Forums » Off-Topic
This thread is full of a bunch of irrelevant stuff, so I apologize if this argument was already made and I missed it while skimming past tangents.
"If people were actually angry at the current market they would make an impact with their USD and boycott the ISP's in question of taking advantage of those who consume their product"
That's fine for competitive industries where consumers have many choices and people can easily create an alternative if existing companies are shit. The ISP industry is not that sort of industry, largely due to the extreme infrastructure requirements. Perhaps there are also unnecessary regulations driving up the cost of that infrastructure and running an ISP. If so, I may well be in favor of changing those. If you could change the playing field so that the ISP industry becomes competitive, then it would be okay to remove the net neutrality rule and let the free market sort itself out. Removing it now is not a way to get to that future, however. Net neutrality does not stifle competition; it only prevents abuses from the large monopolistic companies that have already arisen in the existing uncompetitive ISP industry. Removing it because you want competition is putting the cart in front of the horse. Life vests are uncomfortable, but you take them off after you get back to shore, not while you're in the middle of the deeps fantasizing about land.
"If people were actually angry at the current market they would make an impact with their USD and boycott the ISP's in question of taking advantage of those who consume their product"
That's fine for competitive industries where consumers have many choices and people can easily create an alternative if existing companies are shit. The ISP industry is not that sort of industry, largely due to the extreme infrastructure requirements. Perhaps there are also unnecessary regulations driving up the cost of that infrastructure and running an ISP. If so, I may well be in favor of changing those. If you could change the playing field so that the ISP industry becomes competitive, then it would be okay to remove the net neutrality rule and let the free market sort itself out. Removing it now is not a way to get to that future, however. Net neutrality does not stifle competition; it only prevents abuses from the large monopolistic companies that have already arisen in the existing uncompetitive ISP industry. Removing it because you want competition is putting the cart in front of the horse. Life vests are uncomfortable, but you take them off after you get back to shore, not while you're in the middle of the deeps fantasizing about land.
I agree with you, particularly regarding the infrastructure. I have gone to AT&T because, in my area, they own the physical lines. Most of my issues in the past have involved the physical lines and, when there's a problem, AT&T doesn't care if a customer of another ISP has an issue. Thus, I became an AT&T customer so that I could deal with them directly, but I'm not thrilled about them as a company.
Regulations will get knocked off soon enough, all we can do is wait and vote with our USD.
Trump did mention major infrastructure spending.
Trump did mention major infrastructure spending.
"Regulations will get knocked off soon enough"
Perhaps you trust the US Federal Government enough to let them take off your life vest before they've gotten you to shore, but I don't.
Perhaps you trust the US Federal Government enough to let them take off your life vest before they've gotten you to shore, but I don't.
I trust Donald Trump to get it done, I don't need a life vest I bought my own boat.
Have fun playing pretend captain in your little cute toy boat while us adults make sure it doesn't flood in the first place.
Capitalism > Ninnyism
Ok, I think I figured out what Mi5 was trying to say when he said
"Follow along closely according to the DoJ 97% of the US population by 3% (Amount of population homosexual) that number by 3% of the known child molestors since 1991, that number is 33% or 1\3
3% of the population is responsible for 33% of the child molestation. All I was suggesting is that according to the facts that homosexuals are predisposed to mental illness as a result of traumas or abuse sexual or not before the age of 15."
I an pretty sure he was trying to sum up the "analysis" presented here, on the "Exposing Myths About Sexual Orientation" website. I'm not entirely sure, let me know if you have any better ideas.
Anyway, to actually sum up the page in question, the "analysis" declares that "Forcible Rape" is definitely always performed by heterosexuals and "Forcible Sodomy" is definitely performed by homosexuals. Of course, the reporting guidelines make no such assumptions, and neither does the actual data. In fact, if you look around, you might discover that "The overwhelming majority of men who rape other men identify themselves as heterosexual."
On the basis of this reading of the data, they then extrapolate that since for juveniles 6.3% of the sexual assaults reported are forcible sodomy and 19.2% of the assaults reported are forcible rape, 25% of child molesters ARE THE GAYS. They then compare 25% of child molesters that are the gays to the 3% of the total population that are the gays, and conclude that THE GAYS RAPE MORE CHILDREN. This, of course is entirely out of the scope of the actual report, which is why it doesn't make any such claims and doesn't contain the words "orientation" or "homosexual" or "heterosexual" anywhere. This is also why it is basically impossible for a reasonable person to read that report and conclude that "THE GAYS RAPE MORE CHILDREN" without someone gently guiding you with a hand placed "platonically" on your buttocks.
Meanwhile, here is an actual study that actually studied how aroused men became in response to pictures of kids. It found, among other things, that there is no significant difference between straight and gay men's responses in that respect.
Here is another website you may find interesting.
PS: To tie this back to the actual topic, this is an excellent example of what happens when you hand control of how you browse the internet to a corporation. Since I google for reasonable things, I get reasonable results when I try to find information about a topic. Since Mi5 presumably googles for things like "100 things trump has accomplished" and "kekistan flag gif," his results are going to be vastly different from what most of us see on the internet and will no doubt confirm whatever conspiracy theory he believes in that day. Use duckduckgo.
"Follow along closely according to the DoJ 97% of the US population by 3% (Amount of population homosexual) that number by 3% of the known child molestors since 1991, that number is 33% or 1\3
3% of the population is responsible for 33% of the child molestation. All I was suggesting is that according to the facts that homosexuals are predisposed to mental illness as a result of traumas or abuse sexual or not before the age of 15."
I an pretty sure he was trying to sum up the "analysis" presented here, on the "Exposing Myths About Sexual Orientation" website. I'm not entirely sure, let me know if you have any better ideas.
Anyway, to actually sum up the page in question, the "analysis" declares that "Forcible Rape" is definitely always performed by heterosexuals and "Forcible Sodomy" is definitely performed by homosexuals. Of course, the reporting guidelines make no such assumptions, and neither does the actual data. In fact, if you look around, you might discover that "The overwhelming majority of men who rape other men identify themselves as heterosexual."
On the basis of this reading of the data, they then extrapolate that since for juveniles 6.3% of the sexual assaults reported are forcible sodomy and 19.2% of the assaults reported are forcible rape, 25% of child molesters ARE THE GAYS. They then compare 25% of child molesters that are the gays to the 3% of the total population that are the gays, and conclude that THE GAYS RAPE MORE CHILDREN. This, of course is entirely out of the scope of the actual report, which is why it doesn't make any such claims and doesn't contain the words "orientation" or "homosexual" or "heterosexual" anywhere. This is also why it is basically impossible for a reasonable person to read that report and conclude that "THE GAYS RAPE MORE CHILDREN" without someone gently guiding you with a hand placed "platonically" on your buttocks.
Meanwhile, here is an actual study that actually studied how aroused men became in response to pictures of kids. It found, among other things, that there is no significant difference between straight and gay men's responses in that respect.
Here is another website you may find interesting.
PS: To tie this back to the actual topic, this is an excellent example of what happens when you hand control of how you browse the internet to a corporation. Since I google for reasonable things, I get reasonable results when I try to find information about a topic. Since Mi5 presumably googles for things like "100 things trump has accomplished" and "kekistan flag gif," his results are going to be vastly different from what most of us see on the internet and will no doubt confirm whatever conspiracy theory he believes in that day. Use duckduckgo.
Continuing Mi5's 101 (now 103) reasons to fire the orangutan in the white house:
103) https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-easier-police-seize-175413322.html
Ain't Jeff Sessions a wonder boy?
103) https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-easier-police-seize-175413322.html
Ain't Jeff Sessions a wonder boy?
JJ wants criminals to keep the money they get from crimes, shocker! No wonder he's so against the law and order administration :P
and Genka here is my right wing gaybashing source : http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Oh, and all your "studies" are over 40 years old, got anything recent and valid? Your second link, links to my original dutch study.
and Genka here is my right wing gaybashing source : http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Oh, and all your "studies" are over 40 years old, got anything recent and valid? Your second link, links to my original dutch study.
JJ wants criminals to keep the money they get from crimes, shocker!
I don't care about criminals losing the stuff they stole.
The problem is it gives the police way too much power. Now they can confiscate things without a warranty and without any evidence of wrongdoing.
Do I really need to explain why this is bad and creates more problems than it solves?
I don't care about criminals losing the stuff they stole.
The problem is it gives the police way too much power. Now they can confiscate things without a warranty and without any evidence of wrongdoing.
Do I really need to explain why this is bad and creates more problems than it solves?
They have been able to do that well before Trump or Sessions, you can't use the constitution when it's convenient.
If you're using that as an excuse to throw out the whole administration lets have some parity, asset forfeiture has been around since the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
I want the government to respect the constitution, but you should at least read what you're talking about first.
Also, your link doesn't describe any new EO or legislation passed so at this point you're just wasting our time, troll.
If you want abuse of local police to go down, how about giving them a budget. I would like to see a comparison of police stations rates compared from cities that receive the actual money for I don't know what and the "flyover" towns that ignored.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-shortage-hits-cities-small-towns-across-country-n734721
I'm sure you would prefer if there were no police though.
If you're using that as an excuse to throw out the whole administration lets have some parity, asset forfeiture has been around since the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
I want the government to respect the constitution, but you should at least read what you're talking about first.
Also, your link doesn't describe any new EO or legislation passed so at this point you're just wasting our time, troll.
If you want abuse of local police to go down, how about giving them a budget. I would like to see a comparison of police stations rates compared from cities that receive the actual money for I don't know what and the "flyover" towns that ignored.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-shortage-hits-cities-small-towns-across-country-n734721
I'm sure you would prefer if there were no police though.
Regardless if it was legal before or not, the fact that Sessions thinks it's a great idea to issue a new directive encouraging the police to increase this sort of activity speaks volumes on what a despicable sack of shit he is.
Get the law changed then instead of saying ugly things.
Sure, I agree. How do we get laws changed? Vote for the right people in 2018 and 2020.
We already voted for the right people, do you know how congress works? Or will you keep advocating for people to slap the shackles on themselves and slave away for the democrat plantation?
So, how's that "elected the right people to repeal UBAMACARE" going for you?
Great! Now instead of getting a fake repeal with 80% of the shit still the same, now we can do a FULL repeal.
Based Rand Paul sticking to his guns like his pops.
Based Rand Paul sticking to his guns like his pops.
It's hilarious how the orangutan in the white house is still obsessing over Hillary. Somehow he thinks he's still running against her. Did someone tell him that he won 6 months ago yet? Keep telling him. He has an unfortunate case of dementia.