Syntho-sis

hahahaha Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yup I can see through the window from the inside, can't you? I think he most likely had a surveillance system setup on his property specifically for something like this. Most likely he had an alarm device that gave him a 2 minute head-start on anyone who crossed the 'path of love' as he calls it. Case closed

Well let's just wait and see how this case develops before we start making dogmatic assertions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well see, it would also be nice if FOX news had provided some more details, seems like they always give just enough to stir up controversy. For the record, I never said I thought the 'victims' should be compensated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso the video states that it was in fact thru his front yard that they crossed. On a path, with the front windows of the house perpendicular to them. A lawyer in the video also stated that in order for it to be a crime the police would have to prove that he did it intentionally. Doesn't matter if he was on his private property or not, if he did do it intentionally (knew they were there), then he will be punished. That's not what I'm saying, that's what the laws say.

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: Consecutive posts merged 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.

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: Consecutive posts merged That is where I'm arguing from.

First answer my questions.

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?

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?

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.

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: Consecutive posts merged 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?

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.

Dang, what's with the hostility?

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: Consecutive posts merged 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.

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: Consecutive posts merged 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?

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: Consecutive posts merged 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.

If he was doing it to gain "attention" then, yea, she has a case against him. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged 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..

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.

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: Consecutive posts merged 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.

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

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

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,

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

Damn you...I love that game.. It'll be the death of me