[pdonis]

> the actual argument that badly flown and maintained aircraft represent a threat to people that didn't make an informed choice to fly on them.

So our airline safety regulations have nothing to do with the safety of the, um, passengers?

As I said in another of our subthreads (and you agreed), evidently we don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. Have a nice day.

[notahacker]

There is indeed no common ground to be reached with somebody who is not only unable to grasp a concept as simple as regulations simultaneously protecting more than one group of people, but thinks repeatedly failing to understand something so basic is an actual gotcha...

I'd say it was like arguing with a toddler, but that's unfair because I'd expect many toddlers to understand "even if people want to fly really dangerous aeroplanes, that might not be fair on who they crash into".