>asserts nothing will happen while citing a case where execs went to jail as proof. It seems logically inconsistent.
The gp wasn't being logically inconsistent if you see the rhetorical structure of his comment: anticipate and pre-emptively state the counterpoint and then counter that counterpoint.
- predict other side's possible counterpoint : "But Ebay execs went to jail"
- counter that counterpoint : "Yes but Ebay is smaller company that's not deeply interconnected with the government"
- gp's conclusion: Ebay situation is different enough that it is not proof that Boeing execs will go to jail
Readers' can have 2 different interpretations:
- I disagree with gp that Ebay and Boeing are different situations --> therefore gp is logically inconsistent
- I agree with gp that Ebay and Boeing are different --> gp is logically coherent
>OP is the one who brought that up in the first place, but they are using it to show it won’t happen. Which makes no sense.
Because the OP's reasoning is Boeing's "deep ties to the government" -- is what keeps it from happening.
I don't agree with OP. I'm just explaining what he wrote.
The readers' different reactions to OP's comment basically depends on how whether one buy's into the idea that the government's dependency on Boeing (military, space launches, etc) gives it an unstated immunity. The judgement of "logic" to his argument hinges on that.
Yeah it’s not proof the Boing execs will go to jail, no one said it was. OP is the one who brought that up in the first place, but they are using it to show it won’t happen. Which makes no sense.
I dunno, if it were me making this argument, I’d cite a case where a company was criminally charged and nothing happened. That would be a much stronger argument than using rhetoric.
This is actually pretty dope. I didn't know something like this existed. Sounds like a tactic a natural psychopath or manipulator would use. I'm neither. Maybe I used a bad example out of ignorance. Let me try again.
Boeing will not face any consequences just like no one at Ford Motor Company has ever faced any consequences for dumping toxic waste in New Jersey in the 1960's. This has been a continuous issue for decades, and no one to date has been held to account.
Boeing will not face any consequences, just like no one in the Sackler family did any time for actively promoting opioids as a harmless pain killer. Please google the article, "NY Times 2023 - An Appeals Court Gave the Sacklers Legal Immunity. "
I can keep going. I'm not crazy or trying to trick anyone. There's messed up things companies do, and no one is held accountable. If I was a someone's handyman and hurt a client or a clients neighbor I would be held to the full extent of the law. There are families, companies, and institutions out there doing terrible things, with no consequences. Why? Because they hold all the power. That is a fact.
