• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, it’s very clear that your argument is a false equivalence because you’re ignoring the massive differences between the different types of planes and the different safety records between them. And there’s lots of things to suggest that, you’re just ignoring them.

    Not to mention this article and this whole discussion is about increasing the most dangerous form of air travel.

    It must be very convenient for you to constantly ignore every part of the discussion that doesn’t align with your narrative, and then act as if you’d never heard it before.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Excellent safety record” is a relative term, and only one compared to cars. But we’re not comparing anything here to driving, I’m just pointing out that the small aircraft are relatively dangerous, and adding a whole lot more of them to the skies increases the danger even further, and that’s something that you’re continuing to ignore.

        It’s an absurd argument to make, as you are, that any any number of these vehicles would be safe, yet you continue to make it. You’re completely departed from reality, as you continue to conflate all commercial aircraft with small aircraft, and to continue to insist that these tiny aircraft with no safety record behind them whatsoever Would be safe let alone to insist that they would not increase the danger inherently.

        Just stop with this ridiculous nonsense. these are new, untested, experimental aircraft, and they have no safety record whatsoever. so any numbers that you may quote are meaningless.