The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

She's pretty freakin' hot, too.  Something about that tattoo on her shoulder slays me.  SMART & hot chick with tattoos.  Sign me up.

Semi NSFW.  No nudity, you just don't want your boss over your shoulder when you open the link.

Story and pics here:
http://a11news.com/70/tiffany-sheppard/ (http://a11news.com/70/tiffany-sheppard/)

News cast video & interview with teacher here (safer):
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/01/pne.teacher.fired.cnn[
 (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/01/pne.teacher.fired.cnn[)

Maine side note -- at least she wasn't sleeping with any of her students!

Doesn't everyone have pictures of themselves in a swim suit in some way shape or form?  BTW- the links are not working for me so I can't see the actual pictures. 

Man, no links there...talk about a tease!!

Holy wow.  She took some pictures in a bikini?  HOW DARE SHE?!

She didn't pose nude, not in Playboy, didn't make a porn and post it on YouTube, didn't molest a student, didn't even show her bikini photos to her students.

But she's fired for taking photos in a bikini?

Pussification of America at its finest.

2 questions, 1 statement

1) Did she actually work topless on the boat?  I can see where the school would have a problem with that.

2) What's with the tramp stamp?

3) Someone wrote in the comments that she was  "blessed with major-league hooters".  Um .. okaaaay ... I am woman and I can tell those came from a plastic surgeon, so unless the surgeon is also a member of the clergy, there was no blessing going on.

modified to add: I have no problem with women getting implants if it makes them happy. 

Something tells me there is a lot more to this story that we don't know about. Sounds like she is using the pictures as a way of defending herself ("I was only fired because of the pics"). She says other teachers missed more work than her, but what kind of a job was she doing when she was there? Were all of her students failing? Did students complain they weren't learning in her class?

Exactly Philly.  I had to find it but I heard it yesterday. She was fired for missing 30+ days of work. She did get some good advertising off of her story though.

http://www.wftv.com/news/16103271/detail.html

Teacher Says District Fired Her For Scantily-Clad Charter Boat Job

POSTED: 7:49 am EDT May 1, 2008
UPDATED: 11:09 am EDT May 1, 2008


PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- A Florida teacher says she's out of a teaching job because of her second job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tiffany Shepherd worked at Port St. Lucie High School and Smokin' em Charters, a fishing boat known for having scantily-clad women.

Shepherd said she thought the district was under the impression that she worked there topless, but Shepherd says she always wore a bikini.

The district said Shephard was fired because she missed more than 30 days of work.

 ;D

After watching the Video,they talk about the moral turpitude clause in her contract...
but as stated earlier,they fired her because of her excessive absences.....(as CF mentioned)
This is another supposed to be shock story....

I don't find her attractive....The only picture,I'd have a problem with my child seeing if she was my child's teacher....Would be the one where she's grabbing her breasts....The other pics, I could say (as she says) You see worse at a day at the beach....

I can't say anything about this specific case, but Ms. Dave is a Florida teacher, and she's told me in the past that they have to sign some kind of decency clause.

It seems really vague to me, and that you can pretty much be fired for whatever, as words like decency are up to interpretation.

I don't like when a job tries to police you when you're off the clock, especially when they are legal activities.  If you want to teach kids, then do porn on the night-shift, by all means, go ahead.

I wish that I had a teacher that looked like her. Only Nuns for me. :'(

This statement gets thrown around here a lot.  What I get from this is that its going from bad to worse.  From what I can see its just remnants of the family values bullshit and "let's keep everything moral" mentality from decades ago.  America has been pussified and would like to remain that way, hence, our extremely hot teacher firing.

^I hope you don't think of me as pussified, but I think that family values and morality are kind of good, and important for society.

So is that to say that no one should ever hire relatively attractive females as teachers?  Only nasty, ugly old ladies, or men?  Because someone's bound to find a picture of a young hot girl in a bikini that she took at some point in her life.

Guru- what I meant by that statement was probably more eloquently expressed by Dave's statements.  What she does off the clock is her business, as long as she does her job from 9 to 5 (or 8 to 2:30, in this case).  I have a problem when people start bringing extra-curricular activities into question where they don't belong.

Do you find that taking pictures in a bikini expresses poor family values and questionable morality?

 I totally agree with that.  This is no different from women having to wear pilgrims clothes to the beach.  Its just pussiness that has been present in this country.

No, the more the better. I just hope that Guru doesn't actually mean that family values and moralty are bad things. Taken in the extreme, like what this may be, you know, relax. But for every day common decency, family values, and morality, the more the better, too.

No, I think what is being called into question is not the value of morality, but instead, what is considered immoral.  Pictures in a bikini are not immoral to anyone I know.  I suspect this girl is a crappy teacher and is using the pictures as a scapegoat for denial to point to as a reason for her firing.  Unless she taught at, say, a religious school, that held some offense to her photos.  Then, I find that there's a problem.

I'll shut up now.

Should the day come when Ms Dave decides to moonlight for Smokin Em Charters, I sincerely hope you let us all know. ;)

If her students knew that she was moonlighting as a "bikini" model, it would certainly be a distraction.  A women was fired last year when it became public knowledge that she was doing this because the "teenage" boys couldn't get over it.  It was certainly a distraction.

I know in my job I can't moonlight without permission of the county as it might be a conflict or distraction to my day job. 

Of course non of this matters because she "missed more than 30 days" of work!!!

This isn't necessarily enough to fire someone, if they aren't treating others the same way.  Everyone does or has done something at their job that is worthy of getting them fired, by the letter of the law.  It's the question of whether or not they would've still fired her, had she not had this job.

Who decides? We have had many cases of religious and elected leaders ranting about "family values" and "morality" only to be caught with their hands in someone else's poon jar.

So because they have done wrong means there is no family values or morality line?   There are many more people who don't get caught doing something wrong.  Does that justify the line even more?   I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. 

So ... just because some people have issues with immoral things yet they know its immoral, means we, as a society, should not have morals?  It seems to me that if someone who knows it's immoral but struggles anyway with it is its all the more reason to see the danger in it ...  whatever that "it" is. 

There's definitely a correlation between fanaticism with family values and breaking those same values.  It can't be a coincidence that those most highly involved in wagging the finger at those doing wrong, are themselves, doing worse.

These aren't isolated incidents.  You hear about them all the time.

I'm okay that society has ethics and is governed by group morality, but I don't like when those things creep into law.  For example, I'm all against cheating, and am fine with how society views it, but I don't want it to be regulated with law.  I feel the same way about what most consider immoral acts: drugs, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, etc.

I find the idea of "family values" to be a fairly empty one, especially from a political perspective.  What does it really mean?

You better reign in Mrs. Dave (unless you are into that)  because it appears that every female teacher is sleeping with her students.   :D

Is it defined in the contract?

^^ I don't know for certain, but I don't think that it is THAT clearly defined.

:D
It's the hypocritical aspect of their actions that gets them the exposure.  For every moral leader you "hear about all the time", you don't hear about thousands who aren't being hypocritical.

On the other hand, there's nothing hypocritical about others breaking family values.  It's so common that it's simply not news worthy. 

What we see on TV and read in the newspaper is, almost by definition, NOT representative of everyday reality. 

Dave, I think you found the key problem with a democratically run society with this post:


The problem is, I guess, is there is no reason why a society shouldn't write into law those things which it finds either morally reprehensible, not in a democracy anyway. The communal will of the majority of voters is what rules.  And if they feel that something needs to be curtailed, for whatever reason, then so shall it be.

^ That my friend is a totally illogical and lazy way to reason.  So because of whats popular it should be law affecting all?  So those whose beliefs are in the minority lack value because they are in the minority?  I'm not sure if that is what you believe or if you're just pointing out the flaw of "democracy".  If its the latter then we have to question how "free" your definition of democracy is then.  The tyranny of a single dictator is not much different than one of the many.

I agree with you Guru. The will of the majority is not much different than the will of a dictator. But that's the problem with democracy: that the majority will isn't necessarily good, or true, or right, or rational, or worthwhile. It's just popular.

Now, as for myself, I think the majorihttp://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?action=post;msg=109283;topic=10564.30;sesc=811ec79755d92540d6d6cb6b867b52aa
Modify messagety is usually repugnant in its beliefs. But I also think, in a democracy, and a liberal democracy like ours, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy) that THAT is how we rule. The Supreme court sometimes strikes down those popular decisions, and it should: that's its job. It holds the majority within the limits of the constitution.

A minority is important, and the majority, if it be filled with good people, will often take care of the minority. But there is no requirement that it do so. Not politically, anyway.

Think about it. We have a clause in our constitution which promises us equal protection under the law. But how did it get there? The majority put it there through the ratification process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution)

Which is why I disagree with issues of morality and values being applied into legislation that affects everyone.  Issues that injure others or their property do need to be addressed.  Not when it is up to the individual to decide how to live his life.  Just like Dave said in the porno thread, it should be up to the individual to find his ideal way to live not legislation.

Well, then tell me. If it's up to the individual solely how to live his life, then what stops the world from falling into anarchy? An individual has rights over his person. Does a society have no rights to command its people how to act?

Why is it not ok to legislate morality, but fine to legislate about things which damage property or people? And why aren't those two the same thing? To an extent, equal rights, substantive due process, and a host of other things are all morality, just handed down from the courts instead of the legislature (which is at least elected by the people). I do not see the distinction your making between legislating morality and legislating anything else.

SC, you raise an interesting point, but I think your example is bad.  Obviously, property rights have a winner/loser.  It's a zero-sum game.  So, if you steal from me, my rights are violated.

A better example to illustrate your point is something like speeding in your car.  If you speed and nobody gets hurt, why is it against the law? -- nobody's rights were violated.

I don't have an answer to that question, really.  Obviously, it's different, but it's hard to define exactly how.

Because any effect that is inflicted on another individual as a result of one's actions ceases to be simply at an individual level.  You mention civil rights or equal rights.  Well those are rights that are protected to be infringed on from another entity.  The way YOU decide on how to live YOUR life when it has no effect on MY life or MY property (could be argued its part of the same thing) should be up to YOU.  I don't know if I could put it clearer.  

I understand where you are coming from.  I just don't agree that government should decide on what "moral path" I should take in life, especially when it involves me and only me.

Well, I think you put it pretty clearly, I just don't think it's true at all.

If I build a structure on my land that ruins your view of the lake beside our house... well... that affects you. If I put a gradient in my land, such that all the drainage runs off on yours... same thing. It's my property, I'm doing it on my time, etc etc. But the world is interwoven in such a way that it makes it impossible to say that you're completely autonomous.

I don't think there's any difference with civil rights. Yeah, you have em now. How'd you get em? Society ceded them to you. And society's been affected by the ceding. And they haven't ceded this to you... yet.

---

Dave, you're right. Law is essentially a relationship between two parties and the boundaries those parties set up. If no one gets hurt, did you really break the law? I dunno. I guess there is only one justification I can think of which would make me answer yes: that if you break the law, and face no consequences, then you'll do it again and again (most likely). Society wouldn't want that, because if you keep doing something, someone's going to get hurt, or something bad is going to happen. So, the habitual speeder will likely make the roads more dangerous and eventually hurt someone.   

That's where it ceases to be just you doing your thing.  On the other hand, you wacking off in there with your blinds closed has nothing to do with me.

Well, yeah you're right. There are some things that are so private and so ineffectual towards the community that the government shouldn't regulate them.

But we're not talking about masturbation here. Or at least, I wasn't. I thought we were talking about men's clubs.

Men's clubs or anything that doesn't affect you if you do not decide to partake.  Hence, the beating off.  What happens between those walls would not affect you in any direct way unless you willingly decide to let it. 

I guess what I'm really trying to say with this is that anything that has to do with the individual's wants and needs that do not interfere with those of another, should not be another's concern.  In this particular case there is no harm no foul unless you go looking for it.  Using a strip club as an example, you can go in and enjoy the scenery, or you may drive right past it as if doesn't even exist and never think twice about what goes on in there... unless you want to.

Well, I'd hardly say that the use of a strip club doesn't interfere with someone else's needs or wants. If they built a strip club next to your house tomorrow, wouldn't you mind? The secondary effects of a strip club: increased criminal activity in the nearby vicinity, possible prostitution, etc, are such that nowadays strip clubs and the like are usually zoned so that there can only be so many in so many miles, and they have to be so far apart, etc. Your patronage of the club keeps the club running, and keeps the disturbance going.

While I agree with you that masturbation is a private activity that affects no one but yourself, I don't think the same can be said of a strip club. Just look at what CF said. It may be easy for some people not to go, for other people it's not. It's like planting an addictive substance down in front of someone who you know used to be hooked and saying, "Don't touch it."

you mean like alcohol... or cigarettes?

Yes, I do. The analogy breaks down after a while, and you picked that up well. However, You cannot merely equate sex to substances because they're two different things. You may be able to get addicted to both, and insofar as that goes, they're alike. But beyond that, like I said, sex can end up creating new life while alcohol and cigarettes cannot.

I would mind if they put a Walmart next door to my house the same.  Increased crime, the same can be said about sporting events and stadiums.  It most definetely happens around many Air Force bases.  Possible prostitution?  That's a whole other subject that deals with the same matter at hand.  Two consenting adults engaging in an activity, what does it have to do with you?  Again, the only disturbance it creates are those that many other establishments also create.  The primary "disturbance" only affects you once you let it.

If you're going to rid of immoral activities in order establish the ideal society, where would it end?  Would cursing be punishable by a fine?  Would wearing mini-skirts be considered a crime?  Would not going to church get you jailed?  I know this is extreme, but then again based on what some think is right...

I understand what you mean that sex creates new life which can be a big thing.  However, it is known that it creates new life and therefore is should be a recognized risk.  And even on top of that there are ways to prevent such a result whereas if you smoke cigarettes you cannot prevent its consequences.  For the most part, anyways.

 


I hear you.........But unfortunately there are places that are funded by tax payers money and they have a reputation to uphold. My job for instance is a 24/7 job. I gotta be extra nice to all my neighbors because all they gotta do is make a phone call to start an IA. 

This incident happened in my county and there is more to the Story. No one can directly pin anything on her but there have been bikini Clad boat hands that have gotten nude once off shore.  Lots of things have been going on on these boats out in the inlet where they feel its safe for anything goes. She has taken a few more sick days then most but nothing that seems Way out of the question. So The county took the opportunity to ed rid of her before she embarrassed them. That and I think more then a few teachers were jealous of her lifestyle.

She was on probation so she shouldn't have left herself open to the firing by calling in sick..........

People's personal lives always have been relevant for certain professions, namely government and those that deal with minors. If the woman was a dentist, no one would have cared. The only thing new here is that forum she in which she chose to embarrass herself.

OK, this is getting to the point where I just want to scream.

Let's take this one thing at a time, because I'm genuinely interested in understand where you disagree:

1) Someone doing something in private involving only themselves. No one else (e.g. masturbation, prayer, looking at donkey pics).
2) A group of people doing something (consensually) in private involving only themselves (strip joint, church, group of people looking at donkey pics).

I cannot fathom ANYONE arguing that a group of adults shouldn't be allowed to do something consensual together if it involves no one else. It's simply none of society's business. No one (minority, majority or just "most vocal minority") should be allowed to impose their will on others. That's the basic philosophical premise that allows personal freedom, abolishes slavery, ensures freedom of religion and so on.

The ONLY thing I can understand is discussing the limits of "what affects others". Clearly, if I want to wear a long beard, I should be allowed to do so (even writing "allowed to" makes me sick to my stomach - I should need no ones permission or allowance!). If I want to wear a burqa, a Kippah or a Rosary, no one should be able to prevent me from doing so. If I want to shave my head or my beard, no one should have any saying in that. Now, if I wanted to walk around naked... well, that's where things get a bit murky.

I guess the basic premise should be rewritten "what affects others *significantly*". Certainly, that's still open to debate and I'm far from unwilling to discuss what should be and what shouldn't be considered significant.

Don't mess with the basic premise, though, that's a slippery slope and one that should be defended vigorously (the premise, not the slope!).

SCFinFan, to try and come full circle here, let me revisit the strip club:

Will you stipulate to the strip club's existence, if it "doesn't interfere with someone else's needs or wants" (as you put it). So while the affect on others might be argued as *significant* if the strip club were placed in a residential neighborhood, placement smack in the middle of a desert would probably be OK, right?

Which is exactly why these things are zoned away from residential areas. Zoning is just another way to ban things from certain places.

That said, I don't really know if I agree with your basic premise. Whether or not you shut your door things will affect you. Crime is crime. Even if you shut the door, it can come inside. It affects land values. It affects the ability to sell your property. It affects your kids if they walk outside and see it. It has wide-ranging effects. If you want to say the "primary" disturbance is there only when you let it in, and therefore, that's fine... well, ok.

The whole point of this argument is that even most activities we consider as "private" have effects on the rest of society. And therefore society has an interest in appropriating the effects so that they are beneficial to society. And therefore, the power to legislate exists.

I honestly don't think you and I really disagree that much. I mean, you've come around to admit that there are secondary effects to these places. You've admitted that sex is important and sometimes dangerous. With those two elements, why is it so bad if a legislature were to ban it? We've gone far afield. We're not even talking about merely banning something because society considers it "immoral" now. We're talking about all sorts of concrete, materialistic reasons for which someone could ban these places.


Fyo, this is where I disagree:

Let's go on:
This is an exceptionally bloated view of privacy. Society imposes many such limits. Two adults, acting in private, consensually trading and viewing child pornography is still an offense which can be punished, even though the mere viewing or trading of it (without production) affects no one else. Two adults, actively plotting the destruction of a government building in the closed environment of their house is still an inchoate crime, even though the mere plotting of it affects no one else. The door to your house is sacred, I'll admit, and the government (and society) can't come in - unless they've got a warrant. Thus, "privacy" is a shield, not a sword. You cannot mask all sorts of activities, which are otherwise abominable, with privacy and hope to get away with it. Now, what's the difference between acts allowed to be done in privacy and those which, even shrouded in one's privacy or free speech, are still punishable? Simple: old morality, plain and simple. The law struggles, and very rarely is intellectually honest enough to admit this, but its undoubtedly there.


You hit the nail on the head with 'significantly.' That's just open for debate. And as I said above, it's gonna come down to morality, plain and simple. What one's underlying religious values are will be what informs one to think this or that significant. After that, in a democracy, the majority rules. And therefore you have dry counties, zoning ordinances which ban strip clubs in certain areas, etc.

Placement in a desert would probably be fine. I wouldn't argue that it would not be. I would say the government can outright ban such establishments if it wants to.

I have really enjoyed this discussion with you guys.

You cannot separate the "consumption" of illegal goods with the production of them. Consuming illegal goods is a continuation of the crime committed during the production (and transportation etc) and as such illegal even under my view of privacy. The same argument goes for "receiving stolen goods" as for the "child pornography" example you cite.


I don't believe in thought crime. I strongly believe that people should be prosecuted (and convicted) based on their actions, not their thoughts.

There's a gray area here, I'll certainly grant that: When does something pass from "thoughts" to "action". Is it the mere sharing of an idea with another person?

I certainly would stipulate that if a group (or individual) made detailed plans and gathered materials to commit an act of terrorism (e.g. blow up a building), this should be punishable.

You might think there is a clear-cut line somewhere here, but just wait 20 years and that line will blur immensely.

Let's image, just for the sake of argument, that you could actually read someone's thoughts with 100% certainty.

If an individual planned a terrorist attack on paper, should he be punished?
If an individual shared that piece of paper with another individual, should he be punished?
If an individual planned a terrorist attack in his mind, he cannot be punished now, but with our "mind reader" above, SHOULD he be punished?

And this mind reading stuff might sound far-fetched, but it's coming. It's not improbable that in 20 years we'll be able to read someone's mind fairly accurately (using very bulky equipment, a strapped down patient and a controlled environment, so it's not something that's going to be possible from a distance in the near future), certainly much more accurate than lie-detectors today.

Then there's the whole "intent" issue. If you do something, should only your actions count or should the intent be considered as well. I'm not very comfortable with the weight intent is given in society today, although I'm not ready to say it shouldn't be considered at all.


There's a fallacy here:

All your examples include actions in private which will, in the future (or past), have a very public (and illegal) result.

While, as I mentioned initially, there's still room for a gray area as we close in on "thought crimes", there's a VERY clear line between truly private events and those that are the result of (or will result in) a public, illegal activity.

Nude bar is solidly in the truly private area. It's a closed box, so to speak. Sure, it might attract people who are more likely to commit crimes, but that should not effect the legality of the nude bar. You could make the same argument for a regular bar or even something a jewelry store, since it attracts robbers and when the shooting starts, there's always a risk of bystanders getting hurt.

EDIT: I would like to clarify a point I glossed over here: You pointed out a very real, albeit indirect, consequence of a nude bar (increase in crime). That's clearly a public effect, but it's an indirect one and I think we can both agree that indirect effects shouldn't be treated quite the same as direct effects. That's not to say they should be completely ignored, but I would prefer to keep this discussion from veering completely off and instead try to get to the fundamentals. That's why I proposed the nude bar in the middle of a desert earlier... a proposition I would like to hear your thoughts on: Do you still have a problem with a nude bar if it's located in the middle of nowhere?

One, hopefully final, note on the indirect effects issue on the nude bar in e.g. a residential neighborhood: I find it critical that laws be applied equally, without regard for any individual or groups morality. As such, it is the extend of the indirect (or direct, for that matter) consequences that should matter when assessing the "legality" of the issue. Thus is should be of no relevance that some mind find whatever goes on inside the nude bar morally reprehensible. All that should matter are the effects. Nothing else.

Ahhh, you've met Ms. Dotson... Great math teacher, and so kind to animals.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533

I don't know how true this is, but the fact that "accusations of wizardry" even came up for reasons of his termination is baffling.  When are we, as a society, going to start living in the real world?

We?

^ I guess some would prefer to stay in the land of wizardry and flat worlds.

What's it like there?

^ Full of conservatives and Bush supporters...get me out of here.