US v. Causby (1946) and what altitude can you legally fly at over someone's property

[sar104]

The original argument was that Texas will lose in court because "First Amendment", and "The Texas law is hot garbage and needs to be abolished."

That doesn't answer my question. And the "original argument" to which you refer was a lot more substantial than those cherry-picked excerpts.

Sigh. Thankfully as a woman this isn't the first time I've had to deal with a man who thinks he's always right and there is no other possible reality in which my opinion or observations based on decades of experience have any merit.

It was you who unnecessarily injected your (previously unspecified) gender into the discussion in post #30, and now you are trying to use it to discredit a dissenting position? This discussion would go much better if you were to stick factual arguments rather than trying to trade ad hominems, appeals to authority, and play victim cards.

 

[Tankueray]

Okay, the answer to your question is No.

This is literally the original argument that you believe to be so substantial:

Tankueray said:
In Texas: GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

That is currently being challenged. And TX will lose.

It was you who unnecessarily injected your (previously unspecified) gender into the discussion in post #30, and now you are trying to use it to discredit a dissenting position? This discussion would go much better if you were to stick factual arguments rather than trying to trade ad hominems, appeals to authority, and play victim cards.

So I'm not allowed to correct someone for calling me a man? Isn't there some other argument going on somewhere that says I can force everyone to use whatever pronouns I want them to?

I'm no victim, so back off. The only appeal to authority I used was the FAA, based on easily found information published on their various websites and citing their general duty of safety. And you use ad hominem to accuse me of using it? I used fact and was retorted with "doesn't matter", talked down to, and generally dismissed for every point I was trying to make without arguing. Even after I called him out on it the first time. That might be dissent, but it sure as hell isn't a position. Good luck getting him to answer your question with any logical arguments or respect, maybe y'all will hit it off better. I dropped enough hints that I know something important that someone interested would really want to know, but not if all they care about is themselves and whether they'll get to fly or not, this is a whole lot bigger than that. I'm confident that I have better information on the subject, so I guess I'm going to go eat popcorn with that other guy.

 

[dirkclod]

(so I guess I'm going to go eat popcorn with that other guy.)
That be me and if this continues as it is I’m going to set that
Popcorn down and slow this up.
Let’s stay civil folks.
Thank ya ?

 

[sar104]

Okay, the answer to your question is No.

This is literally the original argument that you believe to be so substantial:

That is currently being challenged. And TX will lose.

Stop dissembling if you want to be taken seriously. The argument had been developed well beyond that when I asked the question.

So I'm not allowed to correct someone for calling me a man? Isn't there some other argument going on somewhere that says I can force everyone to use whatever pronouns I want them to?

It's fine if you want to correct the pronoun. What's not fine is your subsequent assertion that the argument being made was somehow diminished because of your volunteered gender. That was never mentioned - it's entirely in your head.

I'm no victim, so back off.

Aside from your extensive list in post #39 of all the ways you claim to have been victimized?

The only appeal to authority I used was the FAA, based on easily found information published on their various websites and citing their general duty of safety.

Okay - you don't understand the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. You are asserting your own authority and then using your opinion as evidence. Your previous post was full of it - claims of your experience, position and credentials. All unverifiable since you are posting anonymously.

And you use ad hominem to accuse me of using it?

Where did I do that?

I used fact and was retorted with "doesn't matter", talked down to, and generally dismissed for every point I was trying to make without arguing.

You used assertions - I saw almost no attempts to establish facts in your argument.

Even after I called him out on it the first time. That might be dissent, but it sure as hell isn't a position. Good luck getting him to answer your question with any logical arguments or respect, maybe y'all will hit it off better.

It was a position, and you could have argued against it. But you chose appeal to authority and ad hominems instead.

I dropped enough hints that I know something important that someone interested would really want to know, but not if all they care about is themselves and whether they'll get to fly or not, this is a whole lot bigger than that. I'm confident that I have better information on the subject, so I guess I'm going to go eat popcorn with that other guy.

Ironic -that's almost the definition of appeal to authority. No one cares about what higher information you may or may not claim to know unless you can back it up with cited references or verifiable information.

 

[Chip]

The original argument was that Texas will lose in court because "First Amendment", and "The Texas law is hot garbage and needs to be abolished."

Yes, after taking a slight detour, back on track....

I have right to fly over private property and record images because I have right to publish my thoughts and images to the world. My right of self-expression through drone photography outweighs everybody else's right to privacy however that might be defined in any and every state's constitution.

I think the First Amendment argument is a stretch.

The better argument may be that "surveillance" is too vague and ambiguous a word to be enforced. But, I think at least one state with similar statute included a definition of "surveillance" which may get around the vagueness problem.

BTW I thought it was fine that you corrected me on pronoun. I think its great that you are here as new member. Please do not be discouraged or take anything personally. I am very interested in anything you have to say on this matter. It may be one of the most important drone cases in the country right now and we should follow and discuss it.

 

[Chip]

Ironic -that's almost the definition of appeal to authority. No one cares about what higher information you may or may not claim to know unless you can back it up with cited references or verifiable information.

Sar, if may respectfully say you are being way overly harsh with Tankueray. And here is the real irony. When I learned that you were a nuclear physicist, I did not need to know much else. I pretty much took for granted okay here is one smart guy based on my own nightmare experience with physics in 9th and 10th grade. In hindsight, I think the teachers overcomplicated the whole relativity thing but that's another issue.

 

[umanbean]

When I learned that you were a nuclear physicist

Also a consummate logician...

 

[sar104]

Sar, if may respectfully say you are being way overly harsh with Tankueray.

Perhaps, but I think not. As you could probably tell, I was really quite offended by her disingenuous posts, which is quite telling since, firstly, they weren't even directed at me and, secondly, I don't even disagree with her position on some points there.

And here is the real irony. When I learned that you were a nuclear physicist, I did not need to know much else. I pretty much took for granted okay here is one smart guy based on my own nightmare experience with physics in 9th and 10th grade.

I'd also add that I never mention my credentials or qualifications to try to bolster my arguments because there are only a few members of the forum who have direct knowledge that I'm not making it all up. And even then I'd urge that you should never just accept an unsupported argument because of who is making it. Judge an argument on its merits, not on its source.

FYI, and to avoid any hint of misrepresentation here, my main field is shock physics, not nuclear physics.

In hindsight, I think the teachers overcomplicated the whole relativity thing but that's another issue.

Having taught it, I'd say there are two ways to look at special relativity: try to visualize and understand what it represents, or focus on just the mathematics and forget trying get your head around it. Most people, including many teachers, have a really difficult time with the former. A subject is hard to teach well if you really can't explain it.

 

[Chip]

Perhaps, but I think not. As you could probably tell, I was really quite offended by her disingenuous posts, which is quite telling since, firstly, they weren't even directed at me and, secondly, I don't even disagree with her position on some points there.

Yes, I could tell but I could not understand why you took it that way. Yes, I thought you agreed on several issues which is another reason why I was surprised where conversation went. I was intrigued to hear what T may know or have to say. But we may still get back to it...

I'd also add that I never mention my credentials or qualifications to try to bolster my arguments because there are only a few members of the forum who have direct knowledge that I'm not making it all up. And even then I'd urge that you should never just accept an unsupported argument because of who is making it. Judge an argument on its merits, not on its source.

You are right that you do not mention your credentials to bolster your arguments. I only know them because I have been a member a long time, read a lot of posts, and remember that kind of detail. You are right on judging merits not source of argument. The problem of course is when the facts and the merits are difficult for regular person to understand. There is a tendency to want to shortcut and just go with the person you think you know and trust.

FYI, and to avoid any hint of misrepresentation here, my main field is shock physics, not nuclear physics.

Okay, well nuclear physics, shock physics, whatever....

Having taught it, I'd say there are two ways to look at special relativity: try to visualize and understand what it represents, or focus on just the mathematics and forget trying get your head around it. Most people, including many teachers, have a really difficult time with the former. A subject is hard to teach well if you really can't explain it.

I did not know you were teacher. I bet you were a very tough grader!

 

[dirkclod]

Ok guys let’s stop getting personal in this if you want this thread to continue. I will close it if not .
I really don’t see much more can be said anyway.

 

[Vic Moss]

MOD REMOVED POST

 

[dirkclod]

Ok folks being you don’t pay attention unless @BigAl07 wants

to reopen this it’s over.
​