Atheist claims harassment by Fla. sheriff

Originally posted by Stunspot
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

No, HE drew first blood when he gave away property owned by his taxpayers to religious institutions. I bet you'd be screaming holy murder if he'd given them to local _Mosques_ or Synagogues.

since when did i say what religion i believe in? but no, if it went to either of those, it wouldn't bother me (can you say the same? it doesn't sound like it, but i won't presume). i've been to mosques and synagogues, hindu temples...quite a few different religions. everyone has the choice to believe however they want, thats the whole point of free will. i've studied many religions and evolution extensively.

as i've said, the church wouldn't object to them being used publicly, so where is the problem?

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

I love how you put "she" in quotes. Something you're not telling us?

I wont judge.

Good one, star for you, however I am single. Don't avoid the question, would you assault me as in your post you clearly alluded to.

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
As far as your whacking in the window example, by your rules the Peeping Tom voyeur should be arrested. It is a slippery slope to define human sound as pornographic.

Um, yes... the peeping Tom should be arrested... Do you disagree?

Just because you're fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is. You may walk around your home naked, but do you strip down to your birthday suit when you have guests over too?

How do you feel about raping a woman? After all, it IS just harmless, natural sex....

should the woman be tried for simulating sex sounds? not really. but you have to wonder about her intent. why would she do such a thing other than to be disruptive and cause a stir? i don't mow the lawn at 2 AM, and i would be pissed if someone else did. what if they mowed at that hour solely to piss you off?

should they go to jail? probably not, unless it became a constant thing. are they being jerks with malicious intent? undoubtedly. does that imply something negative about their character? in my mind? yes.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


If noise alone is a argument then she shouldve been arrested for a noise ordinance. I dont believe we have one in Polk County until 9pm or 10pm but I'm not 100% sure. Also, if thats a legit argument you can say the bouncing of the ball is also annoying and therefore her neighbors should be charged with disturbing the peace as well. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander...right? Point is the police here in Polk County have overstepped their boundary once again, like they have been and like they will continue to....just reference this link to see another controversial case they are involved in.www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by lspilot6946


as you see, i said she shouldn't be tried for it. i was merely remarking on what can be discerned about her personality by simulating sex sounds "for the lulz" as lulzsec would say.

in my opinion, it doesn't seem like shes fighting for justice, but looking to stir trouble. it hurts the legitimacy of her case, more so if she intended for the 10 year old to hear as some sort of revenge.

Originally posted by Adyta

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
As far as your whacking in the window example, by your rules the Peeping Tom voyeur should be arrested. It is a slippery slope to define human sound as pornographic.

Um, yes... the peeping Tom should be arrested... Do you disagree?

Just because you're fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is. You may walk around your home naked, but do you strip down to your birthday suit when you have guests over too?

How do you feel about raping a woman? After all, it IS just harmless, natural sex....

You need to seperate you mouth from your butt you are talking a steaming pile of ****

Moaning is natural when having sex, some people are loud, some people are quiet.

You may also want to reread what MaskedDebater said. A peeking tom is someone who peeks into someones property to invade someones privacy, so if said person is walking around naked, it would be the person who is looking into the house that is the peeking tom. Simples

None of this is the same as raping people, child abuse ect ect it just means your very prudish, to sensitive & trying to force your beliefs of what is & what isnt decency on people

On second thoughts your right... burn the which

Originally posted by Travlla
So you can be arrested in the US for having noisy sex in you own home

When I was first married, my wife and I lived in an apartment and we had a few visits from the police due to calls from the neighbors. They laughed their asses off when I explained that we were newlyweds. Since then either she has gained the ability to orgasm quietly or I have lost my touch. I hope it is the first.

I live in Central Fl and can tell you that Polk County indeed has a reputation for cops abusing their authority.

reply to post by Sparky63


Yea its a shame when living in Polk County makes you the butt of jokes. If it isnt our meth issues its our Sheriff Department causing issues. How come I can be 2000 miles from home and always here about something happening in Polk County. It annoys me.

Originally posted by Adyta

Originally posted by MaskedDebater
As far as your whacking in the window example, by your rules the Peeping Tom voyeur should be arrested. It is a slippery slope to define human sound as pornographic.

Um, yes... the peeping Tom should be arrested... Do you disagree?

No, if I'm walking on sidewalk and happen to glance over to an open window and someone is in their birthday suit, I just keep walking. No harm, no foul. I should not be arrested.

You may walk around your home naked, but do you strip down to your birthday suit when you have guests over too?

Depends on friends or how drunk we get.

How do you feel about raping a woman? After all, it IS just harmless, natural sex....

In this line you've exposed your ignorance, rape is a crime of violence, not sex.

Look, the case in OP is but one of many past transgressions by over zealous Sheriff Dept. in that locale. I don't care to go tit for tat with you on your prudish sense of morality. Taboos and mores vary among cultures.

Good day.

/MD

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

how much government aid goes to public schools that teach evolution?

You mean how much government aid goes to teaching science in a science class in the public school system?

reply to post by iterationzero


evolution isn't science, and as i've said, i'll discuss this with anyone in a friendly manner if they wish. however, this thread isn't the place.

teaching children the origins of life should be left to their parents, not the government.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

as for what is taught in school about our origins?

If you had studied evolution as extensively as you claim, you'd know that it doesn't adress the origin of life - only the diversity of species.

i say take it all out, and leave it up to the parents. it would be unfair to teach one religion over another, ...

Yeah, let's completely remove teaching about the concept at the foundation of essentially every aspect of modern biology. That'll do wonders to help us catch up to the countries that are passing us in scientific advancement, which used to the our bread and butter in this country.

and as every pre-human form has been debunked,

I smell some Kent Hovind in here.

i wouldn't exactly say science supports evolution.

"Teach the controversy... even when one doesn't exist," eh?

but i digress, this isn't the place for that.

Then why'd you bring it up in the first place?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

evolution isn't science,

Virtually the entire science community would disagree.

and as i've said, i'll discuss this with anyone in a friendly manner if they wish. however, this thread isn't the place.

Why bring it up in the first place if you didn't want to talk about it here?

teaching children the origins of life should be left to their parents, not the government.

Again, if you had studied evolution as extensively as you claim, you'd know that it doesn't adress the origins of life.

reply to post by iterationzero


evolution doesn't address where the first cells came from, however, i was referring to our sharing an ancestor with apes. we don't, and there is no evidence of this.

i never brought up the debate for evolution, did you read my original post? i was pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting one form of indoctrination, while shunning another. the woman in the case doesn't care if hundreds of millions of dollars are used to support something she believes, but she heartily disagrees if a few basketball hoops are given to a church.

the man who found "lucy" admitted that all the bones weren't from the same organism, but he said they were all from the same species. how can he make that claim when the knee is what he claims as proof of her species, was found several miles away from the rest and with a difference in depth of 200 feet? is that science? no. its a joke. many animals have been touted as "transitional forms". take the coelecanth for example. thought to be extinct for 300 million years. it turns out they are still around, without any changes from the fossil record.

if you want to discuss this, message me, we shouldn't derail the subject.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Like I said, your posts have the distinct aroma of Kent Hovind.

First, you're assuming that, because she's an atheist, she's a proponent of the theory of evolution. There's no mention of her beliefs concerning the diversity of species anywhere in the news story linked in the OP. So, yes, you did bring up a debate on evolution by stating that teaching science in a science class is a form of religious indoctrination.

I see no need to discuss the fact of evolution in private messages when there's a perfectly adequate area to discuss it right here on ATS. Feel free to bring your concerns regarding the theory of evolution to the O&C forums.

reply to post by iterationzero


i've never heard of Kent Hovind before, and if you go back and read my posts, i never stated she was an evolutionist. what i did point out is her obvious dislike of the church getting the equipment.

she argues its a separation of church and state thing.

An effective activist in church/state separation issues

and here is one of her goals:

motivating affiliate groups to participate in a grass roots effort to become an organized force to change the direction and focus on what is truly important in this state: social services, science, and education

so she has no problem with taxpayers money (millions upon millions of dollars) going to fund what she believes (and force her beliefs on kids), yet she has issue with a few basketball hoops going to the church? hypocrisy much?

energizing our base while attracting a new generation of engaged active participants to position Humanism as the rightful influential force in the political, educational and social spheres

get 'em while they're young in school, with my money, but don't let any of it go to counter views! "position humanism as THE rightful influential force in education"

again. no problem with forcing her views on kids. pretty disturbing.

I think people like to apply too much black-and-white to laws. Judges are elected/appointed for the purpose of -judging- the actions as they apply to law. This lady was obviously doing what she was in order to stir up trouble. Considerably different from a couple getting it on and getting a bit loud. The judge is there to take this into consideration.

Me, personally - this lady deserves to have the book thrown at her - hard. And just keep throwing it at her until she figures out that she doesn't have a dong big enough to screw the system with, and all she's doing is begging the system to rape her face.

If she can't figure it out - she's a good source of revenue through fines.

That doesn't mean that, because she got fined for moaning like a stuck pig, some couple in an apartment should be issued the same fine (if the police get called). She was doing it deliberately to cause a scene - and a scene she should get. The couple just got a bit loud and their neighbors didn't appreciate it.

As for the public property being donated to a church... it really depends upon the laws in the area. Here - government property is auctioned off. The community college auctions off its old lab gear, chairs, etc - the old national guard armory was auctioned off when they built the new one....

There, it may be perfectly allowable. Or maybe it was technically outside of his authority.... but it's a basket-ball hoop for God's sake.... It's not like he's donating squad cars or old computers from dispatch. Worst that should be done is he has to reimburse the police department's budget for some negotiated amount.

reply to post by Aim64C


1st off I have a issue with this lady being arrested for "SIMULATED SEX SOUNDS". That absolutely is absurd. How do we know she wasn't simulating being injured and in pain, or some animal, maybe a cat or a pig. We dont know anything. The point is, its sets a precedent for the cops to continue to arrest people for no valid reason at all...where will it stop if we continue to allow this.

I can see if there was a law or something that claimed it was disturbing the peace, but I believe here in Polk County no law exist until after a certain hour. Maximum, she should've been issued a citation, nothing more.

reply to post by Frogs


I lived in Polk County when he was elected, and I said the same thing. I knew a couple of Polk County deputies pretty well, and they said that Judd was a complete lunatic at times. Thankfully, me or none of my family live in Polk County any longer, although I do feel for some of the friends I left behind.