Syntho-sis

The article does not ever state that children waiting across the street for the bus saw him naked.

But it doesn't not not say that. Actually all it said was there was a bus stop across the street from his house. Sorry for the error.

Cheers,

Merged post follows:

What I find annoying is 99.9% of the time it's just some dude that hasn't put clothes on who may not care if they are seen but isn't trying to be seen - and they get treated by the same laws that deal with sex offenses.

Well I'm talking about that 0.1% that happens on occasion, and gets ignored because of the other 99.9% of cases instills biases in people, and doesn't get taken seriously.

Depends where you live.

 

 

 

If they're trespassing, I have absolutely no sympathy.

Well duh. But what if it is children across the street (not trespassing) waiting for the bus? Which is stated directly in the articles.

That's the standpoint I'm arguing from.

Merged post follows:

"Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house-- we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated," said Jennings.

The complaint came from an unidentified woman who was walking with a 7-year-old boy. A Fairfax County Police spokesperson said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

"We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.

That is where I'm arguing from.

Ok then define this opposite viewpoint for me.

First answer my questions.

What actions??? Its his own freaking house! Its like being sued for not wearing clothes while showering.

Him making coffee, obviously.

What do you think I'm talking about?

Perhaps, I should have used the word "state."

The state he was in, now, is that better?

No but she wasnt supposed to be on HIS OWN PROPERTY in the first place. Not saying it is pleasant, but you dont HAVE to look at it, it isnt like he was forcing her. Somehow i have the feeling you have an emotional problem with this yourself.

Thanks for the ad hominem, and no I don't have any emotional problems.

I'm just trying to understand the actual argument, but apparently I'm not allowed to do that.

I wanted to understand it from the opposite viewpoint, because it seems everyone on here has already chosen sides without actually understanding what's going on.

Last I checked, I'm allowed to be skeptical of this man's intentions and the portrayed situation. I'm also entitled to my own opinion.

If you have a problem with that, you are entitled to go take a hike.

Let me add this.

Where does privacy end, and public indecency begin according to U.S. law?

And- Should the man be punished in any form for his actions?

That's what the controversy over the stupid news articles in the first was, wasn't it?

It starts with the closemindedness and jealousy of other ppl. And so what if he was seen? It wasnt as if he was shoving his wang into that women's face.

So the latter action would have been bad, but the former is entirely okay and pleasant even?

Uhm, I'm pretty sure she wasn't jealous of this guy, close-minded, perhaps, but jealous no.

That didn't answer my question whatsoever.

Did you miss the part where I explicitly stated that if he was viewed from his own private property then there would be no case, and went on to say if he was accidentally viewed from a public place it would be considered negligence?

What if he wasn't viewed from his private property? What if it was across the street by other people in their homes?

Where does privacy end and public indecency begin?

Merged post follows:

you obviously weren't coherent as i was notthe only one to reach the conclusion i did.

 

if nobody understands what you mean, perhaps it is because YOU are not communicating well.

Well that's a fallacious assumption for one, and secondly I can't even understand your sentences half the time. Ever heard of capitalization and spacing?

if parents aren't teaching their kids about basic human anatomy and function until puberty then perhaps it is them who should be shot.

 

i've known what a penis and vagina is since... well i can't remember ever not knowing the distinction(although i did know them by other names).

 

to synthosis, if people are peeking in your windows then it is them that is at fault if the catch a glimpse of your dangly bits as they should be respecting your privacy. also, i don't see how exposure to genetalia and grevious bodily harm with an umbrella are equivalent.

They aren't equivalent, I was making a point about U.S. law.

Gah I hate having to explain the same thing 5 billion times, btw, my original statements were perfectly coherent.

This is all just retarded. The guy could have been jerking off and cumming on the window... It's his right to do so. The woman has equal right to turn around and not watch. Case closed. Didn't we kill the Puritans in the 1800s or something?

 

As an aside: These are the types of stories we've come to expect from Fox News... Just enough information to get everyone pissed off, but not enough detail to have a well-informed opinion. Keepin' it classy, Fox News.

Dang, what's with the hostility?

A better question might be "Why is it wrong?" Isn't it just a matter of (your) social convention that a naked body is something to be ashamed of? In a more balanced society, there wouldn't even by an eyebrow raised by nudity, nevermind the implication of raising something else implied by making nudity a taboo.

Perhaps, but in a hypocrisy laden world such as our own, there exists many who would just as soon send a man to prison for a pettier crime.

I suppose that there should be definite limits to what a child is exposed to, regardless. Illegal Drugs is an example.

Merged post follows:

I think you're missing the point of the Constitution there guy. It's a free country. Anything which isn't explicitly against the law we're allowed to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

 

I like walking around the house naked. That's freedom

Seems hypocritical to me.

It would be illegal to muse about nude in the public domain, but in your house it is perfectly fine, even if other people see (Without consenting to it)?

Yet it is illegal to invite your neighbor over for a spot of tea, ask him about his life, then proceed to to beat the living crap out of him with an umbrella (Even on your property for which you own.) This would be illegal in both instances.

I fail to see the logic, because, it isn't there.

...did we just compare indecent exposure to manslaughter? Hardly on the same debate grounds - personally I REALLY don't see what harm would have come of this child for seeing some guy in his house naked. Maybe that kid thinks he wants to grow up to walk around his own house nekked - SO DO I

 

I can see like a fine or something if he habitually exposes himself to children at a bus stop, but I wouldn't offer jack for compensation to people affected, especially some lady walking through his yard to begin with - 8:30 or not, he doesn't pay rent to have to wear clothing just so people can convenience themselves with his property

 

Syntho-sis, sir, I see where you're coming from, I just don't see the actual harm in kids seeing a naked guy. or girl. would be. Can you elaborate?

A fine for a man who habitually exposes himself to children? What if he had been diddling himself in the window, or worse? I can understand if this happened on only one instance, but what if this occurred multiple times, but people were too embarrassed to report it?

We send people to prison for junk less than this.

She had no right to be in his yard, yes. But where exactly does it say in the constitution that you're allowed to walk around the house naked and stand in windows and what not? (Which most people have the sense not to do.)

I fail to see your logic sir.

As far as the extent of child harm? Who cares! Most parents still don't want a 29 year old man exposing himself to their kids. For one, it's just plain nasty. Secondly, if it's okay for them to see him nude, then what makes it wrong for 29 year old men to see children nude? What makes it wrong for them to have the children pose for photos and videos?

Someone please explain to me, why it is okay for a grown man to habitually expose his naked body to children?

The predominant consensus seems to be that it's okay.

Merged post follows:

No, Syntho-sis, your logic is completely wrong

 

Manslaughter [math]\ne[/math] unintentional flashing in your own home while someone trespass on your property.

What it would be equivalent to is you driving in the middle of night and someone just jumping out in the road in front of you, and you killing them.

 

The man was in his own home, at an early hour. I seriously doubt that he was trying to expose himself.

 

 

 

Well see, that's whats great about the law. We all don't have to feel the same way as you. Just because you feel that way is not grounds for punishing someone else for feeling differently about the topic.

 

She was walking through HIS yard, looking through HIS windows. If the situation were reversed, he would probably be charged for...attempted rape or something by this woman.

 

As a child, I was more "harmed" by people yelling in public (I come from a family that wouldn't scream if they were on fire), than I would have been to see a naked man.

Apparently you didn't read the entire articles. There were reports that this has occurred MULTIPLE times. And it was 8:30 in the morning, when most people are taking their kids to school and heading off to work.

What makes you seriously doubt that the man was trying to expose himself?

If they saw the man from public I would agree. If they saw him from their own private property, then possibly. If they saw him from his own private property than she has absolutely no case, IMO.

 

It's also worth noting that she alleged he exposed himself on purpose. We don't actually know that, he very well may have, but she could also have misconstrued that conclusion. For all we know it could have been too light inside and he may not have even seen her. He could have been half asleep and not very aware of his surroundings.

 

• If he intentionally exposed himself to her and/or her kid and they were on his property, they are both in the wrong but he has the right to be nude on his property.
  
• If he intentionally exposed himself viewable from public areas than he very much is in the wrong.
  
• If he unintentionally exposed himself from a public viewpoint than he's probably just careless, a case of negligence, not maliciousness.
  
• If he unintentionally exposed himself from a viewpoint on his property he is completely in the clear and she is in the wrong.
  

 

What bothers me is not only could it go either way depending on where it happened, but there is a huge difference between exposing yourself intentionally in public and doing so accidentally. However, that is probably not going to factor and someone who wakes up and hasn't realized the blinds are open gets charged just the same as someone who intentionally streaks a children's busstop.

Absolutely no case? Come on, what good are lawyers then? I can think of at least 4 reasons she could sue this man in a court of law, legally.

That does not necessitate her pressing charges against him, the police may not care. But if he did in fact, make a habit of exposing himself to the bus-stop (or other people from his property), even unintentionally, there is a very legitimate case against him and charges could in fact, be pressed.

We prosecute people all the time for their carelessness, ever hear of manslaughter?

Being on his property still does not give him the right to stand in his window with his wang hanging out for the whole neighborhood to see, as he sips his coffee.

Would you want your child exposed to that on a daily basis? What if he isn't convicted? Perhaps pedophiles everywhere would see this as an opportunity to gleefully expose themselves to children without consequence. They could cite reasons:

1. Being on one's own property.

2. Having no malicious intent.

The fool should at least be fined or something. I have absolutely no problem wearing clothes in my home, even at 5 in the morning, if I'm going to be standing in front of windows.

Merged post follows:

In the mornings, on my way to work, I walk past some 'garden flats' which are flats that are set back from the pavement (sidewalk for the US folks) by about 3 feet and maybe 6 feet lower. These have windows that look straight into the person's house, so on dark winter mornings, when they have the light on, if you look to the side while walking you see straight into their flats and can see them having breakfast or whatever.

 

Every time I walk past these flats, I make a deliberate point of looking away from the windows to give them privacy. When I was young we were taught that to look into someone's window in this way was very bad manners. It is a shame that good manners seem to have vanished from the world.

Well your neighbor would do you good, not to be applying copious amounts of shaving cream to their genitals with the window open. Just in case you happen to glance in the window, or you're walking by with your mother and she happens to look in.

Common sense is not common. There are too many loopholes in this sort of thing for people to take advantage of.

But at about 8:30 a.m. on Monday morning, a neighbor walking her son to school says he deliberately exposed himself-- not once, but twice. First, she says it happened as he was standing in the glass doorway in the kitchen, and then again at a front window.

If he was doing it to gain "attention" then, yea, she has a case against him.

Merged post follows:

Police are especially concerned because the house is located across the street from a bus stop for school children. So on Wednesday, officers canvassed the neighborhood with fliers, asking anyone who may have been subject to an exposure to come forward.

This is especially gross/weird. Apparently nobody read the rest of the article, because most of you assumed it was at 5:30 am when in reality the incident occurred at 8:30. Why would someone be walking a kid to a public school at 5:30 in the morning?

The lady and anybody else who saw the man nude, IMHO, has a legitimate case against this fellow.

haha I can't see 5 either. This is some kind of cruel joke, I almost passed out there for a second haha..

Synthosis,

 

Here's a famous scientist and a christian who talks about these issues:

 

Dr Francis Collins

 

There are a fair few videos of him on youtube including this short

.

 

He has a website: biologos.org

 

And a best-selling book: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

I appreciate all of your viewpoints, the more knowledge I can garner about this issue, the more informed decisions I can make about my own philosophies.

Don't listen to iNow, he founded the Evil Atheist Coalition....he's pure concentrated evil.

 

Well if he chooses to believe that, then ok.

But I don't see how believing in a God would not make you "enjoy your life".

 

True, religion causes stress sometimes, but so do a multitude of other voluntary things/beliefs.

I'm just wondering as to the OP's original concern.

My original concern is where to place my beliefs and how much to defer. Basically, either most of science is wrong (Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Cosmogony, Chemistry, so on.) or most of my current religious beliefs are wrong. (Excuse the dichotomy)

Science is backed up by empirical evidence, my beliefs rely on the bible and astute philosophical observations made by other people.

This means I will have to do alot of revision if I'm to find a common ground between science and religion.

I guess that's most of my concerns.

Merged post follows:

 

Syntho-sis: Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why not? Now, apply that reasoning to your deity. What... pray tell... is the difference?

 

Stop worrying, and just enjoy your life.

I see, but you must understand iNow, the situation I'm in. When religion is such a vast part of my life right now (whether wanted or not) this is something I must take very seriously, and mull over for awhile.

I understand the point you are making though.

Sounds like you have made up your mind already - with what is it that you need help? If it is proof one way or the other you won't get it. If it is confirmation or denounciation of your faith - that is up to you either way to choose.

I haven't made up my mind on anything. I'm simply confused about certain things.

While the first is mostly true imo, the second one does not make sense to me. From my understanding, evolution mentions nothing of God, nor does it need a God. They are not incompatible, it's just that adding a God would be superfluous and add complexity to a "simple" theory.

I may be wrong though, that's just what I think.

 

I struggle with my belief from a day to day basis, but not because of science or evolution or any other facts. Simply because I cannot see him or hear him, and to me, that works against his favor, though I still try my utmost to keep believing. Is that what you meant?

Essentially, yea that's what I meant. I'd say it's possible to believe in God and evolution but to me (and this is an opinion) evolution severely undermines God. That's if you believe in God according to the bible.

Especially as one in my situation, where evolution is continuously scoffed at (I just politely listen).

Is there anyone who doesn't struggle with theistic beliefs?

Just kidding...

Actually, I've been thinking about something for awhile now. Joining SFN has really enlightened me on alot of topics. One of those being the theory of evolution. I've always struggled with certain ideas that abound in a "creationist"....ahem..."community." You must understand, I have a religious background and still regularly attend church. Mostly because I feel the need to and because of "pressure."

This is the simple summation of my thoughts the past few months.

1. Creationism is a fallacy ridden ideology.

2. God and an evolutionary origin are not compatible.

I know there are many prominent scientists who believe in God, but after reading portions of Richard Dawkins book on this subject I find this to be a "feel-good" fallback for many people.

How many of you have struggled with this? Basically I don't know what to believe. Everyone (family, friends, so on and so forth) that I know believes in a theistic origin (Mostly old Earth creationism.) They are also extremely conservative.

I don't know what to think, mostly I've just ignored the issue, but I know that I'm going to have to confront it sooner of later.

Please help,

s-s

teeth?

but how can the horses hang upside down then?

Who ever said teeth were upside down? If I had two rows of right side up teeth, I'd be on the downside of life. Haha!

And yes, teeth is the answer.

Cheers,

Well, I really have two guesses, both of which I doubt are correct:

 

a) [hide]The W was broken in half due to the fall. That doesn't have anything to do with geometry and simple algebra though.[/hide]

b) [hide]When you said it was about angles, the only thing I could think of was that in a W, the three angles look like they're 45°(and I'm not sure they are), and the angle in L is 90°. 3*45° - 90° = 45°, which is the angle in one V.[/hide]

Your answers could be deemed sufficient. The answer I had was a tad different though. Since I am limited on time currently I will have to abstain from providing the full answer right now. I will make it my goal to give an extended answer to this riddle ASAP.

Cheers

My sister was a vegetarian growing up, and as I was the main cook of the family, I'll have to admit that it took some time for me to stretch my creativity to learn to cook food well for a veggie person!

 

My new bad habit is Oblivion, on xbox 360

Damn you...I love that game..

It'll be the death of me

Here's a riddle-

Thirty White horses on a red hill,

First they champ,

Then they stamp,

Then they stand still.

What is it?

No solutions yet?

It's not as difficult as it seems...

It has to do with angles and such