Posts by shadoworca3

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.

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.

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.

Susan Price30 said:People who follow that subforum (personally, I don't think I've ever even opened it, let alone posted there, so I really can't say) claim that's how it is (in this thread) and that it's been happening for a long time. Even if that were true, it isn't necessarily a critique of your moderation, because it might have been that way long before you arrived.

Regarding how communication works over at PZ—that's what I wanted to address, and eventually, how the moderator there communicates, even within this thread. Sorry about the misunderstanding.🙂

What specifically is bothering you?

Susan Price30 said:Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

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.

Susan Price30 said:

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how we use perception and linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis...
When someone calls Bozanic a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he's literally a fanatic who's the first one in town throwing stones at adulterers. Rather, it’s a vivid way to emphasize that his views on sexuality aren't aligned with the modern era; instead, they lean toward older, religiously inspired values, much like those most visible among the Taliban today.

So, because of that, as a moderator for DZ, you're okay with terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' being used as a label for people in debates, or just generally (if that's what they call it)? Or are you not?

I have reported this insult to the administrators. ☕
To clarify, I am not a moderator for Social Sciences DZ; my role is actually within Natural Science PZ. 🙂

🤣

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

It might just be my own perception, but being called an idiot would actually feel like a much deeper insult than being labeled a Taliban. 🤷

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

A Taliban is a religious fanatic, but a religious fanatic doesn't necessarily have to be a Taliban.
A religious fanatic might be a terrorist, but they don't have to be.
The conclusion is simple: a Taliban doesn't have to be a terrorist, and vice versa.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

You aren't trolling, because by definition, trolling implies that you are doing it intentionally.
Unfortunately, you aren't doing this intentionally. 😢

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Regarding the forging of Mary's story, one could argue this point using examples from religious and mythological history—and I believe there are nearly ten such instances—where virgins give birth to future gods. Both before and after Christianity, one could use those examples to suggest that in such cases, the women involved always had questionable morals...

From a medical standpoint, one could explain how such an event was physically impossible; or from a logical perspective, argue that an almighty God wouldn't have needed to plant seed in Mary via the Holy Spirit when He could have simply created Jesus ex nihilo, just as He did with Adam. One might even suggest it's far more probable that Mary was simply overcome by desire and paid for that moment of passion with a child, which back then meant being stoned, leading her to collaborate with local women to invent an incredible tale inspired by ancient legends.

Of course, a believer doesn't have to agree with any of that, but they can certainly respond with counterarguments. They could even dismiss these atheistic arguments as foolish—provided they have their own counterarguments ready.

It’s quite simple and painless, really.

Drew Jones6 said:See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

Drew Jones6 said:See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

Drew Jones6 said:The answer to your fiscal question is sitting right there two posts above yours, in post #57.
And as for that nonsense about Grubisic being some kind of association with Supek—honestly, whoever told you that was probably hammered, or maybe they're just straight-up insane. 🤷

In that thread, you claim someone called Bozanic an idiot and that Walter Brooks5 didn't report them, yet when it comes to calling Bozanic a Taliban, she felt she absolutely had to.🤣
It seems both Mom and her entire company felt deeply insulted by the mere suggestion that Jesus might not have existed.
In reality, the only double standard I can see here is your assertion that one can call him an idiot, but labeling him a Taliban is where we draw the line.😕 🤷😍

Drew Jones6 said:The answer to your fiscal question is sitting right there two posts above yours, in post #57.
And as for that nonsense about Grubisic being some kind of association with Supek—honestly, whoever told you that was probably hammered, or maybe they're just straight-up insane. 🤷

That individual took the time to explain their reasoning to me—though we certainly don't have to agree with them—yet you chose to launch an ad hominem attack instead of addressing a single actual argument.
It really appears that you haven't grasped any of what has been discussed up to this point.☕

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

I was under the impression that if you start from a position fueled by raw emotion, prejudice, and deeply held biases, you eventually find yourself with nothing left to lean on except for cold, verifiable facts.

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

If that isn't the case, then we are looking at a penalty of thirty-five criminal counts. 🤷

Drew Jones6 said:Look, criticism is one thing, and insulting someone is another. You were the one who brought up the difference between the two, and then immediately claimed you couldn't even tell them apart.

Yet, in the exact same breath, you added that arguments are the only thing that can make that distinction.
If there are actual arguments backing up a point, fine, call it criticism. If there aren't, then it's just an insult. Period.

The situation with this Unknown guy—or whatever his handle is—is a perfect example. He wrote that Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban out there. "The biggest?" Seriously? Who are the other Catholic-Talibans then? The rest of the American bishops? And what exactly makes Bozanic a Taliban at all? Let alone the *biggest* one? How is this empty rambling from some former priest supposed to be a benchmark for anything?

What kind of logic is that even? Just because Grubisic has immunity and thinks he can run his mouth about anyone, and the guy used to be a priest, does that make it okay? Give me a break! Where are the actual arguments for these massive claims? Bozanic is a Taliban? And what about him? What is he? Like I said, just someone talking nonsense.

Just because someone protected by Congressional immunity can recklessly lie without making a single valid point doesn't mean us forum users get a free pass to lie without arguments too. Your logic makes zero sense to me, and frankly, it’s hypocritical to throw the Constitution around like this, as if the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to just baselessly trash and mock innocent people!

And that is truly the heart of the matter. He was merely tossing empty straw your way, which is quite evident to me, especially since I was recently having a conversation with a man who claims that, alongside Supek, he represents the single greatest intellectual asset in all of America.
Do we really need to hand you 500 infractions right now just because you’ve gone and insulted my friend, myself, and my sense of timing all at once?

Drew Jones6 As follows:
Just because someone shielded by congressional immunity can recklessly spout lies without offering a single shred of evidence doesn't mean that we, as regular citizens on this forum, have any license to lie without arguments. I honestly find your logic difficult to follow, and frankly, it feels incredibly hypocritical to throw around the term "US Constitution" in a context like this. It’s as if you believe the Constitution guarantees anyone the freedom to engage in baseless slander or to ruthlessly tear down innocent people without making a case for it.

Well, look, the Constitution absolutely guarantees your freedom of speech. However, if you make an unsubstantiated claim, you can face a fine proportional to the damage done to your reputation. On Forum.hr, for instance, that penalty goes up to 35 points. I'm really not sure what part of that remains unclear. 🤷

wanderingheron52 said:It’s all wrapped up pretty nicely in cellophane, I suppose, but the fact remains—and it’s been confirmed now—that they'll just say, "Just clean it up to satisfy the majority of citizens," and the maximum penalty will be 35 points.

What personally strikes me, though... if you can call it that... is the situation where most citizens in this country are basically just a flock of sheep. And I don't mean that from a religious angle, quite the opposite; they’re actually the ones breathing "life" into these viewpoints, and into this forum too, I guess.

It is almost as if you all live in North Korea, where expressing an opinion against the Great Leader or his thoughts is enough to land you in a labor camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just now thaw you out, leaving you unable to navigate democracy and freedom of speech? It's always "Oh, someone touched my sacred ground, let's drag them to the gallows!" 😲 😠
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

Walter Brooks5 said:Great, so I’m sending you a public copy of this post just to show you what actual reciprocity looks like. This is how democracy works, and it’s how we distinguish legitimate criticism from being a total jerk—you know, those baseless, brute-force insults that pass for "critique" on this forum:


Let’s pull out this crucial snippet that will surely end up in an anthology of human "genius":

Based on our debate in the Situation Room, we agreed that anyone and everything can be criticized—especially public figures, because that’s just how democracy functions. But trying to draw a line between someone actually criticizing you versus just straight-up insulting you is basically impossible, so we decided the only real benchmark is whether there's an actual argument behind it. If there is, we can write it down—even if it's saying the Virgin Mary is a slut without any consequences, whereas saying "your mom is a slut" gets you slapped. We also established that unprovokedly insulting public figures or sacred things earns you nothing more than the ultimate punishment: getting trolled (35).

Given what was highlighted, I’m sure shadoworca3 definitely has some rock-solid arguments to back up the claim that Bozanic is truly the "greatest Catholic-Taliban of all time," right???

Well, let’s see those arguments, because if they're solid, maybe Daniel Ward87 won't have to hit the Unknown with a total ban!!!

Drew Jones6 said:I honestly cannot believe my eyes reading this garbage 😲😲😲

"Bozanic is the biggest Catholic-Taliban of all time!?!?"
And let me tell you, anyone bold enough to type something like that is a bigger fanatic than the person they’re attacking. Period.

And those people trying to play dumb, acting like there's no line between a joke and an insult? They aren't just trolls, they're basically digital extremists running a jihad on Forum.hr.

🤦 🤦 🤦

You have missed the point entirely.
I am not asserting that Bozanic is the ultimate extremist among the American people (as I would certainly need to provide proof for that), but rather pointing out that these views are being expressed and argued by a priest and a member of Congress in the public media.
If he is permitted to say it—and under the US Constitution, he is—then why shouldn't anyone else? America is a democratic and secular nation where everyone is entitled to reasoned criticism. From public figures to religious institutions and other sacred matters. Prohibiting the critique of individuals or beliefs feels very much like a throwback to a bygone era.

Furthermore, it really is difficult to draw the line between legitimate criticism and pure insult. The only true metric we have is the quantity and quality of the arguments presented.

Kevin Hall51 said:I get it, I really do, but could we perhaps move this discussion over to its own dedicated thread? 🙂
And don't you dare forget to include pipeline logistics. 🤣

Sure, we can do that if you're going to be that persistent about it.
Since we're essentially just talking high school level physics here, it would probably fit best in the physics corner for students.
Well... assuming you truly believe it warrants its own space.

I’ve gone ahead and deleted three posts because they were completely off-topic.
It seems Demosthenes misread the thread title entirely. If he had taken a moment to actually read the opening post or follow the flow of the discussion, he would have realized his question belonged somewhere else entirely.

It’s a bit like someone starting a thread about modes of transport—specifically regarding electrical carriers in semiconductors—only to have someone else reply by listing cars, planes, and ships. :mig

casualharbor9 said:Sometimes I’m typing away at work and then I have to circle back later to clean up my posts, but other times I’m stuck somewhere with a computer and an internet connection that is absolutely abysmal—honestly, about as reliable as a rusted-out nuclear plant in the Rust Belt. You can probably spot those rough edges in my other posts too, if you care to look.
So, what is the point of the edit button if it stays available for such a long window of time?

Anyway, I actually regret deleting that humorous bit; looking back, it felt pretty spot on (though I don't remember it perfectly since I was a little tipsy and pretty exhausted 😍)

And look, if you occasionally moderate with a bit of bias—well, you moderate. Nobody is perfect.

... man, whenever I think of Endymion 😍

If things had gone by his logic, you would have been kicked off this forum ages ago.

In my opinion, he was just being way too heavy-handed. 🤷
Aside from a few slips, you’re doing just fine. 👍

lonetrucker4 said:Like I’ve mentioned before, I have very little patience for those stuffy, formalistic debates that just circle the drain with endless, repetitive back-and-forth.

Mmm, yeah, it’s pretty clear that you really have no appetite for these kinds of petty back-and-forth arguments. 🙄

lonetrucker4 said:shadoworca3 keeps recycling the exact same arguments he was pushing earlier in the discussion, showing a blatant disregard for what I actually said.

You’re indulging in a bit too much fantasy there.
Based on the title of your complaint, you’re essentially leveling an accusation against me. Mid-discussion, one of the participants decides to leverage their position as a moderator and starts handing out penalties. The facts simply tell a different story. I haven't actually participated in the discussion at all for two months and twenty days, so my very first post following that long hiatus was nothing more than a purely moderator-related update.

shadoworca3 lonetrucker4 said:If you would like to engage in a broad discussion regarding the various advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power plants, please feel free to direct those observations to this specific thread.

This particular thread is dedicated exclusively to the discussion surrounding Focus.

Following that incident, you drafted a post directed at Bung bungalow, which ultimately resulted in you receiving a strike.

And then you turn around and accuse me of not even following the conversation. 😕
I honestly think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, because it feels like we’re getting lost in the weeds of minor technicalities rather than addressing the actual core of the issue. When you really sit down and analyze the data regarding how these shifts in energy policy affect the broader national infrastructure, it becomes increasingly clear that the current trajectory isn't just inefficient—it's fundamentally misaligned with our long-term stability. It isn't enough to simply react to every single fluctuation in the market or every minor regulatory change; we have to be looking at the structural integrity of the entire system, much like how one would approach a complex problem in natural science where variables are constantly shifting under your feet. If we continue to ignore the underlying tension between immediate economic demands and the necessity for a robust, modernized grid, we are essentially setting ourselves up for a crisis that will be far more expensive to fix later than it is to address now. I've spent quite a bit of time reflecting on this, and I truly believe that if we don't start prioritizing long-term strategic planning over short-term political wins, we're going to find ourselves staring at a massive deficit in both capability and reliability. It’s a heavy realization, certainly, but it’s one that I feel is absolutely necessary to confront if we want to ensure a functional future for our energy landscape.

lonetrucker4 said:It seems you haven't made even the slightest effort to actually follow the flow of this discussion.

I honestly can't tell if I should be actively participating in this discussion or if I should just step back and observe from the sidelines; I really need some clarity on how to proceed here. 😵

lonetrucker4 said:It seems perfectly clear to me that he will continue to believe it is entirely acceptable to abandon his role as a participant mid-discussion to suddenly act like a moderator, throwing a warning penalty at an opponent. (That touches upon the nature of power and how it is wielded—a concept that is certainly vital within the realm of social science—but it is certainly not a matter of natural science)
.

For the umpteenth time, I wasn't even debating you; you received that penalty because of your insults.
And even if I had been engaging in the debate, what of it? 🤷

The implicit threat you faced was a direct result of your relentless insistence on bringing up psychological and sociological angles, which I have already explained is not an acceptable avenue of conversation here on PZ.

lonetrucker4 said:As I have stated before—and you may find this condescending or offensive, which I truly regret, but it is simply the truth—I have encountered this specific type of person many times over the last thirty years. They see exactly what they want to see with absolute clarity, yet for anything else, they don't just fail to notice; they actively reject any suggestion that there might be something significant they are overlooking (which can easily be dismissed as mere "psychology" or "philosophizing"). I am not making this up; I have witnessed this behavior among philosophers and environmental activists alike! Personally, I strive very hard to avoid being that way—I consciously identify as a generalist rather than a narrow specialist—but we all possess some form of cognitive bias; the real issue is whether we are self-aware enough to recognize them.

I really ought to praise myself.

lonetrucker4 said:He will calmly repeat himself, because whatever I previously argued on the subject is, quite naturally, beneath his notice (and by the way, that logic doesn't even hold up when applied to renewable energy sources—not to mention there are plenty of other issues involved).

Let’s save that discussion for the actual thread, not here.

lonetrucker4 said:He will also calmly toss in something regarding economics, despite it being outside his field of expertise, and present it as an indisputable "fact," even though it isn't (a topic I intend to write about in the coming days).

Again, let's keep that to the specific thread and not discuss it here.

lonetrucker4 said:They will continue to sit there in perfect composure, refusing not only to acknowledge that a problem exists, but even more stubbornly, refusing to admit that anyone might have a legitimate reason to perceive one—dismissing such concerns as mere "philosophy." They prefer to leap straight from an "is" to an "ought," insisting that things simply *must* be a certain way, period. There is no room for debate in their eyes, even though the concept of "ought" has absolutely no place within the realm of natural science.

The bottom line is that on PZ, we are going to cover every single topic that meets the criteria I laid out earlier, and that is exactly how things are going to work for as long as I am serving as a moderator here.
And that’s that. Period.

I have my reasons for adopting such an arrogant stance in this particular situation.

lonetrucker4 said:As I have already mentioned, since shadoworca3 carries more weight in this space, I think it is best if I simply step back and refrain from engaging in any further debates regarding nuclear energy within the realm of natural science.

You are more than welcome to jump into any discussion, and honestly, having someone present with a dissenting opinion is always a plus for the community. However, you do need to uphold the standards set by the PZ. That means everything you post should be verifiable, measurable, and backed by sound logical arguments or grounded in actual natural science.
It could just as easily be a matter of collective psychology—much like how, following disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, the world saw millions of abortions driven by nothing more than unfounded, widespread fear.
Regarding Chernobyl, I recall hearing some claims about it during a seminar I attended once, though I still don't consider that information to be valid proof.

You really ought to be prepared to document a statement of that magnitude.

lonetrucker4 said:To be honest, I’ve posted extensively across various other threads—covering everything from renewable energy to the intersection of philosophy and physics, and even topics like sexual orientation—and I haven't run into any issues whatsoever. Even on other online communities over the last few months, the pushback has been minimal at most. If it eventually reaches a point where I find myself unable to participate here on the forum anymore, then so be it; I’ll manage just fine. At the end of the day, I consider myself a blogger first and foremost, rather than someone who lives for forum discussions.

While the PZ might be a bit more stringent on certain topics, they certainly don't play the martyr.
I’ve certainly racked up a much higher count of warnings than you have, which is exactly why I'm still standing.

lonetrucker4 said:I put all of this out there for one reason: to ensure these thoughts remain preserved, so that someone else might come along later, read through them, and perhaps concede that, in certain respects, I am actually right. Perhaps once they finally grasp actual power, they will begin to realize the inherent limitations of how she is being utilized. It is quite likely that I won't find any reason to weigh in on this matter again.

I honestly feel that there wasn't even a need for any of this to happen in the first place.
If you could just dial back the intensity of your persona a little bit—maybe step out of those rigid patterns you've built for yourself—I think everything would fall perfectly into place.

lonetrucker4 said:I completely understand where you're coming from. I noticed the same thing—he claims he simply didn't see the warning during those twenty-five minutes. Honestly, I just logged onto the forum about fifteen minutes ago to write this, and it wasn't until just now that I remembered to glance up at the top right corner and realize I had a new private message waiting for me.

Let’s not get carried away with fantasies here; he posted something that earned him a strike, then went ahead and edited it, which resulted in a warning issued to him and everyone else to make it clear that such behavior won't be tolerated, lest the forum descend into total chaos.

Keith Lee2 said:They seem quite taken with that specific blend of determination and sheer arrogance. 😉

Before the moderation team stepped in, I didn't have the luxury of being arrogant, so they were forced to pick someone based on some other criteria that clearly doesn't resonate with you.

I wouldn't call myself arrogant, but then again, as Gott puts it, a moderator occasionally needs to flex a little muscle to get things done. 😍

Keith Lee2 said:That is precisely my point.

Actually, the reason I was chosen for the moderator role is simply because they view me as someone who actually knows what they're talking about.😉

Keith Lee2 said:The complaint regarding your arrogance and the way you belittle other members of this forum was not rejected.
That is precisely what this entire thread is centered around.

And you’ve gone ahead and added that to your list of lamentations as well.

Keith Lee2 said:Perhaps the issue doesn't actually lie with my own writing style, nor does it stem from the way other forum members express themselves, but rather originates from the moderators.
It looks like El Niño is really starting to pick up the pace with all this chaos. Honestly, you can already sense that moderator's overwhelming arrogance dripping from every single word..

Keith Lee2 said:In reality, you are the one hijacking this discussion, because rather than allowing the administrators to focus on
addressing the complaints regarding your own conduct, you step in ahead of them, effectively obstructing the necessary
dialogue between the community members and the administration.

Do you actually take the time to read what others are saying, or even consider the weight of your own words?

If you want to discuss my supposed arrogance, I am more than happy to lay out my pattern of behavior for you right now.
Whenever someone who is clearly uninformed starts acting like an expert and peddling nonsense, I shut them down decisively. I view it much like removing a gangrenous limb to save the rest of the body. Of course, if someone approaches a topic with genuine curiosity and politeness, they will always receive a thoughtful and well-intentioned response.
The reason I do this is simply because many readers here might not recognize an amateur when they see one, and could easily be misled by such individuals' misplaced confidence and bravado.

Keith Lee2 said:P.S.
I was the one who originally started this thread, yet it was locked immediately after you decided to pass judgment.
Furthermore, if the person who initiated this topic takes issue with me adding my initial post, then by all means, let them speak up; we can just have that post and every subsequent comment tied to it
deleted entirely.

I can assure you that I will not be engaging with your new thread.
If you need assistance, I can certainly put you in touch with Timothy Jackson2, who used to serve as a moderator. 😈