Fly American Airlines and get a free religious conversion!

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

One problem *I* have with that *interpretation* of Creation is this: do you honestly think that the L-rd almighty who created the heavens and the earth didn't know what a 24-hour day was before He created the universe? Of course He did, He created everything in existance for crying out loud! That includes the 24-hour day that man has known since his beginning.

I have no doubt God knew what a day would turn into and the fact that 24 hours were in a day, but the word "day" and "hour" had no meaning then, not right at creation (or God guided evolution if you believe that). So the term "day" was given to the writer of Genesis because that was the concept he would understand, can you imagine trying to explain a million year process to someone with no scientific background?. This applies to the use of the words "morning" and "night" as they too did not really have meaning then. Now, I am basing this off what I have read, heard, thought and prayed about so some of this is just my opinion.

The nice part about it is that it does not matter. It is one of those fun topics to debate, especially in a mixed group of Christians and non-Christians. According to the Bible, we can argue all we want about creation and still be saved as all it requires is the knowledge that God sent Jesus to die for our sins and he was born again.

-spike

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
Yep, and all odds are 50-50 ... either it happens or it doesn't

"Everything should be made as simple as possible ... but no simpler" Einstein
I think you've crossed that line with your latest "choice" argument. I'm not even sure what the original relavence of this is to either side to be honest, but, the people chose to be on that flight. In our society, they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be subject to prosetelyzing by their pilot. Apparently you're about the only one that doesn't understand that flyer.

What I'm getting I guess what I'm getting at is yes, the pilot did nothing wrong in a legal sense ... but he violated certain norms of expected behavior and can expect to be censured for it. The most concrete path to that censure is through his employer as I've already explained.

Whether or not the people onboard that flight had a "reasonable expectation" they wouldn't be subjected to a *suggestion* that there be a discussion of faith aboard that flight by the pilot, the fact of the matter is that it happened and that they took that chance when they decided to subject themselves to a public situation where people have the right to say just about whatever they want. Sorry, you can argue with that all you like but there's simply no point in it. Facts are facts and assumptions are not guarantees of anything. There is no Constitutional Ammendment that says "if you choose to go out in public (whatever the scenario) you cannot be subjected to religious speech."

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ergeorge


Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Hey Conjur, I already said that

Of course, if you had actually read anything I'd written you would already know that, but obviously you haven't so your ignorance came up to bite you in the face on this one You're only reiterating what I've already stated, so, in other words, you agree with me.
Scared yet?

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Everyone on that plane *chose* to be there."

If you don't understand that people on an airplane up in the air is a captive audience, it's hard to believe. A captive audience is an audience that cannot leave, it doesn't matter how they got there.

People in a theater also chose to be there..

Here is how I see it, I'm on an airplane and the person I've entrusted my life to comes out and says who here is a true believer ? I would be scared sh\tless.


What if he said "Which of you worship Satan ? and then encouraged the Satan worshippers to devour live rodents and chant ooga booga until the flight was over ? Would that be ok with you ?

Here's the problem with relating a simple suggestion that people discuss their beliefs with others to yelling "fire" in a theater. One is nothing more than a *suggestion* and the other is a terroristic threat with the intent to cause chaos/incite a riot. You simply can't compare the two, they're entirely different things.

You can compare the two if you take in context the fact that religion is a subject that, when discussed, has the potential to cause arguments. Arguments in an airplane can cause panic. Don't act like you can't understand how an argument on an airplane can cause panic, because you do understand. You're just trolling.

Why can't you guys let go of the hypothetical scenarios? They didn't occur, so what's the point of bringing up every single possible event that *could have* occurred? Usually when someone says "what if" it means they have no argument upon which to stand and have to resort to making up scenarios that could have occurred to prove their point.

So if a police officer pulls over a car that is weaving in and out of traffic doing 120mph, he has no justification for issuing a ticket/placing the driver under arrest? The drivers actions up to that point may not have caused an accident, but they have the potential to.

potential to... "so if" coulda, woulda, shoulda... yada yada yada
Does no one else see the fallicy in using hypothectical scenarios to support their argument?
What happened, happened and what didn't happen, didn't happen. It really can't be any more simple than that.

You're conveniently avoiding the issue. We're talking about intent and negligence here.

His intent may have been innocent enough, but his actions were reckless. That is why he was/will be reprimanded. What didn't happen was luck. It could have potentially turned into a bad situation. If you fail to see why that is grounds for reprimand, then you're an idiot. But you already know you're an idiot and a troll, so I guess that doesn't bother you much.

You can yell fire in a theatre as a joke, and you can be a complete idiot and not understand how that could potentially cause people to get hurt. Your intent can be innocent enough. You can tell that to the judge, and see if he agrees with you when he sentences you for attempting to incite chaos/panic. Not because you had intent, but because your actions were reckless.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug


So by that same logic, if you're driving down a residential street 20 mph over the posted speed limit, lose control of your car and go on the sidewalk, hitting and killing someone, its their fault because they chose to be there?

And further, if you were driving down that same residentail street 20mph over the speed limit, and a cop pulled you over before you lost control of your car, hitting and killing that person, you should be let off scot free because nothing bad had happened because of your driving yet?

Nope, never said that at all. You're taking my scenario of me stepping outside and being killed by a random act of G-d to someone else stepping outside and being killed by another person. The two aren't even comparable.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge
Yep, and all odds are 50-50 ... either it happens or it doesn't

"Everything should be made as simple as possible ... but no simpler" Einstein
I think you've crossed that line with your latest "choice" argument. I'm not even sure what the original relavence of this is to either side to be honest, but, the people chose to be on that flight. In our society, they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be subject to prosetelyzing by their pilot. Apparently you're about the only one that doesn't understand that flyer.

What I'm getting I guess what I'm getting at is yes, the pilot did nothing wrong in a legal sense ... but he violated certain norms of expected behavior and can expect to be censured for it. The most concrete path to that censure is through his employer as I've already explained.

Whether or not the people onboard that flight had a "reasonable expectation" they wouldn't be subjected to a *suggestion* that there be a discussion of faith aboard that flight by the pilot, the fact of the matter is that it happened and that they took that chance when they decided to subject themselves to a public situation where people have the right to say just about whatever they want. Sorry, you can argue with that all you like but there's simply no point in it. Facts are facts and assumptions are not guarantees of anything. There is no Constitutional Ammendment that says "if you choose to go out in public (whatever the scenario) you cannot be subjected to religious speech."

What the hell is it with you and constitutional amendments?? Is that what they are covering in your 4th period civics class this week?
I've already stated several times that, legally, this guy did nothing wrong. The FAA, the cops, etc.? They don't care.

But he has certainly violated social norms and expectations, and can therefore expect some sort of social censure becuase of that. That's what you are seeing here ... social censure on ATOT is generally expressed as "wow, what a fvcking ass".

In addition to that, he's probably in trouble with his employer as well, which I've already covered.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge


Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Hey Conjur, I already said that

Of course, if you had actually read anything I'd written you would already know that, but obviously you haven't so your ignorance came up to bite you in the face on this one You're only reiterating what I've already stated, so, in other words, you agree with me.
Scared yet?

Please stop with the insulting and snide comments, it does nothing to further your argument or peoples opinions of Christians. While opinions are a dime a dozen, insulting will distance people from Christianity entirely and make them totally un-receptive to us, even if we just want to be frieds. Thats where the words "fanatic" and "zelot" come in. Yes, God calls us to be fanatic for him, but not in the sense that we insult others. Just my $.02

-spike

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge


Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Hey Conjur, I already said that

Of course, if you had actually read anything I'd written you would already know that, but obviously you haven't so your ignorance came up to bite you in the face on this one You're only reiterating what I've already stated, so, in other words, you agree with me.
Scared yet?

First, get your quotes straight. I'm not conjur.
Second, my point is that your argument has no point.

You say you can do whatever you want.

Yes, of course, I agree completely. In fact, it's so obvious it's hardly worth saying. My qualification is hardly more note worthy, but seems to be neccesary ... you can do whatever you want, but you will be subject to the consequences of your actions.

The pilot certainly had the right to say it ... now he's facing the consequences ... being ridiculed on ATOT fwiw.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Why does the pilot have the 'right' to say whatever he wants on a company's plane? He has no constitutional right to free speech in a privately owned place. He can't say whatever the heck he wants without any consequences.

You guys are arguing with a kid who wants to go to Japan to be an anime voice over actor. Is it really worth arguing with such a person?

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


So by that same logic, if you're driving down a residential street 20 mph over the posted speed limit, lose control of your car and go on the sidewalk, hitting and killing someone, its their fault because they chose to be there?

And further, if you were driving down that same residentail street 20mph over the speed limit, and a cop pulled you over before you lost control of your car, hitting and killing that person, you should be let off scot free because nothing bad had happened because of your driving yet?

Nope, never said that at all. You're taking my scenario of me stepping outside and being killed by a random act of G-d to someone else stepping outside and being killed by another person. The two aren't even comparable.

Sure they are. If a person who is afraid of flying has a heart attack on a plane because of, say, turbulence, or an engine failing, or some other random act of god that they should reasonably expect could happen on that flight, neither the airline or the pilot could be held accountable because these things are expected risks when getting on a plane.

If that same person were on this flight and had a heart attack because the pilot's actions caused a panic in the plane, the pilot would be responsible. He would be convicted in a court of law of manslaughter because he was willfully negligent. As a pilot he should know his actions have the potential to cause panic.

You can be charged and convicted for causing a disturbance on a plane for these same reasons. If your disturbance caused another person to have a heart attack, you could be liable for that, because even if your intent wasnt to scare someone into having a heart attack, your actions were negligent.

edit:

I want to make it clear that in the eyes of the law, he hasn't done anything wrong. But if something had gone wrong because of his actions, he would have done something wrong, and he would be charged.

He is however subject to whatever reprimands the airline will place on him.

 

[Geekbabe]

I hate flying,I hate it so much I get airsick,all I'd need is some pilot doing this! I'd be frightened that he'd totally flip out and decide to take us all to see God!

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Why does the pilot have the 'right' to say whatever he wants on a company's plane? He has no constitutional right to free speech in a privately owned place. He can't say whatever the heck he wants without any consequences.

That's exactly my point. He can say it, but there are consequences ... public ridicule, censure or termination by his employer, etc. Flyboy is arguing that everybody has the "right" to do anything ... such as get up from his seat and jump out of an airliner at 30K feet. Sure he does ... we are only governed by external forces by the laws of physics and the extent of consequences we are willing to accept. So, I'm not talking about legal rights here, but rather flyboy's simplistic philosophical rights.

You guys are arguing with a kid who wants to go to Japan to be an anime voice over actor. Is it really worth arguing with such a person?

LoL ... missed that one.
I know ... I should just drop it. It's kind of like a bad wreck on the freeway though ... you know you shouldn't look, but you just can't turn away

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

One problem *I* have with that *interpretation* of Creation is this: do you honestly think that the L-rd almighty who created the heavens and the earth didn't know what a 24-hour day was before He created the universe? Of course He did, He created everything in existance for crying out loud! That includes the 24-hour day that man has known since his beginning.

I have no doubt God knew what a day would turn into and the fact that 24 hours were in a day, but the word "day" and "hour" had no meaning then, not right at creation (or God guided evolution if you believe that). So the term "day" was given to the writer of Genesis because that was the concept he would understand, can you imagine trying to explain a million year process to someone with no scientific background?. This applies to the use of the words "morning" and "night" as they too did not really have meaning then. Now, I am basing this off what I have read, heard, thought and prayed about so some of this is just my opinion.

The nice part about it is that it does not matter. It is one of those fun topics to debate, especially in a mixed group of Christians and non-Christians. According to the Bible, we can argue all we want about creation and still be saved as all it requires is the knowledge that God sent Jesus to die for our sins and he was born again.

-spike

I must reiterate: do you honestly believe that the Almighty L-rd G-d who created the heavens and the earth didn't know what a day was? If you believe that then you have been deceived and I pray for you. G-d Bless.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug


You're conveniently avoiding the issue. We're talking about intent and negligence here.

His intent may have been innocent enough, but his actions were reckless. That is why he was/will be reprimanded. What didn't happen was luck. It could have potentially turned into a bad situation. If you fail to see why that is grounds for reprimand, then you're an idiot. But you already know you're an idiot and a troll, so I guess that doesn't bother you much.

You can yell fire in a theatre as a joke, and you can be a complete idiot and not understand how that could potentially cause people to get hurt. Your intent can be innocent enough. You can tell that to the judge, and see if he agrees with you when he sentences you for attempting to incite chaos/panic. Not because you had intent, but because your actions were reckless.

How can you say that his actions were reckless? Absolutely nothing bad has occurred as a result of them. Please explain to me how that is reckless. Because, in your mind, his words had the potential to start a riot? BAH! Do you really think a riot would have started onboard a commecial flight between a bunch of Christians and non-Christians simply because the pilot called the non-Christians "crazy" and suggested the Christians share their beliefs with them? If so, you have a lower opinion of Christians than they rightfully deserve. I can see this occurring if there was a group of Satan worshippers aboard that aircraft, or fanatical Muslim terrorists (no, I don't mean all Muslims are terrorists, before anyone says it) but between simple pagans and Christians? Nah, not gonna happen.
Anyway, it didn't happen so there's no point in arguing about what could have happened. You can't claim that because something could have happened it is tantamount to actually occurring. I'd like to see you try that one in court.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge


Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Hey Conjur, I already said that

Of course, if you had actually read anything I'd written you would already know that, but obviously you haven't so your ignorance came up to bite you in the face on this one You're only reiterating what I've already stated, so, in other words, you agree with me.
Scared yet?

Please stop with the insulting and snide comments, it does nothing to further your argument or peoples opinions of Christians. While opinions are a dime a dozen, insulting will distance people from Christianity entirely and make them totally un-receptive to us, even if we just want to be frieds. Thats where the words "fanatic" and "zelot" come in. Yes, God calls us to be fanatic for him, but not in the sense that we insult others. Just my $.02

-spike

I couldn't possibly care less what a bunch of people on some internet forum think about me. Sorry, it's just not in my nature to be subject to other peoples' opinions of myself. They're simply not important to me.
I'm not sure which "insulting and snide comments" you're referring to, either

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ergeorge

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: ergeorge


Yes, you are absolutely free to do whatever you want. Everybody is. But you also understand there are consequences to your actions, and if you try to open an airliner door @ altitude, somebody is going to exercise their freedom and beat the crap out of you to prevent it. And then when you land, you'll likely end up in jail or a nut house.

Hey Conjur, I already said that

Of course, if you had actually read anything I'd written you would already know that, but obviously you haven't so your ignorance came up to bite you in the face on this one You're only reiterating what I've already stated, so, in other words, you agree with me.
Scared yet?

First, get your quotes straight. I'm not conjur.
Second, my point is that your argument has no point.

You say you can do whatever you want.

Yes, of course, I agree completely. In fact, it's so obvious it's hardly worth saying. My qualification is hardly more note worthy, but seems to be neccesary ... you can do whatever you want, but you will be subject to the consequences of your actions.

The pilot certainly had the right to say it ... now he's facing the consequences ... being ridiculed on ATOT fwiw.

Sorry for confusing you with Conjur, people do make mistakes from time to time...
My point was that I had already stated precisely what you continue to state, that there are consequences for one's actions. I don't know how I can be any more clear about this. I've arleady said it several times in several different ways...
I'm not even sure what you're arguing with me about, unless you're arguing just for the sake of argument.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Why does the pilot have the 'right' to say whatever he wants on a company's plane? He has no constitutional right to free speech in a privately owned place. He can't say whatever the heck he wants without any consequences.

You guys are arguing with a kid who wants to go to Japan to be an anime voice over actor. Is it really worth arguing with such a person?

Like I said before: please show me the *unconstitutional* law that says pilots don't have freedom of speech when onboard an aircraft. You can't, because no such law exists. He has every right to say whatever he desires on board that aircraft.
Oh, and thanks for the personal attacks. You guys keep stooping to new lows. I've come to the conclusion that it is utterly impossible to carry on a debate with you "non-believers" without being constantly insulted and attacked for no apparent reason. Way to carry on an intelligent debate

Besides that, just what does my desire to become a voice actor have to do with my qualification for having an opinion on this, or any other issue? Absolutely none. I'm just as entitled to hold my opinion on this issue as you are, but according to your statements I'm not.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug


Sure they are. If a person who is afraid of flying has a heart attack on a plane because of, say, turbulence, or an engine failing, or some other random act of god that they should reasonably expect could happen on that flight, neither the airline or the pilot could be held accountable because these things are expected risks when getting on a plane.

If that same person were on this flight and had a heart attack because the pilot's actions caused a panic in the plane, the pilot would be responsible. He would be convicted in a court of law of manslaughter because he was willfully negligent. As a pilot he should know his actions have the potential to cause panic.

You can be charged and convicted for causing a disturbance on a plane for these same reasons. If your disturbance caused another person to have a heart attack, you could be liable for that, because even if your intent wasnt to scare someone into having a heart attack, your actions were negligent.

edit:

I want to make it clear that in the eyes of the law, he hasn't done anything wrong. But if something had gone wrong because of his actions, he would have done something wrong, and he would be charged.

He is however subject to whatever reprimands the airline will place on him.

Back to the hypothetical scenarios again, eh? Oh well, I guess when you don't have a leg to stand on and are arguing about nothing you have to resort to such tactics.
Your argument doesn't even make any sense. What are you trying to say, exactly? You simply can't compare the results of an act of G-d to the results of an act of man, they're not comparable.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


You're conveniently avoiding the issue. We're talking about intent and negligence here.

His intent may have been innocent enough, but his actions were reckless. That is why he was/will be reprimanded. What didn't happen was luck. It could have potentially turned into a bad situation. If you fail to see why that is grounds for reprimand, then you're an idiot. But you already know you're an idiot and a troll, so I guess that doesn't bother you much.

You can yell fire in a theatre as a joke, and you can be a complete idiot and not understand how that could potentially cause people to get hurt. Your intent can be innocent enough. You can tell that to the judge, and see if he agrees with you when he sentences you for attempting to incite chaos/panic. Not because you had intent, but because your actions were reckless.

How can you say that his actions were reckless? Absolutely nothing bad has occurred as a result of them. Please explain to me how that is reckless. Because, in your mind, his words had the potential to start a riot? BAH! Do you really think a riot would have started onboard a commecial flight between a bunch of Christians and non-Christians simply because the pilot called the non-Christians "crazy" and suggested the Christians share their beliefs with them? If so, you have a lower opinion of Christians than they rightfully deserve. I can see this occurring if there was a group of Satan worshippers aboard that aircraft, or fanatical Muslim terrorists (no, I don't mean all Muslims are terrorists, before anyone says it) but between simple pagans and Christians? Nah, not gonna happen.

I didn't say anything about a riot. I said panic.

Also, I don't have a lower opinion of Christians than anyone else. I think everyone is human, and as such, they're all potentially dangerous. Something bad could have occurred if someone on that flight was suicidal, angry, and waiting for someone to push him over the edge. The pilot is expected to know that at 30,000 feet, you don't want angry or scared passengers. You want people to be a docile as possible.

I'm going to conveniently ignore your ignorant statements about other relgions, although I will not forget for further reference that not only are you a troll but also a bigot.

Anyway, it didn't happen so there's no point in arguing about what could have happened. You can't claim that because something could have happened it is tantamount to actually occurring. I'd like to see you try that one in court.

I'm not saying it's tantamount to it actually occuring. I'm saying that its reckless and he's lucky nobody got hurt. Do I think he should be charged with a crime? No. Do I think its reasonable to expect that the airlines will reprimand him for his actions? Yes, and anything less would be unreasonable. Planes are for travel, not church services. The guy shouldn't be using planes for his missionary work, and if he can't separate the two, he shouldn't be flying commercial planes. Period.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I hate flying,I hate it so much I get airsick,all I'd need is some pilot doing this! I'd be frightened that he'd totally flip out and decide to take us all to see God!

That's right, because there are so many examples of this in commercial aviation

Way to have irrational fears there

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


Sure they are. If a person who is afraid of flying has a heart attack on a plane because of, say, turbulence, or an engine failing, or some other random act of god that they should reasonably expect could happen on that flight, neither the airline or the pilot could be held accountable because these things are expected risks when getting on a plane.

If that same person were on this flight and had a heart attack because the pilot's actions caused a panic in the plane, the pilot would be responsible. He would be convicted in a court of law of manslaughter because he was willfully negligent. As a pilot he should know his actions have the potential to cause panic.

You can be charged and convicted for causing a disturbance on a plane for these same reasons. If your disturbance caused another person to have a heart attack, you could be liable for that, because even if your intent wasnt to scare someone into having a heart attack, your actions were negligent.

edit:

I want to make it clear that in the eyes of the law, he hasn't done anything wrong. But if something had gone wrong because of his actions, he would have done something wrong, and he would be charged.

He is however subject to whatever reprimands the airline will place on him.

Back to the hypothetical scenarios again, eh? Oh well, I guess when you don't have a leg to stand on and are arguing about nothing you have to resort to such tactics.
Your argument doesn't even make any sense. What are you trying to say, exactly? You simply can't compare the results of an act of G-d to the results of an act of man, they're not comparable.

Instead of dismissing arguments that basically show everyone how much of a fool you are, why dont you try coming up with a concise, educated retort for them. Oh, thats right, you can't. Instead you just dismiss them and resort to personal attacks. Do you even know what you're arguing about? You start one argument then move to the next when you get pwned. You're so full of sh!t that you're starting to stink up the place.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


You're conveniently avoiding the issue. We're talking about intent and negligence here.

His intent may have been innocent enough, but his actions were reckless. That is why he was/will be reprimanded. What didn't happen was luck. It could have potentially turned into a bad situation. If you fail to see why that is grounds for reprimand, then you're an idiot. But you already know you're an idiot and a troll, so I guess that doesn't bother you much.

You can yell fire in a theatre as a joke, and you can be a complete idiot and not understand how that could potentially cause people to get hurt. Your intent can be innocent enough. You can tell that to the judge, and see if he agrees with you when he sentences you for attempting to incite chaos/panic. Not because you had intent, but because your actions were reckless.

How can you say that his actions were reckless? Absolutely nothing bad has occurred as a result of them. Please explain to me how that is reckless. Because, in your mind, his words had the potential to start a riot? BAH! Do you really think a riot would have started onboard a commecial flight between a bunch of Christians and non-Christians simply because the pilot called the non-Christians "crazy" and suggested the Christians share their beliefs with them? If so, you have a lower opinion of Christians than they rightfully deserve. I can see this occurring if there was a group of Satan worshippers aboard that aircraft, or fanatical Muslim terrorists (no, I don't mean all Muslims are terrorists, before anyone says it) but between simple pagans and Christians? Nah, not gonna happen.

I didn't say anything about a riot. I said panic.

Also, I don't have a lower opinion of Christians than anyone else. I think everyone is human, and as such, they're all potentially dangerous. It could have occurred if someone on that flight was suicidal, angry, and waiting for someone to push him over the edge. The pilot is expected to know that at 30,000 feet, you don't want angry or scared passengers. You want people to be a docile as possible.

I'm going to conveniently ignore your ignorant statements about other relgions, although I will not forget for further reference that not only are you a troll but also a bigot.

Anyway, it didn't happen so there's no point in arguing about what could have happened. You can't claim that because something could have happened it is tantamount to actually occurring. I'd like to see you try that one in court.

I'm not saying it's tantamount to it actually occuring. I'm saying that its reckless and he's lucky nobody got hurt. Do I think he should be charged with a crime? No. Do I think its reasonable to expect that the airlines will reprimand him for his actions? Yes, and anything less would be unreasonable. Planes are for travel, not church services. The guy shouldn't be using planes for his missionary work, and if he can't separate the two, he shouldn't be flying commercial planes. Period.

More snap-judgements resulting in insults, eh? I could play that game too but, as everyone can clearly see I have not, nor will I do that. Please keep the "you're a bigot" comments to yourself. I don't hate anyone, I love everyone.
It's amazing that you could even jump to this conclusion despite my "disclaimer".
Again, how is an action reckless if absolutely nothing occurred because of it? You have yet to explain that. You say it's reckless because it *could* have occurred? Literally anything can occur at any point in time and no one uses that argument to debate this...

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: nan0bug


Sure they are. If a person who is afraid of flying has a heart attack on a plane because of, say, turbulence, or an engine failing, or some other random act of god that they should reasonably expect could happen on that flight, neither the airline or the pilot could be held accountable because these things are expected risks when getting on a plane.

If that same person were on this flight and had a heart attack because the pilot's actions caused a panic in the plane, the pilot would be responsible. He would be convicted in a court of law of manslaughter because he was willfully negligent. As a pilot he should know his actions have the potential to cause panic.

You can be charged and convicted for causing a disturbance on a plane for these same reasons. If your disturbance caused another person to have a heart attack, you could be liable for that, because even if your intent wasnt to scare someone into having a heart attack, your actions were negligent.

edit:

I want to make it clear that in the eyes of the law, he hasn't done anything wrong. But if something had gone wrong because of his actions, he would have done something wrong, and he would be charged.

He is however subject to whatever reprimands the airline will place on him.

Back to the hypothetical scenarios again, eh? Oh well, I guess when you don't have a leg to stand on and are arguing about nothing you have to resort to such tactics.
Your argument doesn't even make any sense. What are you trying to say, exactly? You simply can't compare the results of an act of G-d to the results of an act of man, they're not comparable.

Instead of dismissing arguments that basically show everyone how much of a fool you are, why dont you try coming up with a concise, educated retort for them. Oh, thats right, you can't. Instead you just dismiss them and resort to personal attacks. Do you even know what you're arguing about? You start one argument then move to the next when you get pwned. You're so full of sh!t that you're starting to stink up the place.

LOL, there's no need for me to debate this. You can sit there behind your computer screen and think you've won some kind of victory over me all you like, it still doesn't mean jack. Saying something is true does not make it so. Like the old saying goes: arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
If you don't like what I've got to say, then why are you hanging on my every word and even going so far as to respond to it? You are either enjoying this debate, or you're simply a member of the "Kill Flyermax2k3 Fan Club". Which is it? (I don't care either way, hate me all you want)

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Anyway, the last SEVERAL HOURS have been fun, but I think it's time to take a break. I'm not going to sit here literally all day responding to every single post that's made. You people have a discussion without me for awhile, I'm gonna go play a game or watch some tv or something
Have a great day, and G-d Bless you all!

 

[tantos]

The TROLL has left the building.