning argument of being unable to get out of the seat belt due to panic.
In every one of these scenarios, it’s extreme and the possibility of it happening is so remote it’s not worth considering. But it still comes up in the “argument” (speaking from experience arguing with someone who was anti-seat belts for years).
All I was highlighting is that if we’re going to be able to argue with the people who believe this stuff, we have to acknowledge the extreme edge case view they hold as theoretically possible under the most absurd conditions; and then that allows us to move forward in the conversation to convince them that the odds of something like that happening to them vs the seat belt saving them are so remote they may as well plan to win the lottery 8 times in a row.
I say this from experience, that’s what finally allowed me to break down the walls of my anti-seat belt acquaintance over months/years of arguing. He’s wearing a seat belt now, even though he still snarks about it. But it keeps him safe, and deep down, he understands that now because I took the time to acknowledge that his concerns, while theoretically possible, were not real concerns for anyone in the world to think about on a day to day basis anymore than worrying about getting struck by a meteorite would be.