Imagine my surprise...
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
But they don't, proving it's not serious. With all the other bullshit you'd think it'd be easy to just require it for them anyway regardless of seriousness but they didn't even do that. Almost like they forgot, or something. Or maybe they do it on purpose since they don't want their official IRS letter deliverers dying of the vax or all going on strike and refusing to deliver anything. Who knows.
Further, we know they're corrupt, so if they required it that's just more corruption. However, the fact that they don't require it and the fact there isn't a mass dying-off of mail carriers proves it isn't serious.
They couldn’t because they needed to justify mail in voting.
No offense but the ‘anons’ have no idea about what’s happening at the Postal Service.
Similar situation for homeless people. There'd be no homeless left if an actual pandemic had happened, because the tent-villages would have been decimated by it before a "vaccine" could even be formed.
This is a much stronger argument than the original.
It's the same argument.
Actually they do, I know someone that works for USPS. I’m not sure about Fedex, UPS, DHL, but I think they all fall under that ‘large company’ (<100 employees) “mandate”.
If they did tomorrow, which they could, would it be serious then? No.
Again, that has exactly nothing to do with what them not doing it means. One can be true without the other (not doing it = not serious, doing it =/= serious).
Which makes this a bad argument. Guess I'm glad you agree now.
You're literally using a defined logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Stop licking windows.
No, it fucking doesn't. What don't you get? The first argument, that mailmen are not required to get vaxxed which indicates it's not serious, has nothing to do with the inverse argument, that mailmen being required to get vaxxed means it's serious. They have nothing to do with each other and are completely distinct, separate arguments. The inverse of one argument doesn't need to be true for the original argument to hold weight and be true itself.