. A scientist's argument when dealing within their scientific expertise is more likely to be valid, yes.

It's an an appeal to authority when it's a direct refutation withing ones expertise. It's a appeal to authority if I say, he said it, he is an scientist, therefor I am right.

Thomas Aquinas? seriously? have you read his works?

Do you also thing he levitated?

The god aspect is unprovable, uuntestable so you have to ignore it. Just like a child learns to ignore the monster in the closet.

good and evil is just perspective, and yes you can be an atheist abd have good and evil.

""survival of the fittest", or "thou shalt not kill""
why do you think those are mutually exclusive, pal.

good and evil is far older then any religion, pal.

This has been well covered in philosophy and many writings, PAL.

Incorrect. See: klachakra

Also there are some follower that have to addition tenants that involve Karma; which also required an outside actor(s) to keep score.
And they have sins. If there is no outside actor then who are they sinning against? Again this seems to e a knowing universe that can portion out forgiveness.

There is no God as in the creation of the universe. but there are other spiritual(unprovabale) actor involved.

"A scientists view of claims that "science proves religion" however, is likely to be *far* more valid."
Note: It says religion and not god.

Religion is provable. Easy, go to a church, see religion in action.

God is a different matter.

It's his retort on the science that's valid, Not the exists of and un-provable concept.

From the FCC:
Are cable systems required to offer "a la carte" and pay-per-view channels?

No, but they may choose to offer channels on a stand-alone basis ("a la carte") or as a pay-per-view channel. Commission rules also prohibit cable systems from requiring customers to subscribe to any tiers beyond the basic tier in order to have access to a la carte channels or pay-per-view channels offered by the system.

'Out your ass' is not a legitimate source.

"..customer is no longer paying for the delivery of the goods.."
yes we are. We pay for them to have an internet service, a website, and everything else you need to deliver the goods.

Yes, they should just go out of business.

Commercials pay for the Show/channel. The 20 bucks is for the service, as IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
Not a lot of people would pay and extra 100 a month for commercial free broadcasting.

Neither would you. You are either cheap., or completely clueless.

without ESPN? Please? It's really for people who like to here other people spout shit they tried really hard to fill time with. It's actual information can be smmed up in a website. I don't know why I need to subsidize a profit making network.

Of course, I have no idea why people tune in to here athletes talk.

Hey, football fans! This is what the QB is going to say:
If it was a hard game or loss, he will take the blame.
If it is a win, he will praise the line.

The hardware design is amazing. Look at the board and component layout.

Of course not the CEO prioritizes logistics over quality, and it's starting to show.

"This is not something you can do on a weekend,"

why not?

Yes, but i you had the tool, You would be able to fix it next time as well.

And you can boil water in a Microwave.

There are a bunch of how to's on Fixya about that toaster oven.

"If not outright forbidden to do so. "
false.

"We live in a time where not only things get complicated enough that you'd need to study everything you want to fix for a while before you could even start finding out what's broken, "
false.

"more often than not some legalese bullshit is thrown between your legs where you may not even start working on something you allegedly bought. "
The legalize is only to protect the manufacturer. Do you think you should b ably to pop open you device, change thing and then get the manufacturer to help you or replace it?

"You see, back in my days we did something funny with the stuff we bought: We "owned" it. It meant that we could do whatever we damn well please with the stuff we bought. "
Still true.

"No such luck anymore, the more technology your gadgets contain and the more gimmicky it is, the higher the chance that you must not do anything but use it in whatever fashion the creator wants you to. No tinkering, no "fixing", no improving, and sure as HELL no talking about doing any of that!"
False.

"Most technical appliances are actually defect at delivery."
False.

". They refuse to do what you want, like, say, you buy a new game console and it doesn't play whatever you want it to play, despite the technical capability."
You want you electronics to do what they weren't designed for by default?

" You must now not go and fix the defect so it would do what you want it to do. In some countries it's even already an offense that could cost you a nasty fine or even land you in jail to fix your broken device. Let alone do it for others."
what countries?

You are utterly false and have jumped into the alarmist bullshit created by whiners.

You should be happy that you are completely wrong, but you won't be. You have self identified with a bias and crafted a false narrative from that, and as such you have an emotional investment into being right, inregardless* of the facts.

Stop it.

*Grammar joke. Sorry.