[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher! They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran? "Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination CNN Stunned As Majority Of Americans Back Trump's Mass Deportation Plan Israeli VS Palestinian Connections to the Land of Israel-Palestine

Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: Question concerning Firefox and browsing history
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 10, 2010
Author: F.A. Hayek Fan
Post Date: 2010-11-10 12:44:44 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 1922
Comments: 136

I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 63.

#2. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)

I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?

Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.

If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.

You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.

PaulCJ  posted on  2010-11-10   12:51:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.

If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.

i agree with Paul on this one.

christine  posted on  2010-11-10   13:20:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm with you two on this.

Lod  posted on  2010-11-10   14:44:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

PaulCJ never answered F.A. Hayek Fan's original technical question. So why do you think PaulCJ's moral principles of social conduct or behaviour trump a perfectly good technical question?

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   14:49:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So why do you think PaulCJ's moral principles of social conduct or behaviour trump a perfectly good technical question?

Has FA asks his son directly beforehand about looking at porn? Looking him directly in the eye and ask the question.

To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world.

PaulCJ  posted on  2010-11-10   14:58:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Has FA asks his son directly beforehand about looking at porn? Looking him directly in the eye and ask the question.

To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world.

Are your questions/considerations pertinent to F.A. Hayek Fan's original technical question? I don't think so.

Your moral considerations are meaningless to F.A. Hayek Fan's considerations. How do you know he hasn't already had the dialogue you discuss? Aren't YOU fabricating HOT_AIRE without addressing the initial point of view by F.A. Hayek Fan?

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   15:04:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

How do you know he hasn't already had the dialogue you discuss?

I don't. And neither do you.

But, you would walk in blindly into doing immoral acts, such as going behind people's backs, without asking for details beforehand. While I ask for, and point out details.

I believe in making an "informed decision" before taking action. You do not.

PaulCJ  posted on  2010-11-10   15:23:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't. And neither do you.

So why did you decide to impose your own moral principles into a technical question?

But, you would walk in blindly into doing immoral acts, such as going behind people's backs, without asking for details beforehand. While I ask for, and point out details.

Sorry charlie, I discussed technical considerations NOT YOU. You imposed some fucked-upped dialogue that is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. And your often spouted moral principals go no-where with me.

Here is your POST#2:

Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.

If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.

You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.

Where did you answer the TECHNICAL question? Ohhhhh, it was too easy to FORCE your moral principals into a pile of blabbering BULLSHIT.

I believe in making an "informed decision" before taking action. You do not.

You don't know diddly-squat.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   15:35:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So why did you decide to impose your own moral principles into a technical question?

Because "moral principles", or lack there of, were stated within the "technical question" itself.

PaulCJ  posted on  2010-11-10   16:20:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Because "moral principles", or lack there of, were stated within the "technical question" itself.

You remind me of those anti-constitutionalists that argue about the requirements of and about the Second Amendment.

F.A. Hayek Fan posted an establishment preamble that has only meaning to his technical question. On review:

Here is what F.A. Hayek Fan asked:

I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?

His reasons are his business in establishing a premise. But all you did in post#2 was distract away from his interest.

Now, let's look at the Second Amendment which is largely neglected in the SAME WAY (or contextual argument) you attempted to distract F.A. Hayek Fan's post:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You have garbled F.A. Hayek Fan's meaning similar to Handgun Control Inc. You think because of establishing a forward or principle towards the issue permits some sort of distraction.

You are a bumbling, babbling idiot PaulCJ. No wonder you can't get it quite right yet ... you are always distracted because you can't read.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   16:39:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

you are correct. the guy asked a technical question. everyone piping in about how a porn addiction is good for his son and how a parent has no moral right to monitor their children are insane whackos. the end, no further bickering needed. Next?

Artisan  posted on  2010-11-10   22:17:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Next?

How come libertarians aren't considered responsible both personally, family, business and socially and yet the well-practised democrats and their own counter-parts, the republicans, are?

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   22:23:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

i am almost leery of identifying myself as a libertarian. people like schwarzenegger, socialist statists who like fag 'marriage' & killing unborn babies are referred to as libertarians. they are disgusting as that gary nolan character who thinks he has hope for the presidency. i prefer the label paleoconservative. most people never heard of that though. it will confuse them.much of the general public, when they hear the term libertarian, conjure up someone who they think just doesnt like rules.

Artisan  posted on  2010-11-10   22:35:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

i am almost leery of identifying myself as a libertarian.

And, as a result, you are afraid of individual rights, liberties and freedoms while clinging onto gossip, innuendo and mass paranoia.

Or, did you mean something else and I interpreted your perspective incorrectly?

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   22:47:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

the libertarian label in the mind of the average american conjures up an ideology that is not consistent with my own. hence if i tell someone im a libertarian, i explain that simply means i support liberty. that does not mean i am afraid of freedom. it means that most people dont even know what the term means.

Artisan  posted on  2010-11-10   23:00:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

the libertarian label in the mind of the average american conjures up an ideology that is not consistent with my own. hence if i tell someone im a libertarian, i explain that simply means i support liberty. that does not mean i am afraid of freedom. it means that most people dont even know what the term means.

That was an excellent post, Artisan.

You explained why many of us are so ashamedly meek and afraid to step out and voice a personal opinion.

buckeroo  posted on  2010-11-10   23:13:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 63.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 63.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]