I don't really want to take a leg in this thread (there are pragmatic reasons one may chose to put a foot down on whichever side in practice, and doing so now w

I don't really want to take a leg in this thread (there are pragmatic reasons one may chose to put a foot down on whichever side in practice, and doing so now won't mean anything really to anyone), but it was interesting that the 3rd argument stood out to you (as did I) as well, as probably being one people would chose as being most rational (setting aside whether things like backroom trade agreements on a supranational scale like TPP have no effect on an "average" persons life, however obvious things like this may appear to some). But it is interesting to talk about, so here I go. If one were to consider #3 valid, then one would have to consider what people do in their lives to be "average". Setting aside any possible governmental motivations in #2 and omitting the chemicals part (to not be side tracked in this thought exercise), some would consider it fair to say "average" people probably fill a great deal of their leisure time on #2 and talking/thinking about #2. And if we assume that the rest of the time is spent working where independent thought is not necessary for workers or applied on such issues, then #1 could be a possibility simply because time is not taken in leisure time to pursue #1 since that is filled with things dealing with #2. But then again, the arguments rely entirely on what it means to be "average" (and who would be considered non "average"? People in power? People not in power who do not engage in #2 and by extension #1 may be void as well [what do non "average" people do for leisure that does not involve entertaining anything to do much with #2, while remaining incapable of independent thought since not engaging with #2 might be considered independent thought by "average" people who are generally assumed to be preoccupied with #2, if one we're to imagine such an interaction?]), and there's some kind of implication in #3 that on non "average" lives the arguments won't hold to be true. And if the arguments don't hold for non "average" people, why would they hold true for "average" people since we're talking about conspiracies in systems (governmental/corporate/etc) that are to affect all people on some level? Maybe someone could draw up some truth tables to show this more clearly? :D Edit: made in reference to this parent comment for future clarity: http://i.imgur.com/3k5KK05.png http://i.imgur.com/3k5KK05.png