Posts by Ryan Vaughn7

placidlynx36 said:I’d like to request a moderator review here. We have a standard on the politics board about being respectful toward those who have passed away, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply to the other subforums too.

Nicole Nguyen6 said:The issue isn't whether I want to start my own thread, it's about why you shut down an existing one. And why on earth shouldn't we be allowed to talk about a specific case?

casualharbor3 said:You might be a supermoderator, but you should probably watch your language.
Maybe we need a new rule here:Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi Basically, what’s allowed for Ryan Vaughn7 isn't allowed for the rest of us mere mortals on this forum.

We are talking about a girl who was raped by Moroccans. They took her to a hotel and the whole group jumped her. It seems you have zero empathy for a rape victim.
How is it possible that asylum seekers are just wandering freely around the city? The American government is responsible for this rape.
This is a political issue. It isn't just about the assault; it's about the asylum seekers. If their movement had been restricted, this nineteen-year-old wouldn't have been attacked. In what other countries can asylum seekers walk through cities completely unchecked? In what other countries can asylum seekers stay in hotels for free at the taxpayers' expense?
This is primarily a political question.

Nicole Nguyen6 said:I want to go on record opposing the moderator Ryan Vaughn7’s attempt to shut down any talk regarding how we handle asylum seekers here in America.

In my view, blocking Americans from voicing their opinions on massive issues that actually impact our lives feels a lot like totalitarianism—I honestly don't know what else you'd call silencing a debate on topics this significant.

If someone says something out of line, fine, just delete that specific post. But as far as I can see, this whole topic is way too important to be treated as some forbidden subject that we aren't allowed to discuss.

Henry Lee84 said:That's it then. After tearing through Serie A, we're finally heading toward order... take 🙏 ExxonMobil, for instance. We’ll be looking right back at how things stood in 2008. From those massive, constructive 20-page goals meant to last a whole year 🙏 The construction side of things is already 🙏

Casey White13 said:What's up, everyone? darkmarlin16 is doing just fine.

Amanda Hughes37 said:I mean, who exactly is the total idiot here?🤔

crimsonpuma23 said:People are calling each other names and being straight-up abusive here. Is that actually normal?

rapidmaker77 said:So, if I’m following your train of thought correctly, you're basically saying that every single man is just a walking, breathing potential predator simply because he happens to have a penis—along with all those other heavy connotations attached to it. That's a pretty intense way to look at things. 🙄 And those connotations, too. It carries a certain undertone of threat. I honestly think we need to look at this differently. If certain men are constantly hovering around women who clearly aren't interested, there should be some kind of boundary in place. It feels like we need rules to prevent men from encroaching on the space of women who just want to be left alone. 🙄

rapidmaker77 said:Have you ever considered just deleting the post entirely?🙄 Honestly, you should probably just leave it up. There's some genuinely valuable information in there for anyone actually trying to write about this or dig deeper into the subject.

rapidmaker77 said:Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around it. How is this kind of one-sided thinking even allowed on a public forum? It’s a discussion space, for crying out loud. 🤷

rapidmaker77 said:Is it really becoming a thing now? Apparently, saying that nearsightedness is just a vision impairment is somehow "offensive" because it might hurt the feelings of people who wear glasses. I mean, honestly.🙄

rapidmaker77 said:Congrats on that masterclass in public self-delusion! *claps*

Thomas Williams23 said:On top of everything else, there’s this other subforum where people are openly arguing that homosexuality is a disorder. To make matters worse, the whole discussion is being led by two highly respected moderators. You can't really even call them out on it, because they're both actual scientists who back up every single point they make with peer-reviewed research papers.
Here’s the proof I was talking about: I was reading through some old threads today and stumbled upon this discussion about the recent shifts in political leadership. It’s funny how much things change when you actually stop to look at them. There seems to be a lot of noise lately regarding the DNC and their internal maneuvering. It feels like every time we think we have a handle on where the party is headed, a new headline drops in TIME that throws everything into chaos. I find myself sitting here, just trying to make sense of the constant churn. It’s exhausting, really. I tend to overthink these things, which probably isn't my best quality. I remember talking to rustydrifter10 about this a while back. We were both wondering if the current media cycle—especially with all the heavy hitters like CNN and AP constantly breathing down everyone's necks—is actually helping us understand the truth or just making us more polarized. It’s a tough question. Sometimes I feel like I'm just waiting for moderator and supermoderator to step in and clear the air, but even they can't fix the underlying tension in the country. It makes me wonder about the role of institutions like the FBI in all this. There is so much scrutiny on them lately. It feels like we are living through a period where nothing is quite what it seems on the surface. I try to stay calm and objective, but it's hard not to get a little cynical sometimes. I suppose that's just part of growing older. You start looking for the substance beneath the shouting, though finding it feels harder every year.

rapidmaker77 said:Last night on the politics board, I posted an article about gay "marriage" that I spent quite a bit of time researching and putting together.
Essentially, the piece is a transcription of a TIME article combined with some significant historical facts (along with a few questions of my own).

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Who actually has the authority to step in here?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Arrogant. And don't troll me.
You're giving the moderators work they should probably be doing by sanctioning your posts from earlier tonight on this thread.

neoncobra said:A quick question for Ryan Vaughn7
Yesterday, during that discussion about the legality of the referendum on same-sex marriage, you flagged me (or gave me points, whatever we're calling it these days). Honestly, I don't think I earned it. It’s a sensitive topic, sure, and lines can get blurred, but today I stayed strictly focused on the European Court ruling because it actually relates to the core issue.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Is there anyone besides you who's interfering with how this thread was opened?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:I am truly sorry you don't realize that being arrogant and condescending isn't appropriate, acceptable, or welcome here. Just give yourself a flag; you earned it.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:We are, but in the meantime, top constitutional experts have already spoken out publicly on this. If I recall correctly, the UIO initiative is submitting signatures to Congress this Friday. People are debating this topic everywhere except here in Politics... isn't that absurd? There's huge interest, the issue is timely and vital, and new developments are happening constantly, yet we can't talk about it in Politics. How long do you plan on keeping this thread locked? Is there someone else besides you pulling the strings to keep this topic closed?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Also, Arthur Fowler83 was quoting the forum owner, who cited the exact same stance you took tonight at 10:03 PM as being unacceptable. I hope you realize that such an arrogant and condescending attitude isn't welcome here, nor is it necessary.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Let's not go there. We could handle this much more democratically and with actual arguments.
Why is it staying closed? For how long? What's the real issue here?

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Anyway, is anyone here actually going to weigh in on opening up a thread about the marriage referendum under the marriage referendum policy?