To be honest, I'm not sure I can follow your logic or arguments. You first try to put holes in an anecdote criticizing the choice of such counter-argument, then you give an anecdote of your own and use it to justify what merely constitutes a baseless opinion.

So you think, or seem to at least, that EK safety standards are not par or would be difficult to trust. What made you think this way? Was it a failed evacuation? or was it something you saw onboard? I mean these things are treated seriously, very seriously by the cabin crew, yet you seem to be confident of your words.

I would certainly be running out of arguments when the counter argument is cemented with fantasy and cloaked in mystery.