3 ms·
You assume this person is shockingly irresponsible. Do you have proof? What's on the other side of those trees? I assume that one does not simply dive into t
by chrisan 12y ago
You assume this person is shockingly irresponsible. Do you have proof? What's on the other side of those trees?
I assume that one does not simply dive into the RC world with a jet turbine. Instead this individual has probably had a lot of practice with slower planes, does not want to injury anyone, and is not doing this in Central Park NY
- ealexhudson 12y agoInteresting that you think the burden of proof should be on me that flying a couple litres of kerosene around the sky at 370mph is not obviously unsafe. I have no doubt the pilot is experienced, and that the area in general is clear.
- Ao7bei3s 12y agoHe doesn't have any burden of proof, especially not to random people on the internet. He does have to make sure he flies safely, but that's his concern. Relax and enjoy the show. :-)
- baddox 12y agoThe burden of proof should be on you, if you want to prove that the flying was irresponsible. That's how that works.
- ealexhudson 12y agoSo, the actual argument I made was that just because more people were likely to die from drink driving (probability-wise), it didn't mean flying the RC wasn't shockingly irresponsible. Note that I didn't agree with the claim that this specific flight was irresponsible, just that the fact that more people might die from drink driving is basically irrelevant. So no, the burden of proof is not on me.
- baddox 12y agoI carefully noted your original argument. That's why I said that the burden of proof should be on you, if you want to prove that the flying was irresponsible.