Home › Daniel Ward87 › Posts

Posts by Daniel Ward87

533 posts shown.

What's the moderator's stance? in Feedback & Suggestions · May 23, 2017

Joseph Stewart38 said:Hey there,

Without getting into a whole debate or trying to defend my own views on this, I’m just curious why the moderator's stance is that abortion shouldn't be treated as the murder of an unborn child? How did the moderation team land on that conclusion, and how did it become the established standard here?

I'm just looking for the reasoning, nothing more.

The moderators are sticking to current United States laws—abortion is a legal medical procedure. Basically, an abortion involves ending a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the uterus before it can survive on its own. Under U.S. law, a woman can request a termination up to certain legal limits. For cases beyond those initial weeks, whether requested by the patient or suggested by a doctor, decisions are handled by medical boards at hospitals or OB-GYN departments based on medical, genetic, or legal-ethical grounds, always requiring the patient's consent.

If you personally see it as murder, that's your right, but it's also your own cross to bear.

Help needed! in Feedback & Suggestions · May 22, 2017

The PDF History file got cleared out this morning.

mod Cuka justifying disgusting behavior in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 10, 2017

loneviper2 said:Calling clergy "guys in black" definitely isn't the most polite way to handle things.

Sure, if that same priest is out there calling someone's mother a slut just because she didn't have a church wedding.

This is heartbreaking... in Feedback & Suggestions · Apr 6, 2017

darkotter35, that warning was sent to you by mistake, and the post you reported actually got nuked—the user is already banned.

PDF partial download policy in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 14, 2017

John Perez85 said:Why are we even arguing about the Roman Catholic Church on this forum? Are we just trolling now?
Here’s some interesting info for you—try tackling the issue of child abuse like a decent human being instead of using it as fuel for your little ideological crusade.

Anyone can control a debate by using bans, deleting posts, and stifling free speech whenever they feel like it. It's easy when you have people to bully.

Just give me what I'm asking for and you'll lose yet another conservative user. Pretty soon, you'll have a perfectly unified choir that sounds as synchronized as the Red Army.

I'm debating because you're lying. Where did you see me generalizing? I said there's a problem, not that everyone is doing it. Especially regarding how common homosexuality is within the Church, yet all I read here are these insults and claims that gay and lesbian people are "threatening" American society. Well, if you ask me, it seems like those groups are threatening us from more than one direction, so maybe we should talk about that too.

Second, what "ideological war"? You think church membership numbers are too low to worry about? You're the one accusing me of having an agenda; I've never claimed to be on the far right or the far left.

I'm not a moderator over in the Politics section, so whatever happens there isn't my business, but once people start talking nonsense about how the LGBTQ+ community is a threat to American society, I might just start pointing out where all that influence actually stems from. Just thought you should know.

PDF partial download policy in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 14, 2017

John Perez85 said:I’ve run into some pretty interesting people from the other side of the aisle, but I can't even get a word in because of all the trolls, the low-lifes, and those trigger-happy moderators. I actually walked away from this place two years ago because free speech was getting stifled, but I ended up getting sucked back into the fray. A partial ban would definitely help make sure I don't end up repeating that mistake.

Oh, so now we're all "low-lifes" and "trigger-happy"? It's funny how the self-proclaimed intellectual elite of the right always claims they aren't being called primitive, yet here they are using that exact same language.

Looks like we're seeing the same old playbook of denying what was actually said. Of course, I must be lying—everything I write about the Roman Catholic Church is clearly just propaganda from those leftists who want to bring back the old days of the USA and hate everything American and Catholic.

PDF partial download policy in Feedback & Suggestions · Mar 14, 2017

Generalizing?

Where am I generalizing? I didn't say EVERY priest does this; I said there are people like that within the Catholic Church, yet nobody talks about it, organizes marches, or even addresses the issue. Does bringing up homosexuality or pedophilia within the Church count as insulting priests? It’s just a fact that these things happen, it's a fact the Church knows about it, and it's a fact they aren't transparent about how many cases exist or how they actually handle discipline—it often feels like nothing ever happens. How is that generalizing?

Seriously, tell me where I'm being general or where I'm attacking priests. And if you think I'm making this up, do yourself a favor, set aside an afternoon, and watch Spotlight and look at the timeline of events there.

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 28, 2017

David Richardson67 said:Daniel Ward87 got a little carried away and messed up, so he should face the consequences just like any other regular here. Look, I get freedom of speech, but you guys are constantly preaching that there are limits to it on this forum—so maybe start practicing what you preach.

I didn't get carried away at all; I’m sticking to my guns on what I said. By the way, lonebadger6 pointed out a few posts from the Politics PDF that say the exact same thing I did, and they didn't get banned either. It's funny how everyone is so eager to see me get a strike, yet nobody mentions that you guys should be getting treated the exact same way. Then I'm the one accused of being selective. 👏

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 28, 2017

rowdylynx98 said:Can I just say the mods on this site are a bunch of total idiots?

Not unless you want to get banned, since insulting other users isn't allowed here. 👍

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 28, 2017

rowdylynx98 said:Exactly. I’d actually vote for banning anyone who directs insults at any group—whether it's based on nationality, race, gender, class, or ideology—simply because one moderator, Daniel Ward87, set an unpunished precedent.

So, the "precedent" here is just me stating my opinion? Beautiful. First off, I have the right to think what I want. Second, I have the right to express those thoughts on this Forum. Whether that opinion gets flagged or not depends entirely on where I say it, when, to whom, and how I phrase it.

To take another example, people on this Forum often debate whether abortion should be considered murder. Legally speaking, it isn't. But there are plenty of people who believe it is. They are allowed to share that view on the Forum, provided they follow the rules. We even have specific threads dedicated to religious debates on the subject. People aren't banned from thinking that way or saying it out loud; the Forum rules just dictate the manner in which they can express it.

The reason you guys are spinning in circles is that you're only focusing on *what* I said. The moderators look at *who* said it, *where*, *when*, *how*, and within what context. That applies to every single thread, let's be clear. Only after looking at all those factors do they decide if a post warrants a penalty.

rowdylynx98 said:For instance, it would be wrong to penalize me just for saying that, in my view, all nationalists or socialists are morally bankrupt or detestable. Or supporters of specific political leaders, leftists, collectivists, or extremists—basically anyone who doesn't label themselves a liberal. Since those are all political categories I struggle to relate to, we can't just hand out bans for every insult based on the current paradigm.

It would only be wrong if you expressed your opinion without breaking the Forum's rules. If you do break them, a penalty generally follows. I say "generally," because different threads have different rules; something perfectly fine in one section might not fly in another.

I think this is the last word I have on this. I've stated what I said, how I said it, where, when, and why. There are moderators for this thread who will decide if the rules were broken. But we can agree on one thing: we can't stop people from having opinions, nor can we stop them from voicing them publicly. What we *can* do is regulate how they express those views so they stay within the rules.

unknown in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 28, 2017

John Perez85 said:And for heaven's sake, you don't have to answer every single thing I ask, I'm talking to the supermods here! 🤷

What supermods? You mean the moderators over at Reddit?

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

rowdylynx98 said:Are Mexicans just stuck in a loop because they kept voting for Slobodan Milošević back in the 1990 and 1992 elections?

I honestly couldn't care less about Mexicans.

rowdylynx98 said:Do you get what I'm getting at with this question? Can you even imagine how wrong it sounds when you write it that way about any group of people?

I mean, whatever. I still think we act like a much tougher nation based on how Americans react to all this political stuff. How wrong or subjective that actually is... well, that's a whole other debate I won't get into here, mostly because I feel like we're looking at the wrong playbook entirely.

rowdylynx98 said:Why does it even matter where someone was born? Whether they're an American, a Canadian, a former Yugoslav, a South African, a Muslim, or just someone who doesn't pick a side—it shouldn't change anything. Where you come from doesn't dictate what you think; clinging to that is just a distorted version of nationalism. There’s honestly no difference between saying, "I hate Canadians because they were born Canadians," and saying, "I have the right to hate Americans because I was born an American." It's all the same logic.

It doesn't really matter. What matters is whether I actually broke any of the rules here on Forum.hr or violated any US laws while sharing my opinion. If I did, then I’ll face the consequences—plain and simple.

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

Paul Kern12 said:I think you're off base with that logic, and honestly, there are at least two big reasons why.
How can we all be so sure you're actually an American living here and paying taxes? For all we know, you could be a Canadian, a Mexican, or a Canadian... someone just playing a part. You're out here calling Americans "idiots" like it's your job, which pretty much screams bigot.

You can't even deny it—that’s definitely an option on the table.

Paul Kern12 said:Let's say Mladen Shwarcz logs on here and starts claiming that Jews are collectively slow-witted. Does he get a free pass to post stuff like that just because he's a Jew himself?

Paul Kern12 said:Sure, there's a huge chance you're being totally sincere, and I definitely see where you're coming from. Everything you said makes sense.
I honestly think you have to be careful with posts like that. You don't want to set a precedent where haters or bigots can point at you and say, "Well, if they can get away with it, why shouldn't I?"—which, let's face it, isn't even a totally wrong argument.

I made my position crystal clear—this is exactly what I honestly believe. Just to be super clear though, I wasn't aiming that at any specific group of Americans or our voting bloc. Am I right to generalize like this, or am I overstepping the actual point of the debate?

Look, I’m not asking for any special treatment or trying to dodge consequences if the mods think I crossed a line. On this site, it isn't just about what you say, but how you go about saying it. If I broke the rules here or violated any U.S. laws by voicing my opinion that we've become a nation of losers, then fine—hand out the penalty.

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

rowdylynx98 said:You haven't really said anything new besides doubling down on your stance, which doesn't help us get anywhere. We’re still stuck on those two points I mentioned: blatant chauvinism and that intellectually dishonest generalization aimed at a specific group of people living in America, rather than the nation as a whole.

If you want to label me a chauvinist, hey, that's your call and you're entitled to your opinion. You didn't offend me, just so we're clear. Also, when I generalize, I'm being honest about my perspective. I'm an American citizen through and through—I work, I pay my taxes, I play by the rules, and I show up to vote. I don't hold any hate or aggression toward anyone, regardless of their politics, religion, or skin color. I've been following the political landscape since the early 90s, and having served as a long-time moderator here, I've seen enough of how Americans react to everything happening in our country to have a solid vantage point.

Taking all that into account—as objectively as one can—my personal take, my gut feeling, is that as a nation, we’re a bunch of losers, and honestly, pretty bad ones at that. That was my reaction to this thread, specifically that first post where a user claimed a comment by Silver Bear was offensive to 85% of religious Americans, comparing our society to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia where people face extreme violence for who they love.

The guy is asking for a ban because he thinks Silver Bear's post insulted 85% of believers. First off, how does he know it's offensive? Second, why 85%? Why not 100%? Third, if it truly is 85%, where did he get those numbers—was there some massive national poll? Fourth, since the mods didn't jump in immediately, he’s already decided we’re "ideologically biased," implying that if we don't punish him, we must agree with the sentiment and therefore aren't part of that 85%. It's a leap.

Personally, as a moderator, Harold Long21's post just annoys me. So what?

I'm not going to get bogged down in answering every single question you threw at me. This is a space for exchanging ideas and free speech. We all have the right to express ourselves within the guidelines of this Forum and the laws of the US. Therefore, I believe I have the right to think that we, as Americans, are a bit of a mess, and I should be allowed to say that publicly without breaking any rules.
If I actually broke a rule, go ahead and issue the penalty; I won't complain.

The moderator's blatant chauvinism is shocking in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

rowdylynx98 said:On this thread that just got locked, , the moderator Daniel Ward87—who I haven't really dealt with here before—used some pretty uniquely crafted chauvinistic insults against our nation. To quote him: "the American people are more severely retarded," "that we as a nation are more severely retarded," and "an example of retardation in how we act as a nation..."

Why do I call it a "uniquely crafted insult"? Because I truly believe that, and I laid out a few reasons why, even if I didn't cover everything. Just because I brought up Bill Clinton or Markić's doesn't mean I'm only targeting a specific slice of the electorate. It’s like how you could point out how political parties of any stripe constantly screw over the public regarding old-school partisan divides, yet Americans never seem to vote in a way that sends a clear message that they're sick of the talk and just want solutions to the economic crisis. That applies to the whole country, not just voters for one specific party.

I'm standing by what I said. If I earned a warning, then give me all five.

Also, I'm not even going to touch that "Mein Kampf" style reasoning.

rowdylynx98 said:And I'm not even getting into how much that collective-minded thinking lacks quality for someone in a moderator role.

That's a conversation for another day. I'm sticking to my guns. Even after all these years since the war, our daily politics is still stuck debating those same old partisan factions, so I won't go down that rabbit hole now.

Why were so many good posts deleted from the JBT thread? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:Fair point, we are, but you ended up cutting out parts that actually hit the nail on the head regarding the topic!

Exactly, since I don't have the green light to edit my own posts. Part of it was fine, but the rest was asking for a ban. Since I decided not to risk getting flagged, I just had to wipe the whole thing. Next time, I'll be more careful with how I word things.

Why were so many good posts deleted from the JBT thread? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 27, 2017

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:Based on how things are looking, I think we’ve lost the plot and drifted way off track.
So why pull the plug now?

Because people started getting personal, throwing insults and labels around, so I figured it was easier to just wipe the slate clean rather than handing out bans.

Just this once.

Moderator Bias: Are they picking sides? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 25, 2017

Harold Long21 said:So you're telling me calling someone an idiot is just "expressing an opinion"? Is that how we're playing it now? 🤦

Look, if I think someone's being a total moron and I say it, isn't that just my take on things? It’s pretty simple. You just have to figure out how to vent without tripping over the site rules. 😉 Anyway, have a good weekend.

Moderator Bias: Are they picking sides? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 25, 2017

Harold Long21 said:Alright, so that's how we're doing this?
So, basically, I can just throw insults around if I include myself in the mix?🙂

Insults? Please. I’m just stating my piece. You really think you can just shut down someone's opinion like that? 🙂🙂

Harold Long21 said:Honestly, I was starting to get worried about the moderator's health—maybe he needs to go see an eye doctor? Usually, he’s all over stuff like this, and there’s proof he was active on the thread during that window. The fact that Maria Fowler39 was the one who actually flagged the post instead of him just proves the whole thing needed to be started in the first place.

Oh, I see how it is... you're claiming I'm in the wrong. We'll just have to see if the mods around here decide to show any mercy. 🙂

Moderator Bias: Are they picking sides? in Feedback & Suggestions · Feb 25, 2017

Harold Long21 said:Look, George W. Bush got into power because his voters put him there. So why are you acting like we're all idiots just because of him?🤔 Are you saying it's somehow less offensive now because you switched from calling the whole country clueless to just implying it?🤔

It’s not "softened" at all. I have the right to my own opinion and the right to say it, don't I? If I went to a major news outlet and claimed Republican voters were total morons, I'd be kicked out immediately for being insulting. Since I'm part of this country, by saying "the nation," I'm basically putting myself in that same bucket. You might think I'm playing it safe, but as a moderator, you should see why the wording matters.

Harold Long21 said:well, what can I say... deal with it.😛

Yep.

Harold Long21 said:You just can't stand the idea of people having the right to vote for someone you hate. If I said Americans were brainless for voting for Bill Clinton or Joe Biden, I'd probably get banned before I could even hit publish.😁

I don't have an issue with that. Elections happened, people voted, and I respect the democratic process. I respected the results even when things felt completely broken—like when people weren't even showing up to protest blatant nonsense. That's where the "cluelessness" comes in. Another example of us failing as a society was when we didn't blink at having a leader who was clearly struggling with massive health issues but kept lying to our faces about it. Voting for Clinton or Biden is in the same ballpark as voting for Bush; it's just that I respect the office of the President, regardless of who holds it.

Harold Long21 said:

Look, I’m not even complaining about getting a strike or being banned—it’s the blatant bias from the mods that gets me. I literally quoted your post right here, and it sat there perfectly fine without any flags until the second I started this specific thread.😉