Specially when you have a list of flights, people on board, issues, etc... The fact that they are specifically tellling people to not worry about that is also a red flag for me. They know what they'd worry about if they were the affected ones.
replySure, you can argue that its a bad deal, shouldn't be allowed period, etc. But that is a different argument than saying that there is no scrutiny.
replySounds like a case of “there’s not enough scrutiny unless the decision ends up agreeing with my position”
replyThe argument is that the scrutiny is in practice not sufficient, as usual in these cases.
replyThe argument generally doesn't demonstrate that. The argument generally goes:
reply1. Google could do it.
2. <This space is intentionally left blank>
3. Therefore, Google is doing it!
(Step 2 needs to be filled in a bit for it to be a good argument. Generally, analogies don't quite make the cut.)
You are ignoring the value of previous experience:
replyPlease replace 'Google' with 'Profit-driven legal entity in the USA' and reread your argument.
The parent is making an assumption, based on past experience, but is also Most Likely correct.
Insufficient scrutiny would be more apt.
reply