I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave.
Dave's not here man.
I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave.
Dave's not here man.
Maybe the artist was laughing all the way to the bank about having gotten porn displayed in public by calling it "Neptune" instead of calling it "My boyfriend Fred".
Does it matter? Does being Fred make it evil while "Neptune" or "David" is artistic? Is the human body so filthy that it automatically becomes pornography when viewed? If so, why do we put up with all of these other animals running around in nature without a stitch of clothing hiding their indecency, where children can see? Put 'em all in jail. Make 'em register as tier 3 sex offenders for life.
I guess there are 1970's conservatives and 1940's conservatives.
1940's or 1880's? When we question the fitness for display of a public statue of a Greek god, I think the common sense of the people has jumped the shark. In twenty years, will we be calling for Victorian morals and demand public displays of pianos and tables have their legs covered for modesty?
Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.
This is already happening. Facebook is what mom and dad or grandma and grandpa use to share recipes and pictures of their dog. My daughter deleted her account after the election because of all the post election bickering. My younger kids have mostly abandoned theirs. Most of the still-in-school crowd has moved on to Instagram and Snapchat.
Since nips ain't no big deal can you send me a pic of yours and especially your mother's, wife's, or girlfriend's which ever is more applicable?
Most probably after we sent a pic of ours, you will have plucked your own eye out of their orbit, and ran away screaming off.
The goggles. They do nothing.
I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.
As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.
Generations will look back at our folly and judge us like we judge the witch hunters of the seventeenth century.
The question is whether passenger's "rights" to use their phone are more important than the safety of other drivers on the road. I would argue that safety is paramount in that context if we can actually prevent distracted driving. Until we can come up with a more fine grained solution, disable them all if that is the only safe option. Nobody's civil rights are being violated here and we've proven VERY clearly that we as a group cannot be trusted to leave the phone alone while driving.
That's your bar? You right to "feel" safe is priority over others rights as long as it doesn't violate their Civil Rights? Distracted driving isn't going to disappear just because people wouldn't be able to use mobile devices.
I don't see any credible argument that your right to use your phone should supersede my right to use a motorway in reasonable safety. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
You don't want to restrict the rights of the person swinging their arm. You want to restrict everyone's rights. You're telling my kids that they can't play their games or text their friends during our 90 minute drive to grandma's house. Your safety is unaffected by them. What you want to call "reasonable safety" I would argue is quite unreasonable.
Maybe we should disable all calls and texts to/from a phone which is determined to be within a moving vehicle. (yes even the passengers - suck it up, You and your passengers can wait a few minutes for their call.) If it's important to speak to someone, pull off to the side of the road and put the car in park.
I hear a few (usually vocal) people advocate disabling cell phones within moving vehicles. Unfortunately for their particular solution, it appears from that the overwhelming majority of people seem to want to use their mobile devices in their cars. My afternoon commute is always occupied with mobile users - drivers and passengers - calling, texting, surfing, or emailing. If I had a very long passenger commute, rode a bus, car pooled, or took a train, (none of those apply to me) I would be first in line to tell them to shove it up their sanctimonious asses.
Don't like that solution? Fine, come up with a better one. I'm all ears, believe me. But the status quo isn't acceptable.
Obviously, there is no clear, workable and fair solution at present but the fact that the status quo "isn't acceptable" is not a reason to just DO SOMETHING. That's how we get things like the PATRIOT Act.
Well, if you were in WIN10 you'd already be home! Or, just wait for Linux to patch his fuckup, that somehow is your fault!
I am using WIN10. I'm still waiting for the patch to fix my DHCP that the last patch broke. It's too bad that I have no networking now so my wait for that patch might be a long one.
You still haven't said why divorce is bad. You've said why abandoning children is bad, and you have implicitly equated divorce with abandoning children but that's a false equivalence.
That is only one aspect. Yes. Abandoning children is bad. The woman I am dating has a working relationship with her ex and a 50/50 split on child rearing. I have seen the changes in her girls over time. There is no doubt that the divorce has affected them negatively. One of her girls has had very negative changes.
My son's best friend has a broken family. The mother has custody with the dad having visitation. Dad seems to be a great parent and never misses a visitation. I've seen him with his kids all over town taking them to events but I have seen the negative changes in this kid as a result of the divorce as well.
Sounds to me as if divorce has had little to do with it. The bipolar disorder sounds like the big factor. If anything divorce helped. If you were all forced together as a family, not only would they have a mother with severe mental problems but they'd also have a dad who was in no great place either.
Bipolar has very little to do with separation anxiety. The kids had abandonment issues. My middle son had attachment issues with women. That's the result of a broken marriage, not living with a mom with mental health issues.
But if you didn't get divorced, you'd not have to pay daycare because you'd be happy leaving your kids to be looked after by someone with severe bipolar disorder and off her meds? I don't get it. Surely that wasn't an option either so again divorce had little to do with it.
Bipolar != Schizephrenia. Bipolar people are functional. During a high, they go without sleep, have unrealistic delusions of ability and make poor judgment decisions especially with money and work. During a low, they mope around and sleep a lot. My ex is not Shelley Duvall crazy. She does do some real stupid shit when she is manic though.
I will say that my oldest expressed a relief that her mother was finally out of the house. Sure it was harder on all of us for many reasons, but the tension and arguments were finally gone.
Seriously though your objections are basically along the lines of "sometimes people are crap". I agree with that. Divorce is not bad because people are crap: people are going to be crap either way. Divorce is simply the escape hatch. The alternative is being stuck.
Divorce is arguably bad. However, sometimes the alternatives are worse. I've seen divorces where one spouse does everything they can to hurt the person they vowed to stay committed to for the rest of their life. I've seen divorces where one spouse puts the other into the poor house over their anger. I've seen parents try to hurt their ex through their kids. Yes. People suck.
Think of it this way. On the most basic level, divorce is bad because a marriage and family are now broken. That in itself is sad. The relative ease of divorce reduces the amount of commitment that a person needs to keep things together and to make things work. It's easy to just give up. Nobody wants to try. Yes, sometimes there is no way to make things work. Sometimes divorce is necessary but make no mistake, the result is not a total positive.
No problem. We'll just ban divorce, and you'll be forced to live with your bipolar nut-case ex-wife until you die (probably by suicide). How does that sound?
I'm not the suicidal type. During the worst parts of our marriage, it never once entered my mind. Then again, I'm not bipolar or depressive. Just FYI, I did not want the marriage to end at the time and I did whatever I could to save it, but as I stated before, it was the best thing that could have happened to me. As for the kids, the jury is still out on that.
There is an old adage that says "Men marry women believing that they will never change. Women marry men believing they can make them change. They are both wrong." The woman I divorced bore very little resemblance to the one I married.
Again, would you prefer having your bipolar nut-case wife back?
Please re-read my original post. I believe I was clear on the point.
Divorce is a good thing: it keeps unfortunate men like your ex's new ex from becoming completely homeless, and letting them break free of a toxic relationship.
He did become homeless. Or rather, had to go live with his elderly father. She went through his finances and walked out on him just like she did me. She left him with nothing but debt. Shortly after that, she tried to convince me to take her in when her finances went to shit. I declined. My youngest would have been devastated when she left again even if it was only "a few weeks for getting on her feet." I had pity for her, but not enough to damage my kids any more.
I think my original post may have been confusing. Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
That doesn't explain why you think divorce is bad.
I guess you have never had to hold a crying five-year-old who misses his mommy who left her family.
Mind you. I'm not complaining. Looking in the rear view mirror, divorce was the absolute best thing that could have happened to me. I am way happier being rid of a woman who devolved over the years into a bipolar nut case who refused to stay on her meds. However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one. Therefore, all parties suffer financially when resources are spread thinner. Many cases of divorce result in bankruptcy of one or both parties. The result is a drain on society. Too many single parent homes are living below the poverty level. In my particular case, I received very minimal child support ($200 for four kids) and I suddenly had to find daycare and swallow all the associated expenses. We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Divorce is not a simple boyfriend/girlfriend break up where everyone walks on their merry way, free and clear, when kids are involved; it gets way messier. Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
No, no, no!
That was OJ! It was OJ who said he was going to spend the rest of his life looking for Nicole's killer.
Obviously, OJ thought Nicole's killer was a golfer who spent most of his time on Florida golf courses. OJ was right, too.
Cut the Juice some slack. He's trying harder. He's infiltrated a prison doing recon. Now that's selflessness.
My 2008 Prius has a way to update the maps -- A DVD from Toyota containing one (1) map update, which costs more than two (2) brand-new Garmin GPS systems with included lifetime map update.
Exactly. Her Camry is a 2005 and the dealer has to upgrade the maps (or so they said). The cost was outrageous. Doesn't matter, the interface is awful anyway. We use Waze in her car. Waaaaay better.
... never buying a built-in navigation system ever again. Fool me twice, shame on me... Google Maps lets me download maps for an area I'm going to that might not have service, so I'll just use my phone from now on.
I am in the market for new car right now. No satnav is on my must-have list.
I'm just guessing.... that maaaaybe these legislators don't ride the bus often?
Not legislators, bureaucrats (NHTSA). That is the problem. These "regulators" are always looking for new ways to justify their jobs. If they don't come out with new and improved ideas for us little people regardless of the practicality, usefulness, or hardship on those little people, Congress may not think they need as big a budget next year. It's a good thing they always know what's best for us. Mommy can't be around forever, you know.
"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been neccessary to invent it." -- Karl Lehenbauer