3 ms·
But that doesn't answer the question of "what do people want to do with flying cars that can't be done with a helicopter"... it only answers the question "are p
by freehunter 8y ago
But that doesn't answer the question of "what do people want to do with flying cars that can't be done with a helicopter"... it only answers the question "are people using helicopters as flying cars". You're making an extremely false assumption that "because people aren't using helicopters, that means helicopters aren't flying cars, and we all know people want flying cars". Extremely faulty.
Let's beg the question and assume people want to go to the mall with their flying car, that's their primary use case. They can't do this right now because there are no parking spaces at the mall for their helicopter. There are no parking spaces for their helicopter because no one is flying to the mall with their helicopter. If people did, the mall would build parking for them. This is shown by the fact that places where people regularly fly helicopters, there is dedicated helicopter parking. It's just as valid for me to say "the fact that helicopters exist but are uncommon proves people don't want flying cars" as it is for you to say "helicopters are not flying cars".
I'll ask the question again: why do people not consider helicopters to be flying cars? They do exactly what people want a flying car to do: they take off and land vertically, they can fit in a reasonably sized parking space, they can easily maneuver in three dimensions, and they hold passengers and cargo. I argue that helicopters are flying cars, and they're proof that most people don't actually want flying cars.
- mannykannot 8y agoSaying 'extremely' twice, and in italics, does not make a point more correct. Nor does repeating a faulty argument, even if not in italics. I will leave it for someone who knows a thing or two about the realities of owning and operating helicopters to decide for herself whether helicopters match up to peoples' imagination of what a flying car would be. I was apparently mistaken in thinking that, on reflection, you would figure it out for yourself.
- freehunter 8y agoConversely, when someone writes out an argument with ideas and thoughts behind it and you come in and say "nah you're wrong", that doesn't actually make the argument wrong. And then when you're presented with more supporting arguments and you just say "I know you're wrong, but I have no arguments to actually prove you wrong", that still doesn't actually prove my argument wrong. All you've done is said "nah bro", and when challenged, you then insulted my intelligence while admitting you have no actual argument against me. All you seem to be able to argue against is my argument style and then later my intelligence, which is not an argument against my opinion at all. I'm really disappointed here, I wanted an actual conversation about why helicopters are not considered flying cars and all I get is someone saying "they're not because I said they're not". Please, please actually argue against my points or don't argue at all. Insulting me is not an argument.