American sex education -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> local advocates -> American sex education
Margaret Sanger -> Planned Parenthood -> IPPF -> USA -> the US government -> Department of Education -> American sex education
Alright, Morgan Rodriguez57, I chatted with the admin and we decided to just pull the off-topic cards, but you’re getting a yellow card for breaking the subforum rules. I'm highlighting that this is a yellow specifically because you know full well we don't hand those out over in Politics.
Secondly, regarding those connections you drew—you're totally entitled to your own conclusions, but let others disagree. Call me subjective if you want, but I don't buy your theory that there's some massive LGBTQ+ lobby pulling all the strings here, even if I'll admit those groups exist. Just because they're in the room doesn't mean they're running the whole show. The bottom line is that the admin answered your question about the fourth module based on facts, and from what I can see, there's no link to your theory other than how you've connected the dots.
The thread won't be restored, and you got the card because you brought up moderator business inside the discussion, which we all know is a no-go.
To wrap things up, here is this article that pretty much aligns with my take on this whole controversial topic.
Sam Wright21 said:Look, everyone’s entitled to their own take. There's some value in what Dell writes; her stance is pretty consistent, even if her style is a bit much. Personally, I don't mind it—even when she takes aim at me, I just find it hilarious. Honestly, I can actually laugh at it. Therefore, Daniel Ward87, if people aren't actually getting offended, why the permanent ban?
See, I don't really care if the people being insulted aren't feeling hurt. That kind of talk won't fly anywhere, especially not here on this forum. It’s not just about one or two posts, either; it's been happening more than that. I've made my point, and there are two other admins who have their own opinions on the matter.
Jacob Chase42 said:It's a shame you didn't check out her other posts; then you'd actually see why we're all pushing for her to get one more shot.
More eyes mean more perspectives. Or maybe you just took her writing so personally that your own anger is blinding you to the people who might actually miss it.
I’ve seen enough on the Bible thread. That’s exactly why she got the permanent ban.
Can someone bring back that post one of the mods nuked?
I put together a post breaking down how the LGBTQ+ lobby actually operates and their overall strategy, backing everything up with some solid quotes.
Nah, that post got nuked. Probably flagged as off-topic, I guess.
This is totally on point. Those LGBTQ+ lobbies have their hands all over sexual education, which is basically just one more way they try to push indoctrination on society.
Morgan Rodriguez57Morgan Rodriguez57, they stripped away that 50-point card just to leave us with nothing but a tool for trolling.
I think you should’ve realized by now that conspiracy theories don't really fly on Politics, and honestly, your arguments aren't hitting the mark. This whole idea about society being indoctrinated by the LGBTQ+ community is pretty much bottom-tier stuff you'd find in some fringe internet tabloid.
Look, when it comes to pedophiles and homosexuals, there’s a massive distinction between the two. They aren't even in the same league, so please stop trying to lump them together.
Nicholas King said:If the US Forum is indeed "primarily for those not in relationships but wanting to be", then there is absolutely no point in discussing the addition of "other types of Advertisements"—because, frankly, we already have far too many of them.
If that were actually the case—if the moderators truly maintained the "original spirit" of these ads—then anyone seeking nothing more than pen pals, casual chat, or anything else besides a committed relationship (and a massive crowd of people clearly emphasizes that they do not want a relationship) should be deleted immediately.
But obviously, that isn't what's happening; it’s quite clear the moderators have lost their way regarding their own "criteria," cowardly scrubbing anything that might be perceived as immoral or just plain tacky. I feel like I've quoted elementary examples of this inconsistency a thousand times already—whether it's declaring an ad "unquestionable" only to delete it later, dealing with married individuals posting—not even mentioning the whole "Euclid episode"—and most importantly, that utterly muddled explanation regarding whether an ad from a couple looking for a third would even be considered.
I wasn't saying the moderators have to follow strict rules like a broken record; I meant they should allow as much as possible while still sticking to the main purpose. They have some discretion there, and they usually work things out on the fly.
Nicholas King said:If the US Forum is indeed "primarily for those not in relationships but wanting to be", then there is absolutely no point in discussing the addition of "other types of Advertisements"—because, frankly, we already have far too many of them.
If that were actually the case—if the moderators truly maintained the "original spirit" of these ads—then anyone seeking nothing more than pen pals, casual chat, or anything else besides a committed relationship (and a massive crowd of people clearly emphasizes that they do not want a relationship) should be deleted immediately.
But obviously, that isn't what's happening; it’s quite clear the moderators have lost their way regarding their own "criteria," cowardly scrubbing anything that might be perceived as immoral or just plain tacky. I feel like I've quoted elementary examples of this inconsistency a thousand times already—whether it's declaring an ad "unquestionable" only to delete it later, dealing with married individuals posting—not even mentioning the whole "Euclid episode"—and most importantly, that utterly muddled explanation regarding whether an ad from a couple looking for a third would even be considered.
Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it the truth.
Jack Ward82 said:You can't compare the seriousness of LJES to the Lonely Heart section. It’s entirely possible that Nicole Ruiz felt the usual crowd on LJES—he checked the topic list, after all—wasn't his target demographic, so he and his girlfriend decided to hunt for something "more serious" over in Lonely Heart. The purpose of the PDF is one thing, but deleting ads that aren't even breaking the rules, any more than any other tolerated posts, is nothing short of discrimination 🙂 (look, the whole point of the Super Bowl is deciding which team is the best that year, but if I'm watching it just for the halftime commercials, nobody's going to kick me out as long as I'm acting like everyone else, right?) 🤷
Look, it’s a different ballgame whether you're looking for someone when you're already seeing someone or if you're flying solo. Not trying to be exclusionary here, but the US Forum is really geared toward people who aren't currently in a relationship and are either looking for one—or just aren't interested. — Jacob Wood9 😁If we can make it work, we should definitely let everyone else jump in with their own Advertisements too. Now it’s really up to the moderators to figure out how to roll that out. Personally, I’m all for it.
Dennis Jackson38 said:I am quite certain I don't know why you're implying that I believe everyone is solely motivated by sex; let's not resort to such accusations, Daniel Ward87, as I find that to be a rather distasteful argument. 😁
I certainly never suggested such a thing.
My point was simply that individuals seek different things in various ways, and since everyone experiences loneliness, what they pursue in a romantic sense is dictated by their own unique desires.
I am struggling to understand what remains unclear here, or why there is such resistance if people choose to frame their needs in a way that isn't strictly "crude" within an Advertisement.
But, fine, we have all uncovered this massive revelation today, which is that the core purpose of the US Forum is somehow spiritual in nature.
😁
Look, I’m not trying to throw shade or imply anything. I was just pointing out the original idea behind the Advertisements here in the US and who they were actually meant for. It’s not set in stone—we can definitely pivot—but I think we should try to protect the core purpose of those posts. We really need to touch base with the moderators to figure out how to bring in other types of Advertisements without messing up what they were originally designed to do.
Dennis Jackson38 said:Could you please elaborate on that thought? What kind of "other" connection are you referring to? Are we talking about a spiritual bond, or something else entirely? 😁
I’m not really a fan of auto-deleting posts just because they hint at people wanting sex, but again, that wasn't the original point of this thread. I find it hard to believe, but some people don't have sex on their minds 24/7. Obviously, if people hit it off and things progress, sex is going to happen, right? But, sticking to that logic, the whole vibe of an Advertisement on the US Forum is more about finding a soul connection.
Jack Ward82 said:It’s both unclear and frankly nonsensical that you can't grasp how an advertisement is specifically designed to find a single member of the US. 🤷
I wouldn't go that far. Ashley Bishop4 made a solid point—you have to look at the whole purpose of the US and these ads. I think the goal was really about finding someone to hang out with. Sure, hooking up is part of the equation 😁, but wouldn't those kinds of posts be more at home over on LJES? US stands for Lonely Heart, which is mostly people looking for a soulmate or a connection. These ads are there so people can actually bond in ways that go beyond just physical stuff.
urbantrucker5 said:Yeah, but you're forgetting that sadism was actually named after Marquis de Sade, who championed atheism in his smutty novels.😁 So, the most famous sadist was an atheist.
One of the most legendary sadists was an atheist. That doesn't really prove anything, just like how one of the most notorious serial killers was a believer.
I agree we shouldn't generalize, so I'd suggest checking out the Book of Complaint regarding religion. You can sort a lot of stuff out with the moderators there.
urbantrucker5 said:If there aren't any rules against it, then someone needs to explain that bolded question above so I can wrap my head around how religion actually impacts whether someone turns out to be a sadist or not.
Religion definitely shapes how people act, and sadism has its own behavioral patterns too. So, why shouldn't we dive into whether there’s a real connection there? Plenty of sadists were actually super religious—take Albert Fish, for instance. We don't know exactly how much religion drives sadistic behavior, but it's a fascinating topic to pick apart.
What's the issue with having this kind of debate on a forum built specifically for—you guessed it—discussion?