Don't go naked in your own home--you might get arrested.

[Eddie Teach]

You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.

Yeah, Beeb appeals all acquittals regardless of color. 

[Barrister]

Of course I was just kidding around.  I know good and well that isn't you, Beeb.

That said, if you're offended, I apologize.  I didn't think that it would bother you, nor particularly outside the ambit of usual Languish bullshit.  Hell, I figured you'd be more offended by the pleated diaper joke.  Nevertheless, sorry.

I knew you were joking Ideo.  But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.

Thank you for the apology, and make as many pleated diaper jokes as you'd like to.

[Neil]

In an ideal world, no case would ever go to trial.  The Albertan death squads should be getting involved before Beeb gets a chance to press charges.

[katmai]

But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.

But you're a lawyer?!?! 

[grumbler]

No. I don't think I said that. 

I dunno what your point is, then.

I think the permission aspect applies to the context of his being nude, and whether there is reason to think others might see him. If he knows that people are around the property a lot, then it is more reasonable to expect him to take that into account.

The man has no obligation to consider what people on his property see inside his house.  If they don't want to see what is inside his house, they should stay off his property.  This is not a public space we are talking about.

Conversely, if he lives on a mountain with no neighbors within miles, he can probably walk around in the yard buck naked, and if someone happens to go by, it seems reasonable for him to claim that he did not expect that.

If he is naked in a public space (which includes his yard if visible from public areas, but not if he has taken steps to make it not visible, like a fence), he cannot claim that he had no expectation that it was in use by the public.  That is a difference between public and private property.

It isn't a matter of permission, it is a matter of context. If there are people around outside your house all the time, then it seems hard to believe you can argue that you had no idea they would see you, and more plausible for a DA to argue that not only did you know they would see you, that you in fact set out with the intent for them to see you.

I don't believe that that is the way the law sees it.  If what occurs in one's home is visible to the public in public spaces, that is a far different case than what someone may see from on one's own property.

It is indirectly, I think. It speaks to his claim that he never intended to be seen, and the potential prosecutors claim that he did intend to be seen.

He has no obligation not to be seen.  He simply has an obligation not to be seen from public spaces.

Well, isn't that germaine to the discussion? He was naked in either his kitchen or his carport. Both of those places are his private property, so clearly the fact that he was on his own property does not absolve him from any potential indecency charge.

I don't see how this is germaine to the discussion, unless his carport also cannot be seen from off his property, in which case he can dance around in it naked as much as he pleases.  It is only his obligation not to impose his nudity on the public in public places.

[katmai]

How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.

Wow. Usually I find these little tet-a-tets amusing, if a bit ridiculous. But then someone goes and says something like this, and I remember just how miserable some of the Languishites must be to even think like this, much less to type it out.

That's our boy Marti for ya! 

[grumbler]

And here is the second part of your perfectly idiotic, moral-panic-style argument.

1. Anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter how remote the chance) is "flashing the children".
2. Anyone who is "flashing the children" is likely having "sexual issues with children".

Ergo, anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter if this is their private property and no matter how remote the chance) is a pedophile.

Perfect Berkut logic. 

I do believe that this is the finest example of a strawman I have seen yet on Languish.  The "perfect Berkut logic" is 100% made up by you out of whole cloth, and you smugly think you have scored a point.  Just wow.

You lost little credibility on Languish with this post, for you had little to lose.  Any you had, though, you lost.

[Eddie Teach]

I do believe that this is the finest example of a strawman I have seen yet on Languish.  The "perfect Berkut logic" is 100% made up by you out of whole cloth, and you smugly think you have scored a point.  Just wow.

You lost little credibility on Languish with this post, for you had little to lose.  Any you had, though, you lost.

Haven't you made that statement to Marty before? So you're suggesting in the interim he gained some credibility? 

[The Brain]

I think people's jobs should be a safe zone. No jokes about them please.

[Eddie Teach]

The radiation's finally gotten to Brain.

[Martinus]

You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.

I know. I would feel extremely offended if anyone made a joke about my lawyering skills. Hell, I'd demand a formal apology.

[grumbler]

Haven't you made that statement to Marty before? So you're suggesting in the interim he gained some credibility? 

  I am pointing out what is true if he did.

[Ideologue]

Of course I was just kidding around.  I know good and well that isn't you, Beeb.

That said, if you're offended, I apologize.  I didn't think that it would bother you, nor particularly outside the ambit of usual Languish bullshit.  Hell, I figured you'd be more offended by the pleated diaper joke.  Nevertheless, sorry.

I knew you were joking Ideo.  But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.

Thank you for the apology, and make as many pleated diaper jokes as you'd like to.

You're welcome.

[The Brain]

Barrister wasn't offended. His concern is that people will read Languish and if stuff like that is floating around it could be interpreted (or claimed to be interpreted) as a sign of real unprofessionalism (smoke and fire and whatnot).

[grumbler]

Barrister wasn't offended. His concern is that people will read Languish and if stuff like that is floating around it could be interpreted (or claimed to be interpreted) as a sign of real unprofessionalism (smoke and fire and whatnot).

"Silence implies consent."

That is why CdM puts the duct tape over their mouths.