Florida teacher fired over bikini photos

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^ 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.

[SCFinFan]

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)

[Guru-In-Vegas]

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.

[SCFinFan]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

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.

[SCFinFan]

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.

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.   

[Guru-In-Vegas]

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.

---

 

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.

[SCFinFan]

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.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

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.

[SCFinFan]

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."

[Fau Teixeira]

you mean like alcohol... or cigarettes?

[SCFinFan]

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.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

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."

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.

[Defense54]

 

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 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..........