Of course, the pro-choice group doesn't attempt to coerce a particular choice in pregnant women, just offer one. I have seen very few pro-lifers who would be content to suggest or encourage a particular choice to women and leave it at that.
Of course, the pro-marijuana group doesn't attempt to coerce a particular choice in sober women. I have seen very few pro-interventioners who would be content to suggest or encourage a woman to stay sober and leave it at that.
If righteousness is not worth being zealous for, what is? (I am not against marijuana per say, it just fit the analogy.)
The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby.
These abuses are not imagined, they are real. Even if 2 weeks after she found out she was pregnant, that doesn't make it OK. I also think many people may be OK with abortion in the "logical" instances you use in the defense of abortion. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are simply "choice".
Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.
I fail to see how you can justify something as "right" because,"They were going to do it anyway!" Michael Vick would still be fighting dogs if we held that standard to everything with any sort of "moral" argument to it. People still fight dogs, every day. And perhaps you are right, less women die. But they kill more babies since it is easy and legal. I am not going to be for heroin being legal just because it may save some lives from bad needles. (I know they can be attained free in places, but you get the point.)
I choose the pleasant feeling of the right choice, and not advocating murder. There is no way around it, that is what it is. Saying a child is not "born", and therefore not alive well, you might want to reserve a nice spot in hell with the rest of the lawyers and lobbyists that deserve to go there. Whatever you vision of hell may be.
One must see the forest from the trees. Abortion for choice is undeniably wrong to anyone if you can concede that a child is alive (refuse to debate that right now) except to anyone who is blinded by selfishness. Killing, or more specifically murder, is wrong. There is no moral way to justify murder. What gives you the right? Would I be justified in killing 2 members of your family to save all 6 of mine? If you can not answer that question in the negative, then you are delusionally on the "moral extreme" and fail to see that "making the hard choice" will only allow whoever setup that dilemma to win.
[ Is it all about not letting a bad guy win? No, it is about staying pure and not succumbing to wrong choices simply because they are easy. Anything less will taint you, and allow you to taint others. I for one, do not wish to welcome our tainted overlords. : ) ]
When pro-lifers start threatening litigation about "choice", murdering 3,700 (USA, 115,000 Worldwide) children per day and filling up clinics that refuse to not carry out abortions, then you may have a point...
If you believe in something strongly (and forcing women to harbor a parasite for 9 months / killing children, depending on which way you see it, is an emotional subject), you tend to think the other side is made up of assholes.
Parasite... So how does the soon to be dead child describe the mother? You brought me into this world and now, NOW you call me a parasite.
I believe in liberty, free speech and choices, but I find it hard to swallow people looking to kill anything, especially their own child (unborn or not) just because they screwed up and are somehow delusional they will be better off.
I think if most mothers who want to abort simply because they couldn't make the right decision (before now making another wrong one) to begin with were forced to be a mother, society would be better off. Think about that when you think about her "choice".
Could this be good legislation to implement and curb or eliminate the Embrace=>Extend=>Extinguish business practices?
When you buy out a company that makes software, you must open source the current code. This would make companies more valuable standalone and increase competition, and also allow those that should die off to die off. If another company does wish to invest, competition is still there since the code is now open source.
3000 years ago, you would have been unfit to live (No offense, please don't take this the wrong way). And you would have probably died at birth, and that was good at the time (We needed stronger bodies, just the best breed on certain parameters).
No offense taken. I agree, to a point. I would not have lived as it would not have been possible. Now that it is, I should be given every chance because there is a chance.
We have the chance to save people in poorer countries, but we don't. My parents were born in America, and that doesn't make them "stronger" other than the sense of where they live. Sure their parents chose to migrate and was a "stronger" choice you could argue, but we make weak decisions when we let those we could save die no matter where they reside.
The stronger/weaker principle did apply until recently, and as you tried to illustrate doesn't apply the same way - but rather anymore. Now, we do have things in our own hands. Every life has value (even more so in this future). Do we chose to recognize it is the question.
I think I must say though, a life that chooses to be invaluable may indeed cease to be valuable. (Evil men, aka heathens) I wouldn't call that "life" anyway.
Stop paying them and you'll indeed not have to put up with it for very much longer.
That is not a good thing to do. I would just be giving them what they want. Me to leave since I use my service. That is just laying down, and giving other ISPs reason to do the same. Then I am merely facilitating it.
And I say that is irrational that people should die just because they are incapable. Take myself for instance. I have had two open heart surgeries (2,7) and and a spine surgery(11). The first heart surgery was when I was two. I was unfortunately intelligent enough at a young enough age (without proper guidance) to wrestle with the idea of should I have been allowed to even exist. Being that I was worth 2 million before my third birthday and my parents couldn't afford the costs, (at least that was what I was told.) I wondered why I was so special.
But now that I am more mature, I can say without a doubt every human life is valuable. Every one. If we help each other to see it, the benefits start to become exponential. Imagine, if "I" or someone else is incapable at any moment, but later on design or invent something that changes the world, it could pay off a multitudes "societal debt".
Lets say that they are old and incapable, do we give disincentive to get old and turn people toward living the fast life? Lets also not forget, our elders have wisdom. Those that forget the past, are often doomed to repeat it.
In the end, we all will meet hardship at one point or another. Even if you aren't religious, can you deny that pulling together through the thin times is what enable us to conquer the Earth and all obstacles that we have so far? Without that basic "good will" of a critical mass, well, we'd be lucky to have much more than than oxcarts I would venture to say. Good will allows civilization (if but indirectly) and prevents chaos and calls down order.
Not but a few hundred years ago the club and sword were all that truly mattered for conquering, now we are conquering medicine and science on orders of magnitude of magnitude.
Oh, and I forgot to add, been continuing to do the Speedtest.net thing to get the Internet back going ALL day... I haven't run torrents in awhile though, which pretty much proves it is related to the issue since my router is now responding, without reseting it. Should I be OK with Ubuntu and Firestarter on default, with NAT off to test the above person's theory?
I am, it's obvious. I even had the "supervisor" on the other line try to say that as a third party website it "can't be" biased.
I told him, "First off, that is not true. If you and I know of these sites, we both know IT does and frankly I do not trust Comcast with everything I have been through to not show a bias. Especially when I have experienced it.
Second (here I slap him with logic) you are right, it should not be biased. So why am I able to go to this site and then everything pulls up, and yet before I do nothing does?
When you possess the truth, most of the time you just have to turn their argument around on them, like they try to do to you. Just flip the script back. But this is where he says he wants to send a technician, and I refused to pay for it. After the same thing happening immediately with even Google not pulling up, and I go to Speedtest.net and it miraculously works, I called them back and they said they would send one out for free.
I couldn't really argue that, and I want it to cost them. Just like it is costing me. So now, for no good reason as best as I can tell, they are sending someone out here to try to find fault on my end for an intermittent issue, or "block syncing" I think he called it.
Today, my router stopped responding to it's IP in the browser. I was looking to try the nat fix above. So, I tried hibernating and restarting the PC. Internet was still on and I said screw it I am not going to reset it again if I don't have to. Just now (already dark outside) the router did respond to the browser.
Now all of this leads me to believe that it "could" be the router. But I just have this gut intuition that it isn't the "sole" cause. I think they are doing things that are confusing the router possibly. Anyone have anything on that? I know that they have been busted sending fake dropped packets and disconnects and such. Perhaps it is a type of DOS attack?
I will try it next time it happens, but I still don't see why going to speedtest.net will allow a tab in Firefox that is stalling on images.google.com to load up just as soon as I go to speedtest.net in another tab. I have TabMixPlus set to show the loading percentage on the tab and I can watch it finish as I load up Speedtest.net. Go back to the Google images tab, and thumbnails are fully loaded.
However, it is my opinion, that defending those rights through the courts is an option that many people no longer have due to the lack of access to the judicial system. (money)
I would agree, and I think I have a solution for that, the only obvious one that I can see. File anyway. Help others to file and fight. When the courts have to deal with thousands of court cases then they will have to take "appropriate" action. If we do anything less, perhaps we are "asking" for what we get.
No go, I don't like having a firewall running on Windows since it slows it down. I rely on the hardware firewall of my router. Also, it clears up when I go to speedtest.net... so it isn't the router.
You bet your ass it does. I wonder if there is someone who can say IAAL and tell us if no one challenging EULAs after so long can make them defacto "legal"? (Since they are understood.) I am sure there are some principals in law like this, but would they apply? Lets setup a fund for a single person and put our feet down. I would donate half my cable bill and get cut down 90% in speed to help "invest". (which is what would happen, from $42.95 at 6 mb to 34.95 at 1 mb... Bastages! I was going to do it until I found someone another ISP, but I would never get anything with it cutting off like it is. I may do it anyhow.)
First off, it was unlimited when I first got signed up. Forget some translation of the word years later, unlimited meant just that, at my speeds I get all I can eat. Not that I had unlimited connection time. Which even still really means the same thing, I have unlimited connection time at the speeds signed up for... It was understood that if I interfered with others though, through hacking the main box down the street, etc. that I would get cut off and eventually ISPs had to throttle to some extent for those that hogged. That is appreciable, if not commendable.
Secondly, mine is not always on, if I have to keep resetting my router and modem. That is the point, they are not even doing the little they do promise. They are now "officially" going waaaaaaay to far. The fecal matter is going to hit the fan soon because in the words of Twisted Sister, "We're not gonna take!"
No! We're not gonna take it! We're not gonna take it, anymore.
I think it is a also time-cost issue for the Doctors. Send a poor kid whose mother is yelling at him to be good in the doctor's office to therapy when resources are limited anyhow, or send him home with a scrip and "be done with it." I see way too many people on a cocktail of mental med.s (not just kids) and I have a hard time believing that is the best solution. When doctor can see more patients and therefore get more $ or even go home close to on time, this is what you get.
That's for sure. I just literally got off of the phone with Comcast complaining that my service is getting "intermittently" interrupted. Now, lets be clear, I am running torrents. But lets also be clear that without P2P, hardly anyone would want their crappy high speeds as slightly lower speeds are intolerable for web surfing and Youtube. Me seeding the Knoppix DVD for 2 days leaving my PC on all night isn't kosher when Knoppix is legal. (electricity costs $$$)
They tried to blame my router, but I occasionally get spotty service when it is just my modem. I refuse to go without the router for more than a few days since I obviously bought it for a needed reason. I just couldn't get over the fact that Google (images) wouldn't pull up thumbnails, yet when I go to Speedtest.net, whoa the turtle turned into the hare. So I called them since I know what is going on. They deny there is issue on their end, and want to send a tech to my home and when they don't find a problem charge me $30. I go back inside after my 35 minute call and go to pull up Google.. slow again. I go to Speedtest.net, and now everything works. So I call them back up and they are going to send a tech to my home Friday and even credit me back if they find issue on my end.
Is it just me, or is it a conspiracy, brother man? I just refuse to believe all the trouble I have had is a coincidence. But please, I would love evidence that I am wrong. I want a decent service provider that doesn't let you go since you use what you paid for. That is why I called them back.
I want to find another provider if they don't make it right, and we know there is little chance of that. But what is my option? AT&T, the "Your world delivered, to the NSA." company as the only alternative in my area.
So for a recap, I have issues usually after running torrents even at times without the router, and going to Speedttest.net is like a super pill that clears it up. For the moment, and I use that loosely.
Good to know, thanks. I do not watch much T.V. anyhow, even though in America.
I think that being OK with any nudity is just against Christian principles. The Bible is very wise and gives instructions for a reason. I have urges like anyone else, and seeing nudity without it being the one I love is not right to me.
I don't think it unreasonable at all that young children shouldn't be exposed to breasts.
First, I have to ask, why is there a law stating that you CAN do something. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. If you feel that you need a law to permit, then perhaps other laws are not written well, or you should take a better look at what you are wanting to permit. I feel that all men have the right to do whatever, as long as it doesn't impede another mans rights. (to not partake or be exposed, for example)
Personally, yes I feel that in general women should not be allowed to walk around without a top, exposing their breasts. I also do not think it unreasonable to not allow women in the workplace to have skirts showing all of their legs.
Now, if you want to do this in designated areas, knock yourselves out. I just do not want to be going to get gas and have to have myself or kids watching men ogling bare-chested women.
Based on the limited information that you provided, yes the law shouldn't be there. But, perhaps not for the reasons you expected.
s what, exactly, led you to think a sexually charged duet between her and goddamn Justin Timberlake would be suitable viewing for your kids? I mean the clothes that she did have on was a skintight full body leather gimp suit for the most part, correct?
Nothing led me to think that. (I am not a parent, so does not directly apply to the specific situation of *my* child.) But regardless, she wasn't nude, and then she was. Maybe someone was trying to expose a child *to the world*, and then they got more than they were bargaining for because they decided to show nudity?
Your parenting is shit. Empower your children with understanding, rather than trying to give them blinders.
This will never fucking work, and we don't need more fucking uptight morons like you in the world.
That bad huh? Just because I don't want them exposed to nudity without warning?
I think you are the moron, if anyone. You make judgments without even knowing me. As long as morons think it is ok with showing nudity without warning, you're right, it wont work. You got me there.
So the FCC levies fines and makes examples. You think twice about being a moron.
Fair enough, induce. You are correct, they likely were. But we fetishize covering them up because they can and do invoke sexual reactions.
Just because 12 year olds have seen nipples doesn't make it okay. 25% of males in 1 particular country have admitted to raping. I think you would agree 90%, or even 1 instance is not alright.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the pro-choice group doesn't attempt to coerce a particular choice in pregnant women, just offer one. I have seen very few pro-lifers who would be content to suggest or encourage a particular choice to women and leave it at that.
Of course, the pro-marijuana group doesn't attempt to coerce a particular choice in sober women. I have seen very few pro-interventioners who would be content to suggest or encourage a woman to stay sober and leave it at that.
If righteousness is not worth being zealous for, what is? (I am not against marijuana per say, it just fit the analogy.)
The abuses you've imagined are not because a mother suddenly decided, two weeks before her due date, that she didn't want a baby.
These abuses are not imagined, they are real. Even if 2 weeks after she found out she was pregnant, that doesn't make it OK. I also think many people may be OK with abortion in the "logical" instances you use in the defense of abortion. A shockingly vast majority of abortions are simply "choice".
Finally, statistics demonstrate that women will still get abortions, regardless of how stringent the theocracy is that you place them under. Legalized abortions mean fewer women die. Which do you want, brassy moral superiority and thousands of women dead, or an unpleasant feeling and those women still alive? That's the only 'choice' offered.
I fail to see how you can justify something as "right" because,"They were going to do it anyway!" Michael Vick would still be fighting dogs if we held that standard to everything with any sort of "moral" argument to it. People still fight dogs, every day. And perhaps you are right, less women die. But they kill more babies since it is easy and legal. I am not going to be for heroin being legal just because it may save some lives from bad needles. (I know they can be attained free in places, but you get the point.)
I choose the pleasant feeling of the right choice, and not advocating murder. There is no way around it, that is what it is. Saying a child is not "born", and therefore not alive well, you might want to reserve a nice spot in hell with the rest of the lawyers and lobbyists that deserve to go there. Whatever you vision of hell may be.
One must see the forest from the trees. Abortion for choice is undeniably wrong to anyone if you can concede that a child is alive (refuse to debate that right now) except to anyone who is blinded by selfishness. Killing, or more specifically murder, is wrong. There is no moral way to justify murder. What gives you the right? Would I be justified in killing 2 members of your family to save all 6 of mine? If you can not answer that question in the negative, then you are delusionally on the "moral extreme" and fail to see that "making the hard choice" will only allow whoever setup that dilemma to win.
[ Is it all about not letting a bad guy win? No, it is about staying pure and not succumbing to wrong choices simply because they are easy. Anything less will taint you, and allow you to taint others. I for one, do not wish to welcome our tainted overlords. : ) ]
When pro-lifers start threatening litigation about "choice", murdering 3,700 (USA, 115,000 Worldwide) children per day and filling up clinics that refuse to not carry out abortions, then you may have a point...
Oh, my bad. I just negated yours.
If you believe in something strongly (and forcing women to harbor a parasite for 9 months / killing children, depending on which way you see it, is an emotional subject), you tend to think the other side is made up of assholes.
Parasite... So how does the soon to be dead child describe the mother? You brought me into this world and now, NOW you call me a parasite.
I believe in liberty, free speech and choices, but I find it hard to swallow people looking to kill anything, especially their own child (unborn or not) just because they screwed up and are somehow delusional they will be better off.
I think if most mothers who want to abort simply because they couldn't make the right decision (before now making another wrong one) to begin with were forced to be a mother, society would be better off. Think about that when you think about her "choice".
Could this be good legislation to implement and curb or eliminate the Embrace=>Extend=>Extinguish business practices?
When you buy out a company that makes software, you must open source the current code. This would make companies more valuable standalone and increase competition, and also allow those that should die off to die off. If another company does wish to invest, competition is still there since the code is now open source.
3000 years ago, you would have been unfit to live (No offense, please don't take this the wrong way). And you would have probably died at birth, and that was good at the time (We needed stronger bodies, just the best breed on certain parameters).
No offense taken. I agree, to a point. I would not have lived as it would not have been possible. Now that it is, I should be given every chance because there is a chance.
We have the chance to save people in poorer countries, but we don't. My parents were born in America, and that doesn't make them "stronger" other than the sense of where they live. Sure their parents chose to migrate and was a "stronger" choice you could argue, but we make weak decisions when we let those we could save die no matter where they reside.
The stronger/weaker principle did apply until recently, and as you tried to illustrate doesn't apply the same way - but rather anymore. Now, we do have things in our own hands. Every life has value (even more so in this future). Do we chose to recognize it is the question.
I think I must say though, a life that chooses to be invaluable may indeed cease to be valuable. (Evil men, aka heathens) I wouldn't call that "life" anyway.
Stop paying them and you'll indeed not have to put up with it for very much longer.
That is not a good thing to do. I would just be giving them what they want. Me to leave since I use my service. That is just laying down, and giving other ISPs reason to do the same. Then I am merely facilitating it.
And I say that is irrational that people should die just because they are incapable. Take myself for instance. I have had two open heart surgeries (2,7) and and a spine surgery(11). The first heart surgery was when I was two. I was unfortunately intelligent enough at a young enough age (without proper guidance) to wrestle with the idea of should I have been allowed to even exist. Being that I was worth 2 million before my third birthday and my parents couldn't afford the costs, (at least that was what I was told.) I wondered why I was so special.
But now that I am more mature, I can say without a doubt every human life is valuable. Every one. If we help each other to see it, the benefits start to become exponential. Imagine, if "I" or someone else is incapable at any moment, but later on design or invent something that changes the world, it could pay off a multitudes "societal debt".
Lets say that they are old and incapable, do we give disincentive to get old and turn people toward living the fast life? Lets also not forget, our elders have wisdom. Those that forget the past, are often doomed to repeat it.
In the end, we all will meet hardship at one point or another. Even if you aren't religious, can you deny that pulling together through the thin times is what enable us to conquer the Earth and all obstacles that we have so far? Without that basic "good will" of a critical mass, well, we'd be lucky to have much more than than oxcarts I would venture to say. Good will allows civilization (if but indirectly) and prevents chaos and calls down order.
Not but a few hundred years ago the club and sword were all that truly mattered for conquering, now we are conquering medicine and science on orders of magnitude of magnitude.
Oh, and I forgot to add, been continuing to do the Speedtest.net thing to get the Internet back going ALL day... I haven't run torrents in awhile though, which pretty much proves it is related to the issue since my router is now responding, without reseting it. Should I be OK with Ubuntu and Firestarter on default, with NAT off to test the above person's theory?
I am, it's obvious. I even had the "supervisor" on the other line try to say that as a third party website it "can't be" biased.
I told him, "First off, that is not true. If you and I know of these sites, we both know IT does and frankly I do not trust Comcast with everything I have been through to not show a bias. Especially when I have experienced it.
Second (here I slap him with logic) you are right, it should not be biased. So why am I able to go to this site and then everything pulls up, and yet before I do nothing does?
When you possess the truth, most of the time you just have to turn their argument around on them, like they try to do to you. Just flip the script back. But this is where he says he wants to send a technician, and I refused to pay for it. After the same thing happening immediately with even Google not pulling up, and I go to Speedtest.net and it miraculously works, I called them back and they said they would send one out for free.
I couldn't really argue that, and I want it to cost them. Just like it is costing me. So now, for no good reason as best as I can tell, they are sending someone out here to try to find fault on my end for an intermittent issue, or "block syncing" I think he called it.
Today, my router stopped responding to it's IP in the browser. I was looking to try the nat fix above. So, I tried hibernating and restarting the PC. Internet was still on and I said screw it I am not going to reset it again if I don't have to. Just now (already dark outside) the router did respond to the browser.
Now all of this leads me to believe that it "could" be the router. But I just have this gut intuition that it isn't the "sole" cause. I think they are doing things that are confusing the router possibly. Anyone have anything on that? I know that they have been busted sending fake dropped packets and disconnects and such. Perhaps it is a type of DOS attack?
I will try it next time it happens, but I still don't see why going to speedtest.net will allow a tab in Firefox that is stalling on images.google.com to load up just as soon as I go to speedtest.net in another tab. I have TabMixPlus set to show the loading percentage on the tab and I can watch it finish as I load up Speedtest.net. Go back to the Google images tab, and thumbnails are fully loaded.
Still think it could be the firewall?
However, it is my opinion, that defending those rights through the courts is an option that many people no longer have due to the lack of access to the judicial system. (money)
I would agree, and I think I have a solution for that, the only obvious one that I can see. File anyway. Help others to file and fight. When the courts have to deal with thousands of court cases then they will have to take "appropriate" action. If we do anything less, perhaps we are "asking" for what we get.
No go, I don't like having a firewall running on Windows since it slows it down. I rely on the hardware firewall of my router. Also, it clears up when I go to speedtest.net... so it isn't the router.
You bet your ass it does. I wonder if there is someone who can say IAAL and tell us if no one challenging EULAs after so long can make them defacto "legal"? (Since they are understood.) I am sure there are some principals in law like this, but would they apply? Lets setup a fund for a single person and put our feet down. I would donate half my cable bill and get cut down 90% in speed to help "invest". (which is what would happen, from $42.95 at 6 mb to 34.95 at 1 mb... Bastages! I was going to do it until I found someone another ISP, but I would never get anything with it cutting off like it is. I may do it anyhow.)
First off, it was unlimited when I first got signed up. Forget some translation of the word years later, unlimited meant just that, at my speeds I get all I can eat. Not that I had unlimited connection time. Which even still really means the same thing, I have unlimited connection time at the speeds signed up for... It was understood that if I interfered with others though, through hacking the main box down the street, etc. that I would get cut off and eventually ISPs had to throttle to some extent for those that hogged. That is appreciable, if not commendable.
Secondly, mine is not always on, if I have to keep resetting my router and modem. That is the point, they are not even doing the little they do promise. They are now "officially" going waaaaaaay to far. The fecal matter is going to hit the fan soon because in the words of Twisted Sister, "We're not gonna take!"
No! We're not gonna take it! We're not gonna take it, anymore.
I think it is a also time-cost issue for the Doctors. Send a poor kid whose mother is yelling at him to be good in the doctor's office to therapy when resources are limited anyhow, or send him home with a scrip and "be done with it." I see way too many people on a cocktail of mental med.s (not just kids) and I have a hard time believing that is the best solution. When doctor can see more patients and therefore get more $ or even go home close to on time, this is what you get.
Bless those that have guts and integrity. I wish that ISP was here in America, I would buy from them on principle.
Not what the darkside wants.
That's for sure. I just literally got off of the phone with Comcast complaining that my service is getting "intermittently" interrupted. Now, lets be clear, I am running torrents. But lets also be clear that without P2P, hardly anyone would want their crappy high speeds as slightly lower speeds are intolerable for web surfing and Youtube. Me seeding the Knoppix DVD for 2 days leaving my PC on all night isn't kosher when Knoppix is legal. (electricity costs $$$)
They tried to blame my router, but I occasionally get spotty service when it is just my modem. I refuse to go without the router for more than a few days since I obviously bought it for a needed reason. I just couldn't get over the fact that Google (images) wouldn't pull up thumbnails, yet when I go to Speedtest.net, whoa the turtle turned into the hare. So I called them since I know what is going on. They deny there is issue on their end, and want to send a tech to my home and when they don't find a problem charge me $30. I go back inside after my 35 minute call and go to pull up Google.. slow again. I go to Speedtest.net, and now everything works. So I call them back up and they are going to send a tech to my home Friday and even credit me back if they find issue on my end.
Is it just me, or is it a conspiracy, brother man? I just refuse to believe all the trouble I have had is a coincidence. But please, I would love evidence that I am wrong. I want a decent service provider that doesn't let you go since you use what you paid for. That is why I called them back.
I want to find another provider if they don't make it right, and we know there is little chance of that. But what is my option? AT&T, the "Your world delivered, to the NSA." company as the only alternative in my area.
So for a recap, I have issues usually after running torrents even at times without the router, and going to Speedttest.net is like a super pill that clears it up. For the moment, and I use that loosely.
What would you do?
That is an awesome article. Thank you sir!
Good to know, thanks. I do not watch much T.V. anyhow, even though in America.
I think that being OK with any nudity is just against Christian principles. The Bible is very wise and gives instructions for a reason. I have urges like anyone else, and seeing nudity without it being the one I love is not right to me.
The sentence would be better read as below:
I don't think it unreasonable at all that young children shouldn't be exposed to breasts.
First, I have to ask, why is there a law stating that you CAN do something. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. If you feel that you need a law to permit, then perhaps other laws are not written well, or you should take a better look at what you are wanting to permit. I feel that all men have the right to do whatever, as long as it doesn't impede another mans rights. (to not partake or be exposed, for example)
Personally, yes I feel that in general women should not be allowed to walk around without a top, exposing their breasts. I also do not think it unreasonable to not allow women in the workplace to have skirts showing all of their legs.
Now, if you want to do this in designated areas, knock yourselves out. I just do not want to be going to get gas and have to have myself or kids watching men ogling bare-chested women.
Based on the limited information that you provided, yes the law shouldn't be there. But, perhaps not for the reasons you expected.
If you say so....
s what, exactly, led you to think a sexually charged duet between her and goddamn Justin Timberlake would be suitable viewing for your kids? I mean the clothes that she did have on was a skintight full body leather gimp suit for the most part, correct?
Nothing led me to think that. (I am not a parent, so does not directly apply to the specific situation of *my* child.) But regardless, she wasn't nude, and then she was. Maybe someone was trying to expose a child *to the world*, and then they got more than they were bargaining for because they decided to show nudity?
Your parenting is shit. Empower your children with understanding, rather than trying to give them blinders.
This will never fucking work, and we don't need more fucking uptight morons like you in the world.
That bad huh? Just because I don't want them exposed to nudity without warning?
I think you are the moron, if anyone. You make judgments without even knowing me. As long as morons think it is ok with showing nudity without warning, you're right, it wont work. You got me there.
So the FCC levies fines and makes examples. You think twice about being a moron.
Fair enough, induce. You are correct, they likely were. But we fetishize covering them up because they can and do invoke sexual reactions.
Just because 12 year olds have seen nipples doesn't make it okay. 25% of males in 1 particular country have admitted to raping. I think you would agree 90%, or even 1 instance is not alright.