Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, your entire comment is an ad hominem fallacy. You must ignore the person and focus on their argument in order to argue rationally. > doesn't affect you in the scheme of things. I have subsonic hearing and I live in a rural area, not particularly near any small or large airport. What drives me nuts are diesel school buses (something about the low frequencies) and those really slow single prop planes that seem to…
For one thing, for remote communities, small planes are an absolute necessity, not simply for recreation. You've lumped together all small aircraft with hobby flying. That aside, I think your environmental argument against hobby flying is interesting, but this other chip you have on your shoulder regarding "entitlement" and "the elderly" and "entertainment" people isn't very persuasive. Dismissing something as "just…
No problems there, so long as remote means not here, except lack of specifics. What remote communities have an absolute necessity for small planes?
> Hobby flying is far from the only environmentally damaging thing that humans do only for entertainment.
This is Whataboutism, a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, but it also has maybe a bit of Bandwagon fallacy as well. In any event, this is a fallacious argument.