You had me at "eat".

And even if they did, you could still choose to let them shoot you rather than eat Pringles.

False dichotomy. If you start taking responsibility one step earlier, you realize it is your responsibility not to let yourself get put in that position, that is, to an extent, you chose to let him put that gun to your head.

Ostensibly, yes, but it was the other person's choice to produce the gun and raise it. To ensure total avoidance of such situations, you would have to make sure you never come into contact with any armed Pringles advertisers, and since you never know for sure who or where they are, you would have to live your life in complete physical solitude.

This is probably one of the wilder hypothetical tangents I've read in awhile.

Don't underestimate persuasion techniques. If they can convince an entire group of people to simultaneously commit suicide, they can probably convince them to eat Pringles.

Though there is a degree of the desire to be persuaded in the first place that allows these sorts of people to actually become persuaded. Though because we live in a society, with others who are smarter or dumber or persuadable or not so persuadable, those that aren't easily persuaded are still concerned about the effects the persuadable have on the herd. The effect on the herd becomes a more meaningful point of interest than the persuadees themselves.