(10-12-2021, 02:28 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(10-12-2021, 02:14 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: FSG... dude. SW makes a mandate. Then they have several cancellations. They blame the weather. There's speculation there was a walkout. SW denies it. Some pilots come out encouraging other pilots to take a stand. Then the CEO sites absenteeism instead of weather. Well, there's one lie. It's not unreasonable to assume there's more. So, now the CEO has lied, some pilots are claiming the had a sick out. If, like you suggested, pilots staged a sick out to avoid flying with the unvaccinated, it would be on every news station. I know it was an attempt at humor, but it's just another example of you burying your head in the sand. People don't like mandates. They will quit. It will cause problems.

Right now, no one can say for certain that the mandate caused the problems, but I can say for certain the CEO is lying. I can say for certain there is a subset of the people that don't like the mandates. Your snarky remark about them not wanting to fly with the unvaccinated, even if said in jest, is just illogical. At least Stroud is drawing a reasonable conclusion. Why can't you just acknowledge the possibility that the mandate is causing problems? Oh that's right....

Lol, could it be? Sure. Jumping to conclusions? Of course, that's all the rage these days. My example was merely the opposite conclusion reasonably drawn from the same limited information. The other position is "reasonable" to you because it's your cause, but it's very important that everyone makes sure that anything adverse that happens is because of or in response to their personal positions.

No. It's more logical because conclusion follows more closely from the premises. You response doesn't. 

Let's look at the evidence that makes up the premises for the conclusion: We know the CEO instituted a vaccine mandate. We know SW pilots have claimed they were taking a stand against the vaccine mandate. We know people not showing up caused the problem. We know the CEO lied. Given those facts, your proposition makes no sense. I understand that you were trying to make a point with your post, but it doesn't really make the point you think it does, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's illogical. Stroud's isn't. 

So, if this were a logic test, given the above facts, which of the following would be the most likely answer? 

A) The CEO lied about the cause of cancellations because he didn't want to admit that his mandate hurt his bottom line
B) The CEO wants to hide the fact that his pro-vaccine employees are bullying his anti-vax employees
C) The CEO lied because he was being hit on by Urban Myer at his restaurant in Ohio
D) The CEO doesn't need to tell the truth because he can

The answer is obvious. It's logic 101. You're just too stubborn to admit it because you actually have a reason that hits pretty close to home. 

Of course, a new, true variable could present itself at any time to make Stroud's position less logical, but it isn't at this moment in time. I want to be clear I am not saying his conclusion is FACT. Just saying you're more likely incorrect based on the data given, which is pretty much how I've felt about your position on this matter from the get-go. You have a blind spot here. 

I have laid out the logic for my statement. Do the same for yours. If you can make your position equally as clear, I'll admit you have a valid conclusion and back off. Or if it's easier, show me where I have incorrect statements of truth. I just don't think you can... not without speculation or adding variables to what we know.

---