zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
It was a terrible and a stupid, not-well-though stunt.

Absolutely terrible.

Though, what damage other than crashed debris in a remote land, is exactly done?

Not to support the act anyway, but as long as no one got hurt, one may not face 20 years jail time for crashing their own plane in a remote land.

Stupid? Absolutely.

Illegal? Shouldn't be.

>>can163+hG1
Your desire is that reckless disregard for human life, tampering with evidence and lying on official government documents aren't crimes unless a person is physically hurt?

Got it, most people in our democracy disagree with you, but feel free to vote in the next election.

>>herman+fJ1
your comment is unhelpful and unnecessarily aggressive. a better way to express the same sentiment would be pointing out the reasons that evidence tampering, despite not having an immediate victim, can be harmful.

>>kurisu+wZ1
I don't support your demand for asymmetric debate. If anything, unconventional positions require extra effort by the claimant not the respondent.

Parent didn't supply evidence and took a position that crimes that have existed for hundreds of years shouldn't be illegal.

I dont see why the onus is on the respondent to furnish overwhelming evidence to counter that.

I am fine stating that this position is out of touch with our democracy. Sorry that isn't sufficient for you.