urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?
Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?
Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.
If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?
First, we must dismantle the influence of things like the IRS, various activist watchdog groups, and their ilk.
In the meantime, I actually found out that the edge is a supermod on some other forums besides Politics. I hadn't realized that detail before. All this time, I had been under the impression that the edge was my boss. 😁
Things happen, I suppose. 😁
😂 It is inexpensive, yet somewhat charming. You happened to overlook the fact that the "incident" took place in the morning, whereas the breathalyzer test wasn't administered until late at night:😁
Charles Fox10 said:In that case, why don't you just compile everything into one coherent thought and start a proper thread instead of dragging up an old topic over a single half-sentence like this one
And then we have this nonsense about the CIA... suggesting the CIA created the Republican Party???
Dear Charles Fox10, As I previously mentioned, the original thread was quite substantive and, given current events, remains incredibly relevant. I have simply supplemented it with several links and observations that you had previously removed. It is merely what is necessary. I shall continue to write, and then observe how you proceed to delete my contributions. Please, allow the discussion regarding the CIA to proceed; doing so would be a true demonstration of your impartiality.
My intention is to discuss the CIA, rather than focusing solely on Perković. Ostoja has already opened this discussion with quite a bit of depth, and I see no reason to duplicate topics, regardless of how old they might be, provided they remain relevant to us today.
We are dealing here with an entire organization, not just one individual, which means it would be a mistake to limit our scope to a single thread about Perković.
I believe Ostoja’s thread provides a much more thoughtful starting point than the more recent one you mentioned.
I have provided an update to this discussion, picking up right where we left off with Perković. The subject matter remains both relevant and enduring. Has someone actually gone so far as to delete the entries and lock this entire thread?! I find myself wondering about the motive and the identity of whoever is responsible.
Back when the old regime was in power, they would simply sweep anyone deemed "undesirable" under the rug just to maintain the illusion of perfect national unity and harmony. It is truly disheartening to see them closing the discussion regarding PBS today, while the embarrassment surrounding Vučić's recent media appearances hasn't even begun to fade. It's quite shameful, really.
As soon as Radman voiced his opinion, he was met with immediate hostility from passersby, and before I knew it, people on the forum were already threatening him with permanent bans for supposed insults. And just like that, the thread was shut down.
I suppose after his stint in politics, Radmanko still hasn't learned how to handle any kind of criticism. If I’m being completely honest, I find myself wishing I could subject him to a little old-fashioned tarring and feathering.
They seem to be wiping entire threads away without leaving a single trace or offering any kind of explanation... They just scrubbed that discussion regarding the cooperation between Chetniks, Partisans, and various pro-Yugoslav factions within the American political landscape. For what reason, I wonder? And what sort of characters are they, truly?
Nicole James said:First, you’re complaining because I called you out for claiming you can't label homosexuals as sick—and now, you're acting like the victim because you got flagged for implying they suffer from "Christianophobia." Just try to hold back on trying to diagnose everyone you encounter...
I beg your pardon. Homosexuality still remains on the World Health Organization's list of pathologies, though strictly in instances where an individual seeks to change, yet it certainly persists on the list of deviations subject to clinical treatment.
Nicole James said:The real issue here is how I diagnose other users on Reddit. I didn't ban the person above, nor have I banned anyone else who has voiced theories regarding criminal atheist regimes.
You have every right to think whatever you want, just like everyone else, but if you keep calling people on this site "sick," "disordered," or anything similar, you're going to get a ban.
As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over.
According to internationally recognized standards—homosexuals are still considered deviant individuals. That is simply the reality of the matter.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:From a moderator's perspective, the value remains the same. Tracking post counts is merely a technicality rather than a core moderation responsibility.
Perhaps that is true. However, I find it difficult to believe that such a thing holds any value for the readers. Nor does it seem particularly useful for the technical side of things.
Nicholas King As I find myself reflecting on this matter, I am struck by how much weight we tend to place on certain discussions, even when they feel somewhat disconnected from our immediate concerns. It seems that what was previously stated—as noted by jadeseal4—carries a certain gravity that warrants a more measured response than I might initially have prepared. While some may attempt to steer the conversation toward matters that are politically close, I personally believe there is significant value in keeping our discourse apolitical, focusing instead on the substance of the argument itself rather than the noise surrounding it. It is quite easy to lose one's way in such exchanges, and I often worry that my own tendency toward verbosity might obscure the very points I am trying to earnestly convey. Nevertheless, I remain committed to exploring these ideas with the sincerity they deserve. My guiding principle on this forum remains "apolitical." 🙂I must admit, even after much deliberation, I cannot quite grasp the utility of whether or not we should be keeping a tally of posts, other than perhaps serving as a sort of litmus test to identify those who might be acting with a certain degree of foolishness. I find myself compelled to address the core of this argument, though I suspect my attempts at clarity may come across as somewhat pedantic or overly cautious. It is my sincere belief that we must examine the underlying logic more closely if we hope to reach any semblance of a meaningful conclusion. While I am certainly not an expert on all matters, I feel a certain responsibility to ensure that our discussion remains grounded in reason rather than mere impulse. Please forgive me if I seem a bit slow to catch up with the more rapid exchanges occurring here, but I prefer to weigh my words with a degree of deliberation. Ha! You have posted a million times already, which clearly indicates that you have absolutely nothing better to do with your life! Ha! Ha!!!
A truly profound sentence will be recognized and felt even if one were to painstakingly clear away every cobweb just to scribe it within the halls of a formal debate.
Numbers, in their essence, carry no inherent weight. A reduction in numbers implies that something has either vanished entirely or that the specific event you previously described has actually taken place. That is precisely why we find ourselves so heavily invested in the process of counting archives.
Nicholas King said:Who was it that moved the "extracurricular activities" thread, along with your hundred or so posts on the subject, over to Politically Close where the posts aren't even tracked?
That is likely correct. I suppose I shall now have to endure certain highly well-mannered moderators explaining to me why they are peddling this falsehood—claiming that Politically Close is just as valid a space for those relocated topics, simply because that is their official stance.
I would be most grateful if someone could provide some clarification regarding this matter. While composing this message, I have been dutifully monitoring the registration counts in real-time. I had previously calculated my total to be approximately 3,020—a figure I have tracked since joining back in 2004.
Yet, in the span of a mere two days, I noticed the number of registrations has unexpectedly dropped to 2,920.
May I ask who has been adjusting these figures, and what might be the reasoning behind such a change?
Thank you in advance for any insight you can offer.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:What on earth is going on with this censorship? The thread was locked after reaching over 9,200 posts, and if you look closely, the most frequent contributors were actually the very people who spend all their time complaining here. It feels as though everyone has already voiced their opinion at least ten times over. In the past week alone, there hasn't been a single mention of the curriculum, the teaching materials, or how classes are being conducted... absolutely nothing. It is nothing but trolling and off-topic chatter now. If the moderation team had actually enforced the rules strictly on that thread, you would probably all be filing formal complaints with the FBI.
That simply isn't true.
It is certainly possible for certain threads to spiral out of control due to a lack of self-regulation, and I will concede that point. However, if you take a moment to examine the links provided above, you might reconsider the idea that nothing is happening. Just because The New York Times isn't covering a story doesn't mean the events aren't unfolding; and in this case, we even have coverage from The New York Times right here.
neonwalker95 said:It’s an outside matter because Miletić, representing the Vigilara association which hosted Judith Reisman, didn't simply invite her to his own university where he earned his Master's and is currently pursuing his doctorate—which happens to be a Catholic seminary—but rather, he essentially manufactured her presence, coerced her through political science and philosophy frameworks, flooded the public sphere with her, and even secured brief media appearances, going so far as to host a live fucking stream. That is precisely why there is such intense scrutiny now; certain topics are reaching a boiling point. 😉
A mere one-hit wonder 🤷
You are trolling again. Closing a thread is always a contentious issue. It is because the subject matter actually hurts someone. Just let it sink into obscurity if it isn't interesting or relevant anymore.
northerntiger said:I find myself in agreement with the moderators' recent decision, though I would also take this opportunity to request that the administrators here protect our community from the unnecessary crusades being waged against the Politics section moderators, specifically regarding Ryan Vaughn7. It seems that jadeseal4 already has two separate threads addressing this exact issue—namely, the way Ryan Vaughn7 handles moderation and the tendency to lock discussions that jadeseal4 finds significant. One might argue, however, that if a topic is deemed vital to one individual, it does not necessarily follow that it holds equal weight for every single member of this forum. 😁
The depth of my personal interest in these matters is actually quite secondary. If you simply observe how much people are talking about them, you will see the point. However, even if this were purely a matter of my own concern—why bother locking threads at all?—the simple truth remains that if there is no interest, there is nothing to moderate, and that should be the end of it.
I find it rather striking that you seem to support the ban on discussing the threats made against Karolina Vidović Krišto's children.