Ah yes, that certainly is completely unrelated to management also trying to meet their DEI goals at the same time. Pure coincidence these two things happened at the same time.
A million things were happening at the same time in a company of that size and complexity. So yeah until you can prove a connection (which you haven’t even attempted to do) the rational conclusion is coincidence. You’re a rational person, right?
I obviously cannot prove a direct connection, that would require actual evidence like a work log or a video of the person doing it. Since I neither work there nor with the police I am clearly not in any position to obtain such evidence. If you’re expecting such things from a forum discussion, you’re at the wrong address. You’re looking for the court room.
But absence of proof isn’t proof of absence either, so your insistence that these things have nothing to do with each other is just as unproven as my conjecture.
Translation: “I can’t prove anything so I’m gonna blame minorities for problems until someone provides real evidence (evidence which I will ignore and continue blaming minorities)”
If you’re asserting that it can’t POSSIBLY have been a DEI hire, I’d say that requires proof as well.
All you’re saying is my evidence isn’t good enough to convict someone based on it, which I already know and have admitted. This isn’t a court of law, so speculation is certainly allowed. You don’t have to believe me, but you’re not going to change my mind either unless you can come up with a better theory.
You don’t have to believe me, but you’re not going to change my mind either unless you can come up with a better theory.
You haven’t made a compelling argument for anyone to believe you or to rationally justify your own belief.
unless you can come up with a better theory.
There are literally thousands of articles being written about systemic problems at Boeing. Your “theory” consists of noticing this one person’s race and saying DEI. You’re literally the guy in the OP.
I provided a reasonable, possible explanation with circumstantial evidence to support it. All you’ve done is call it racist, which is simply an appeal to emotion. If anything you’re appealing to ignorance by suggesting that this line of inquiry does not merit any further investigation because if proven true, it would offend a lot of people. You’re literally making the case that it’s better to be ignorant than racist.
You’re being bashed for claiming something entirely unbelievable to anyone who isn’t EXTREMELY racially biased. A literal man made of straw would add more meaning to the discourse than you have.
Please keep making a fool of yourself, it’s turning into a valuable PSA about racism.
Again, as I’ve already said, the evidence I gave isn’t causal, but you’re simply dismissing it based on the grounds that it offends you, not because you have a better explanation or even just something that would prove me wrong.
There are an infinite number of theories that cannot be proven or disproven. In the absence of any causal evidence your assertion remains irrational. For example I can’t prove you’re not a pedophile. You cant provide me with evidence that disproves you being a pedophile. Yet if I were to make a random assumption that you’re a pedophile remains, that would be irrational.
But absence of proof isn’t proof of absence either, so your insistence that these things have nothing to do with each other is just as unproven as my conjecture.
I made no such insistence. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe those things are connected. There are and infinite uinebr of potentially connected things. Believing in any of them without evidence is irrational. Since you’re unable to even begin to provide any causal link, you are being irrational.
The evidence I have provided is circumstantial, not causal, I admit that, but it’s certainly better than no evidence at all.
Meanwhile, you’re not providing ANY evidence whatsoever, all you’re doing is reminding me of something I already know and have already admitted.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it? No, because we’re missing a murder weapon with their fingerprints on it as well. But I’d say it certainly merits further investigation. Meanwhile, you’re just burying your head in the sand because you’re friends with the suspect and don’t want to see them in jail, but you can’t give them an alibi and you don’t have any proof of their innocence.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it?
Literally nothing like this exists in the scenario you’re referring to which is why you have to resort to absurd analogies. You seem incapable of making a rational justification for your assertion.
Ah yes, that certainly is completely unrelated to management also trying to meet their DEI goals at the same time. Pure coincidence these two things happened at the same time.
A million things were happening at the same time in a company of that size and complexity. So yeah until you can prove a connection (which you haven’t even attempted to do) the rational conclusion is coincidence. You’re a rational person, right?
I obviously cannot prove a direct connection, that would require actual evidence like a work log or a video of the person doing it. Since I neither work there nor with the police I am clearly not in any position to obtain such evidence. If you’re expecting such things from a forum discussion, you’re at the wrong address. You’re looking for the court room.
But absence of proof isn’t proof of absence either, so your insistence that these things have nothing to do with each other is just as unproven as my conjecture.
Translation: “I can’t prove anything so I’m gonna blame minorities for problems until someone provides real evidence (evidence which I will ignore and continue blaming minorities)”
You haven’t provided any evidence that would disprove my reasoning, you are merely assuming that I would ignore it.
We’re not required to provide evidence lol. You are the one making an assertion, burden of proof is on you.
If you’re asserting that it can’t POSSIBLY have been a DEI hire, I’d say that requires proof as well.
All you’re saying is my evidence isn’t good enough to convict someone based on it, which I already know and have admitted. This isn’t a court of law, so speculation is certainly allowed. You don’t have to believe me, but you’re not going to change my mind either unless you can come up with a better theory.
You haven’t made a compelling argument for anyone to believe you or to rationally justify your own belief.
There are literally thousands of articles being written about systemic problems at Boeing. Your “theory” consists of noticing this one person’s race and saying DEI. You’re literally the guy in the OP.
Removed by mod
Your argument is an appeal to ignorance. Aka, a logical fallacy, Aka a shit argument.
How so?
I provided a reasonable, possible explanation with circumstantial evidence to support it. All you’ve done is call it racist, which is simply an appeal to emotion. If anything you’re appealing to ignorance by suggesting that this line of inquiry does not merit any further investigation because if proven true, it would offend a lot of people. You’re literally making the case that it’s better to be ignorant than racist.
You did no such thing.
Ironically, your entire premise provides more circumstantial evidence for you being racist than any particular problem at Boeing.
Removed by mod
So why don’t you stop wasting air?
I could ask you the same. You haven’t proven anything either, you’re just bashing me for having an unpopular opinion.
You’re being bashed for claiming something entirely unbelievable to anyone who isn’t EXTREMELY racially biased. A literal man made of straw would add more meaning to the discourse than you have.
Please keep making a fool of yourself, it’s turning into a valuable PSA about racism.
“No U” always 10 times more than yourself.
Again, as I’ve already said, the evidence I gave isn’t causal, but you’re simply dismissing it based on the grounds that it offends you, not because you have a better explanation or even just something that would prove me wrong.
Yes, I am bashing you for having at best, a morally devoid opinion. I don’t think I need a source on that
Guess that makes two of us, then.
There are an infinite number of theories that cannot be proven or disproven. In the absence of any causal evidence your assertion remains irrational. For example I can’t prove you’re not a pedophile. You cant provide me with evidence that disproves you being a pedophile. Yet if I were to make a random assumption that you’re a pedophile remains, that would be irrational.
I made no such insistence. I am pointing out that there is no reason to believe those things are connected. There are and infinite uinebr of potentially connected things. Believing in any of them without evidence is irrational. Since you’re unable to even begin to provide any causal link, you are being irrational.
The evidence I have provided is circumstantial, not causal, I admit that, but it’s certainly better than no evidence at all.
Meanwhile, you’re not providing ANY evidence whatsoever, all you’re doing is reminding me of something I already know and have already admitted.
To put it in simpler terms, what we have is a crime scene and someone’s footprints leading towards and away from it. Does that mean that person did it? No, because we’re missing a murder weapon with their fingerprints on it as well. But I’d say it certainly merits further investigation. Meanwhile, you’re just burying your head in the sand because you’re friends with the suspect and don’t want to see them in jail, but you can’t give them an alibi and you don’t have any proof of their innocence.
Literally nothing like this exists in the scenario you’re referring to which is why you have to resort to absurd analogies. You seem incapable of making a rational justification for your assertion.
Removed by mod