Insulting American people!!!

shadoworca3 said:What specifically is bothering you?

If I tell you, will you actually solve the problem?☕

I have my doubts that any solution would be particularly satisfying. 😉😁

shadoworca3 said:I haven't encountered that specific coinage before, but I honestly fail to see why one shouldn't apply it to someone who holds positions that the modern Church itself has since discarded. After all, what is there to say about a person who attempts to justify the burning of witches, the trial of Galileo, or a strictly literal interpretation of the story of Noah's Ark, especially when the official Church has already stated that such accounts should be understood metaphorically and has publicly apologized for the treatment of Galileo?

As for my own choice of pejoratives, I tend to use "burned creationist" for those who, despite overwhelming evidence, insist on proving things like Noah's Ark, or "Catholic Jamahiriya America" when, for instance, government ministers push through laws against medically assisted reproduction simply to curry favor with the Church without consulting any actual experts first.

And these blood-sucking 'Catholic-Talibans' are all heading in the same direction on the PZ forums, debating this like crazy. I mean, really...

If someone calls a Prime Minister or the President a Taliban, a communist, a fascist, or whatever else, does that trigger an instant ban? Every single one of them is DIRECTLY elected, making them bigger representatives of the American people than the head of the church—who isn't even elected and is DECLARATIVELY supported by 85% of the population. And yet, through direct elections, they end up choosing an agnostic to lead the whole damn country.

People, you’re being hypocrites. You realize these kinds of insults get thrown at the President and the Prime Minister (whether it was Mason, Sanders, Josipovic, or whoever else) every single day, right?

Unless someone can explain to me why calling someone a Taliban is somehow a worse insult than calling them a communist, a fascist, a traitor, a Yusupovic, or any of the rest.

You guys just opened Pandora's box with this one.

Now the admins are going to be buried under a mountain of reports for every single instance of an insult.

Unless someone actually proves that "Taliban" carries that much weight as an insult.

Do the Talibans themselves even think they're an insult?

Total hypocrisy.

Susan Price30 said:If I tell you, will you actually solve the problem?☕

I have my doubts that any solution would be particularly satisfying. 😉😁

And these blood-sucking 'Catholic-Talibans' are all heading in the same direction on the PZ forums, debating this like crazy. I mean, really...

I can't make any promises, but you certainly don't have anything to lose by trying. 🤷

Susan Price30 said:If I tell you, will you actually solve the problem?☕

I have my doubts that any solution would be particularly satisfying. 😉😁

And these blood-sucking 'Catholic-Talibans' are all heading in the same direction on the PZ forums, debating this like crazy. I mean, really...

It’s honestly surprising how many of them we’ve already boxed up, processed, and permanently banned. 😲
The last one was just here yesterday on the thread about Dawkins.

cosmictinker44 said:If someone calls a Prime Minister or the President a Taliban, a communist, a fascist, or whatever else, does that trigger an instant ban? Every single one of them is DIRECTLY elected, making them bigger representatives of the American people than the head of the church—who isn't even elected and is DECLARATIVELY supported by 85% of the population. And yet, through direct elections, they end up choosing an agnostic to lead the whole damn country.

People, you’re being hypocrites. You realize these kinds of insults get thrown at the President and the Prime Minister (whether it was Mason, Sanders, Josipovic, or whoever else) every single day, right?

Unless someone can explain to me why calling someone a Taliban is somehow a worse insult than calling them a communist, a fascist, a traitor, a Yusupovic, or any of the rest.

You guys just opened Pandora's box with this one.

Now the admins are going to be buried under a mountain of reports for every single instance of an insult.

Unless someone actually proves that "Taliban" carries that much weight as an insult.

Do the Talibans themselves even think they're an insult?

Total hypocrisy.

There is simply no such thing as a perfect rule that works everywhere and at all times.
On the PZ chat LMC (Large Moron Collider), I actually established rules quite similar to this:

1. It is permitted to provoke anyone with flame, a rant, or a GIF... but only once. If the target doesn't retaliate, then every subsequent provocation results in 45 infractions.
2. If the opponent strikes back, then all means are permitted.
3. If a moderator finds the combatants boring, they have the right to delete them.
4. Everyone enters the ring at their own risk.
5. Mass participation is both allowed and encouraged.

The only restriction, once someone has jumped into the ring, is that images and GIFs must not be overly vulgar—not for our sake, but because Google will flag them.

Of course, such rules aren't applicable to the other sections of PZ and the forum, so a line must be drawn somewhere. The easiest way to judge this, and what aligns most closely with freedom of speech, is that you should be able to say anything about anyone—especially public figures—provided you support your claims with actual arguments. 🤷
We could certainly reach an agreement on how many points should be assigned for lack of argument or repetition, but that is just fine-tuning.

I honestly find it baffling that anyone would deny that declaring Bozanica a religious figure is an absolute truth.
How exactly would you describe a man who, out of pure devotion, walks away from the pleasures of the world to embrace a life of modesty and celibacy—someone who travels the earth in simple robes, spreading nothing but messages of love and faith?
Personally, I call such individuals religious fanatics, and I’ll stand by that label even if it means facing a ban on this forum.

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly find it baffling that anyone would deny that declaring Bozanica a religious figure is an absolute truth.
How exactly would you describe a man who, out of pure devotion, walks away from the pleasures of the world to embrace a life of modesty and celibacy—someone who travels the earth in simple robes, spreading nothing but messages of love and faith?
Personally, I call such individuals religious fanatics, and I’ll stand by that label even if it means facing a ban on this forum.

Here’s the spin: You’re trying to define "religious fanatic" through the lens of Bozanic’s devotion to God and his commitment to his flock, as if that has anything to do with how Unknown actually used the word "Taliban."

In my book, posts like yours are just straight-up trolling.

As for where this debate is heading—I haven't seen anyone bring up a single concrete example that would allow us to even start making a comparison between Bozanic and the derogatory meaning of "Taliban."

How is that possible?

It's obvious: there isn't a shred of evidence that could even attempt to defend such a blatant and disrespectful insult against his character.

So, the hypocrites here are everyone trying to derail this thread by losing sight of the forest for the trees. The "tree" in question is the shameless, baseless insult directed at the majority's religious leader. Using a cardinal's protection of free speech and one side's opinion in the ZO conflict as an excuse doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a thinly veiled, massive insult to 87% of the American people!!!

shadoworca3 said:I can't make any promises, but you certainly don't have anything to lose by trying. 🤷

It’s honestly surprising how many of them we’ve already boxed up, processed, and permanently banned. 😲
The last one was just here yesterday on the thread about Dawkins.

Exactly—that's precisely what leads to questions about how much, and to what extent, differing opinions are actually tolerated on certain subforums. (And then, in another thread, people start worrying about the 'Talibanization of the forum' or inconsistencies from the moderators and admins), while elsewhere, it seems like diversity of opinion and stance is "tolerated" to its absolute maximum.

Plus, it looks pretty concerning when a moderator on a PZK subforum wonders why a "jerk" can't be called a "jerk" or punished with similar epithets for acting out... Is that really a dilemma? Why can't someone in Psychology be called a "nutcase" or "sick," or someone in Politics be labeled an "Islamoterrorist" or similar? Or is that considered perfectly fine from that side?

And the bitterest part of all—perhaps most of all:

Walter Brooks5 said:If he realized he was wrong, then he surely realized *how* he was wrong—specifically how severe the violation actually was and which category it falls under. If he's supposedly willing to serve time for a mistake he didn't commit, then he should be more than ready to serve time based on a fair and just judgment, rather than some watered-down euphemism, right?

I have never seen an explanation like this for downgrading someone's violation before!

And what is even the point of softening the charge if he’s stuck with 7 days anyway???

Does this not apply because Unknown is a notorious repeat offender? His "handwriting" is unmistakable: he persistently attacks and falsifies the Bible, insulting not just Christian followers, but Jews and Muslims too, all while using his signature hate speech against the God of the Bible. This is a chronic insult to anyone who respects the Bible in its entirety or the foundational parts upon which various faiths and denominations are built.

We are talking about a specific case, on a specific subforum, regarding a specific individual. A person who for years has been falsifying quotes from the Bible, muddling facts, implying things, mocking, and ridiculing, without ever truly arguing. (And after being sanctioned, they go to the PMs to make excuses or act foolish, only to go right back to their old ways)... if he were given another 100 points for his "work" and contribution, I don't know how many discussants from Religion (who are familiar with the case) would protest, because everything written above is the truth...

Anyway, bye... enjoy.

If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Drew Jones6 said:If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Interesting.

And even after this whole Pozaic mess, we still aren't allowed to call him a Taliban... yet he’s out here calling for a new "Storm" against the government. How am I supposed to label him without getting sued? A traitor? An insurrectionist?

cosmictinker44 said:And even after this whole Pozaic mess, we still aren't allowed to call him a Taliban... yet he’s out here calling for a new "Storm" against the government. How am I supposed to label him without getting sued? A traitor? An insurrectionist?

An idiot?
I believe that was one of the suggestions.

Walter Brooks5 said:Here’s the spin: You’re trying to define "religious fanatic" through the lens of Bozanic’s devotion to God and his commitment to his flock, as if that has anything to do with how Unknown actually used the word "Taliban."

In my book, posts like yours are just straight-up trolling.

As for where this debate is heading—I haven't seen anyone bring up a single concrete example that would allow us to even start making a comparison between Bozanic and the derogatory meaning of "Taliban."

How is that possible?

It's obvious: there isn't a shred of evidence that could even attempt to defend such a blatant and disrespectful insult against his character.

So, the hypocrites here are everyone trying to derail this thread by losing sight of the forest for the trees. The "tree" in question is the shameless, baseless insult directed at the majority's religious leader. Using a cardinal's protection of free speech and one side's opinion in the ZO conflict as an excuse doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a thinly veiled, massive insult to 87% of the American people!!!

Susan Price30 As follows:
That is precisely the point—it leads directly to the question of how much, and to what extent, differing opinions are actually tolerated on certain subforums. If we aren't careful, you end up in a situation where, on an entirely different thread, people start feeling genuinely fearful about...The creeping "Talibanization" of this forum, coupled with the blatant inconsistency shown by the moderators and administrators, has become impossible to ignore.And somewhere along the line, we reach that point where "tolerance" for differing opinions and perspectives is pushed to its absolute limit.

It honestly looks quite concerning when a moderator on one of the subforums over at PZK starts questioning why we can't simply call an "idiot" an "idiot," or use similar epithets to discipline someone who is clearly acting out of line. It really begs the question: is there a similar dilemma regarding whether one can call someone in the Psychology section a "lunatic" or "mentally ill," or perhaps label someone in the Politics section with terms like "Mexican nationalist" or "Islamic terrorist"? Or is it perfectly acceptable to use that kind of language from that particular perspective?

And that's the crux of it all—perhaps more than anything else:

This is about a very specific situation involving a particular individual on a specific subforum. We are talking about someone who has spent years distorting quotes from the Bible, muddying the waters, planting false ideas, being generally obnoxious, and mocking others rather than actually providing a single coherent argument. Even after facing sanctions, this person follows a predictable pattern: they either try to justify their behavior through private messages or act completely foolishly to dodge accountability, only to revert to their old ways once things settle down. If anyone were to grant this person an extra hundred points for their "work" or "contribution," I am certain that countless participants from the Religion section—people who are intimately familiar with this whole mess—would be absolutely outraged, because everything I have laid out here is the absolute truth.

Hey there, hello... hope you all have a wonderful time enjoying this!

I don't wish to dwell on every minute detail, but I feel compelled to point out a fundamental truth: you simply cannot suppress freedom of speech or stifle criticism directed at any individual, institution, deity, or sacred object. In a free society, the standard we must always demand is an actual argument, tangible evidence, or a logical explanation. If someone fails to provide a valid point, then their comments should be treated as mere trolling or provocation and handled accordingly. We shouldn't be handing out penalties just because someone happened to touch upon your sacred beliefs or your personal sense of the holy.

When it comes to Unknown, I find that many of his posts are truly excellent—rational, thoughtful, and generally backed by solid arguments. Just as we see a vast spectrum of interpretations regarding the Bible among Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, and Catholics, he possesses the same fundamental right to offer an atheistic interpretation. As long as someone isn't busy underlining the Bible with colored highlighters—marking what should be taken literally in red, what aligns with the spirit of the catechism in blue, what fits the spirit of the Old Testament in green, the New Testament in yellow, allegories in pink, and things that simply baffle the average person in lilac—then one must remain tolerant of these varying perspectives.
Actually, you really ought to wait until then if you want to have any arguments that actually carry some weight.

Walter Brooks5 said:Here’s the spin: You’re trying to define "religious fanatic" through the lens of Bozanic’s devotion to God and his commitment to his flock, as if that has anything to do with how Unknown actually used the word "Taliban."

In my book, posts like yours are just straight-up trolling.

As for where this debate is heading—I haven't seen anyone bring up a single concrete example that would allow us to even start making a comparison between Bozanic and the derogatory meaning of "Taliban."

How is that possible?

It's obvious: there isn't a shred of evidence that could even attempt to defend such a blatant and disrespectful insult against his character.

So, the hypocrites here are everyone trying to derail this thread by losing sight of the forest for the trees. The "tree" in question is the shameless, baseless insult directed at the majority's religious leader. Using a cardinal's protection of free speech and one side's opinion in the ZO conflict as an excuse doesn't change the fact that this is nothing more than a thinly veiled, massive insult to 87% of the American people!!!

By your logic, we shouldn't say a single word against Bozanic—otherwise, we'll offend 87% of Americans. Pure stupidity, really.

Matthew Young35 said:An idiot?
I believe that was one of the suggestions.

Someone’s probably gonna report me for calling all Americans idiots and get me banned... or maybe "Taliban" is the only forbidden dogmatic word around here...

cosmictinker44 said:Someone’s probably gonna report me for calling all Americans idiots and get me banned... or maybe "Taliban" is the only forbidden dogmatic word around here...

If I understood the previous debate correctly, apparently calling someone an idiot is perfectly fine, but using the word "Taliban" is considered an insult to 87% of Americans.
🤷

Drew Jones6 said:If Bozanic had gone on such a fierce rant and someone labeled him a Taliban, it might actually make sense just based on surface-level appearances. But even then, you’d first have to look at whether what Bishop Pozaic is saying holds any water—is his message actually true, or is he speaking the absolute, unvarnished truth?

Look, being intense doesn't mean someone is lying. Does anyone remember how fierce Pope John Paul II used to get when he spoke? I personally remember him giving this sermon in Sicily where he went absolutely ballistic defending the fifth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," while taking aim at the mafia.

But then, the same guy knelt down in Auschwitz and prayed with total humility and burning passion for the victims of the Holocaust.

So, just because someone speaks with intensity like Bishop Pozaic, it doesn't automatically make them a Taliban. Honestly, if people are quick to throw the "Taliban" label at someone as mild-mannered as Bozanic without any real substance, I shudder to think what they’d reflexively scream at Bishop Pozaic just because of his aggressive tone.

You can't judge someone based solely on their temperament or tone—at least not when dealing with serious people. Yet, I've already seen political commentators claiming that Bishop Pozaic’s performance was almost impossible to top.

Maybe we should be asking a different question entirely:

Can someone even call themselves a decent human being if they *don't* react exactly like Bishop Pozaic did when their own children's mental and physical health are under attack?

Morality isn't just a right; it's an obligation. When someone's fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened—especially when those rights involve the well-being of our own kids—nobody has the right to stay silent. You shouldn't even be "mild" in your protest; you need to be sharp and loud.

That is the real truth behind this whole situation that’s been kicking up a massive dust storm in America over the last few weeks. And thank God for Forum.hr.

Look, some people argue that the Church's opposition to children exploring sexuality or homosexuality is an act that goes against not just tolerance, but actual scientific research.
So, the question remains: am I supposed to put my faith in Bishop Pozaic, or in the scientists? 🙄>