>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

>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.