(10-12-2021, 02:58 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

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

You forgot E. There was an issue unrelated to Covid or the Mandate. And just for argument's sake my position on this being about the unvaxxed was facetious, but you knew that. My position, as noted in the article I posted, is that everyone in Labor at SWA is saying this was a systemic problem cause by their IT system and that the problems last weekend were not a result of a sick out. Some of the delays and cancellations were in fact weather related as other carries also experienced small problems there as well. The CEO is clearly lying to cover up his company's incompetence. And as the Union guy said, their absentee rate was not out of the norm, so there's that "new, true variable" you mentioned that should put this whole thing to bed. But it probably won't because you guys need this to be about Covid even though it's not, which is the only real blind spot at work here.

---

(10-12-2021, 03:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(10-12-2021, 02:38 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: One last time, 50% vaccination rate and 90% efficacy. Yes, they still have to be concerned. Why don't you understand this simple statement? I just don't get it.

By the CDC's own admission we are up to 85% of the population that has either been infected or vaccinated. Those who have natural immunity are better protected. Which 15% of the population isn't vaccinated. What is their likelihood of dying to Covid. Oh, that's right, we don't know. Because the "tyrants" won't release that data. It should be clear, but it's not. Even if they aren't tyrants, they are bumbling morons.

I have no argument with your last statement.

---