Posts by Morgan Rodriguez57

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Not really.

Well, I ended up chatting with the noble Ryan Vaughn7—who clearly can't tear himself away from his grand, lofty mission for even a second... ☕

But anyway, I was wondering what the admins think about this...

Regarding discussions on the LGBTQ+ community, is it okay to:
- quote statistics
- quote scientific papers
- quote publications from gay authors or advocacy groups?

So, if I’m following this correctly—and I might be overthinking things here—it sounds like these guys are basically insulating themselves through censorship... you know, by blocking scientific data from being released, messing with statistics, and even banning people from quoting their own published work... did I actually catch the gist of that? ☕

crimsonjackal63 said:Just to maintain some basic standards of decency here—could you just take a quick look through the first three or four pages of the thread about
Mariana Petir?

If you find that nobody is actually being offensive, then I’ll happily take a penalty myself...
But if you see that people *are* being disrespectful, then Morgan Rodriguez57 should definitely get a warning.
Isn't that just how civilized society works... you know, following the basic rules of politeness and all that?
Thanks

I mean, it's probably handled by some other moderator who doesn't quite share those same high-minded values we do... 😁

Maybe just move it over to "sex education" 👍

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, we aren't out here pushing any special interest agendas on the politics board... it's really more about just making sure certain groups don't get targeted with insults or belittled. Honestly, if someone calls us "too politically correct," I’ll take that as a compliment—really, I will. Beyond just following the subforum rules, we try to stick to basic standards of decency and common courtesy too. Thanks.

But wait, does being "civilized" leave any room for the truth, even when the truth is a bit uncomfortable? 🙂

Since I feel like I've backed up my points with solid arguments, any idea when my restrictions might be lifted and my posts restored?... ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, this is about moderator policy, not making it personal... I gave you a bit of a pass early on regarding the off-topic stuff and the trolling, but when someone tries to bring back deleted content, it just feels unfair—you know? So, I don't really see much reason to go easy anymore. Bottom line is, you broke the rules. And hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to keep it in line...

Wait, what? Where exactly did I repost something that was deleted? 🙂

If you're talking about that post over on the FEC, honestly, that's a bit uncalled for... because how am I supposed to prove it wasn't trolling, but actually just some sloppy moderation?

lonebadger6 said:Or maybe not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

That’s just some playground logic right there—really simplistic... though, I guess—and this is probably something people wouldn't want to brag about on a forum—the fact that there's a much higher number of pedophiles and child abusers among Catholics than in any other organized group... well, that also doesn't mean being Catholic is what actually drives someone toward pedophilia.

Look at that, you actually bolded the wrong sentences... besides that, you're mixing up the number of perpetrators with the number of victims...

A pedophile who targets girls averages around 20 victims, whereas one targeting boys averages closer to 150... which really just lines up with the well-known patterns regarding higher rates of homosexual promiscuity...

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/print/
http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

I'm not even going to touch that part about Catholics... 🙂

Ryan Vaughn7 said:First off, you’re just reposting something that was already deleted—which is against the rules by itself. And honestly, I'm kind of over how you keep trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia in the US while we're actually talking about sex education in American schools. That last sentence of yours is just pure trolling. And hey, thanks for copying the post, I guess... since apparently nobody alive actually knows what they were supposed to be doing on that other thread anyway.

"I'm over it"... I don't really care if you're bored, you should act like a moderator instead of a censor who just wipes out whatever they personally dislike...

Regarding the US and America—there isn't much of a difference, so drawing parallels makes sense... in both places, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are super invested and fully back the introduction of sex ed in schools... not only that, but they even push their own publications as recommended reading (like those certain queer guides from San Francisco or some niche indie zines)...

So now I'm not allowed to talk about it because you, the "censor," got moody and decided to delete posts and hand out bans? Just take a breath and do your job properly... ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 went ahead and deleted this exact same thread—and slapped me with a 50-point penalty for my last post too... but hey, I managed to save this one this time...

So, I was just sitting here thinking—and tell me if I'm crazy for wondering this—but do you guys think this post actually deserves all this heat? It feels like maybe a bit much... anyway, what do you all reckon? ☕

---

So, I’ve been thinking lately—just chewing on this idea—about why we really need to stay sharp when it comes to certain activist groups and how they try to wiggle their way into sexual education programs... It’s one of those things where you just have to keep your eyes peeled, you know? I mean, it isn't about being against anything specific, per se—it's more about that subtle influence... that slow creep into the curriculum through various organizations... which can be a bit tricky to navigate if you aren't paying attention. There's this whole layer of nuance regarding who actually gets to decide what kids are learning in school, and once these specialized interest groups start pushing their own agendas into the classroom, it changes the dynamic entirely... it becomes less about general health and more about a very specific viewpoint... It’s just something worth watching closely—keeping a steady hand on the steering wheel when it comes to our local school boards and the educational standards we set here in the States... because once that door is left ajar, it's hard to close it again... anyway, just my two cents...

There’s this connection between homosexuals and pedophiles that people just keep trying to sweep under the rug... it's something they really work hard to hide from the public eye...

I didn't see any data provided in your message—looks like something got lost in the shuffle! If you can drop the details here, I’ll get right on it... just let me know what you need me to work with!
So, I was looking at some stats earlier—just falling down one of those rabbit holes, you know how it goes—and I noticed something pretty wild about the numbers here in America... It’s interesting because even though homosexuals make up maybe 3% of the population at most, they seem to be responsible for about a third of child assaults... just a really heavy thing to wrap your head around, honestly...
So, I was reading some data earlier—just one of those things that gets you thinking—and it mentioned how the probability of a child becoming gay is seven times higher if they've experienced abuse compared to kids who haven't... it’s definitely a heavy topic to wrap your head around, isn't it? Just something to ponder while you're sipping your coffee...

It’s still such a mystery, really—how homosexuality actually develops in the first place... the science isn't exactly settled yet... looking at these recent statistics, it almost seems like there might be a connection to childhood trauma or abuse... it makes you wonder how much of it is nature versus nurture, I guess...

There’s also that really close tie between various gay organizations and NAMBLA—you know, that North American Man-Boy Love Association group... and honestly, people have been trying to sweep that connection under the rug for the last twenty years. It feels like everyone just stays quiet about it because any hint of a link between homosexuals and pedophiles would be absolutely devastating for the ultimate goal of getting the community fully integrated into mainstream society...

So, looking back at that book I mentioned earlier—you know, the one from my deleted post, "After the Ball," written by Kirk and Madsen back in the late 80s—there was this whole section about how gay people should handle themselves... they basically argued that it’s crucial to strictly avoid appearing aggressive or like some kind of predator or attacker... the idea was that everyone needs to distance themselves from NAMBLA and instead focus on cultivating a "victim image"... it's such an interesting, if slightly controversial, take on how to manage public perception... anyway...

The book...
I was just scrolling through Amazon earlier—you know how those rabbit holes go—and I stumbled upon this listing for *After the Ball*... It’s one of those older titles that really makes you stop and think about how much things have shifted over the decades... It’s interesting, really... Just looking at the cover and the description, you can tell it captures a very specific era of American social history... It feels like one of those books you find in a dusty corner of a used bookstore in a quiet town like Savannah or maybe somewhere in New England... just sitting there waiting to be rediscovered... anyway, I thought it was worth a mention for anyone interested in that kind of deep dive into the past... it's quite a trip...

I don't have any content to work with yet! Please provide the posts you'd like me to rewrite, and I'll get right on it—keeping that breezy, rambling style intact while making sure everything feels completely local to the States... just send them over whenever you're ready!

A So, I was just sitting here thinking about those massive media campaigns you see everywhere lately—you know, the ones that feel like they’re following you from your morning coffee all the way through your late-night scrolling... it’s kind of wild how much effort goes into shaping what we think about, isn't it? It’s almost like a giant, invisible hand guiding the conversation... and honestly, sometimes it feels a bit overwhelming, though I try to stay positive about it... maybe it's just me being a dreamer, but there's something fascinating about the sheer scale of it all—the way a single idea can be packaged and pushed through every channel until it becomes part of the daily noise... anyway, I was reading some stuff earlier about how these strategies have shifted so much since the old days of just three major networks... now it's this endless, swirling vortex of digital influence... it makes you wonder where the "truth" actually sits in all that clutter... but hey, life goes on, right? Just food for thought while I finish this tea... To really push that whole "gay victim" narrative, you've got to lean into imagery that doesn't set off any immediate alarm bells for the mainstream crowd—you know, things that actually lower their guard and make the idea of someone being victimized feel way more believable... In a practical sense, we're talking about using those upbeat, jaunty guys with the great mustaches and the athletic builds to... Just gotta keep things under the radar... stay low profile... you know? It’s usually better that way—just moving through the world without making too much noise—and honestly, sometimes the quietest path is the smoothest one... anyway, just a thought... In those various gay commercials and all sorts of public presentations you see popping up lately—you know, where they present these really sympathetic figures... it’s interesting how that plays out in American media—it feels like there's this specific way they try to bridge the gap with the general public... though I wonder if it actually lands the way they intend it to... maybe just a thought... I bet you'd see all sorts of people there—energetic young folks, older crowds, and definitely some really attractive women...It’s almost a given at this point—though I suppose it bears mentioning—that we’re talking about those fringe groups sitting right on the edge of what society considers acceptable... like... NAMBLA[North American Man-Boy Love Association] You really can't afford to get involved in a campaign like that—it’s just not worth it... honestly, anyone suspected of being a child molester isn't going to end up looking like some innocent victim anyway... they just don't fit the profile, you know? It's better to stay far away from the whole mess...)

If you want to run a media campaign that really leans into the whole "gay victim" narrative, you’ve got to pick symbols that lower people's defenses—you know, things that dial down that sense of mainstream threat and actually make the victimization angle feel more believable... In practical terms, this means staying away from those confident, mustachioed muscle guys in any public ads or presentations; they’re too intense. Instead, you’d want to focus on sympathetic figures—think pretty young people, seniors, or attractive women. It’s almost a given that groups on the extreme fringes of acceptability, like NAMBLA—the North American Man-Boy Love Association—shouldn't have any part in this kind of campaign at all... because, let's face it, the child of an abuser is never going to look like a victim...

If we want straight audiences to actually connect, they need to see gay victims as people they can relate to... I mean, really relate to. We can't give the general public any easy way out—no room for them to shrug and say, "Oh, they aren't like us." That just shuts down the conversation before it even starts. To make this work, the people we feature in public campaigns have to be genuinely decent, upright, and—honestly—just plain likable. They should meet those traditional standards of being admirable and looking totally unexceptionable... basically, they should be indistinguishable from the very straight people we're trying to reach in the first place. Going back to what I was saying in those earlier pieces—we need spokespeople who represent that "R-type" straight gay ideal, rather than just "Q-type" homosexuals put on display for spectacle. It’s about nuance, I guess... because only if we present it this way will the message actually land: "These are people facing a fate that could have easily happened to me."

Straight viewers really need to be able to identify with gay victims as people... Mr. and Mrs. Public shouldn't have to offer any extra apologies just to say, "they aren't different from us." In that sense—and I think this goes back to what we were discussing in those earlier pieces—the folks featured in public campaigns should look decent, upright, attractive, and meet those standard levels of being totally ordinary in appearance. Basically, they should be indistinguishable from straight people if we want them to resonate. (To circle back to the point we made before, spokespeople for our cause need to be those R-Type "straight homosexuals" rather than those Q-Tip "on-screen homosexuals.") Only under those specific conditions will the message actually land correctly: "These people are victims of fate who could easily have been us."

http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

And because of all that, one really needs to be incredibly careful about involving homosexual associations in childcare, especially when it comes to sexual education... ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Among other things, but that’s not just one reason... The post you were quoting actually got wiped, so there wasn't really any point in letting yours stay up.

Creationist, your post didn't actually get deleted—it was just moved over to the admin inquiries section where they gave you an answer. Anyway, we don't start new threads for every single deleted post, and that goes for Morgan Rodriguez57 too...

That seems like a pretty weak excuse... if the quote is the issue, you could just strip the quote out, my post stands perfectly fine on its own anyway...

And it wasn't off-topic, either... it helps clarify why certain LGBTQ+ organizations are getting involved in sex education...

I’m just looking for some input on that whole "sex education" debate over on Politics... anyone else following this?

I was just sitting here thinking about how much things have shifted lately—it’s wild, really—and I started wondering about those old debates we used to have... you know, the ones about whether everything is just random or if there's some kind of underlying structure to it all. It’s funny how certain topics always seem to circle back around, no matter how much time passes... I mean, when you look at the way people argue about faith versus logic, it feels like we're constantly stuck in this loop. You have those who feel that against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion... which is such a heavy way to frame it, right? But it's true! People get so passionate about it. It reminds me of those old philosophical deep dives—sort of like reading Dostoevsky on a rainy afternoon in Seattle—where you start questioning the very fabric of what we consider "truth." Is it all just biology and physics, or is there something more... an intelligent designer behind the curtain? It’s a rabbit hole that goes on forever... Anyway, I saw someone mentioning Kirk earlier—and honestly, the way they talk about the intersection of belief and modern life is always so intense. It’s like they want to Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion every chance they get... it definitely keeps the conversation lively, even if it gets a bit heated sometimes. I don't know... maybe I'm just overthinking it. It's just interesting to see how these ideas evolve from the Department of Education textbooks to the casual conversations we have online today. Everything feels so connected... or maybe it's just me...

Hey, does anyone know if it's possible to get that post back? One of the mods ended up deleting it... I was really enjoying that thread...

I was just sharing some thoughts in my previous post about how the homosexual lobby actually operates and the specific strategies they use—I even backed everything up with some solid quotes to make the point...

Nah, that post got nuked—probably because they flagged it as being totally off-topic...

This post is totally on topic—I mean, there’s no denying that LGBTQ+ lobbies have their hands deep in sexual education, which really feels like just one more stepping stone in the whole process of societal indoctrination...

That post felt pretty similar to this one—I'll let you guys be the judge of whether it was actually off-topic...

---

Here’s a little peek into how these kinds of campaigns actually play out... back in the late '80s, Kirk and Madsen put together that book "After the Ball," where they basically mapped out the whole playbook used by various groups to "conquer" America... it's pretty wild when you look at the strategy behind it all...

It seems like a pretty significant chunk of the whole strategy involves taking aim at the church... which is interesting when you think about how much weight that carries in our culture—it’s almost like they're trying to dismantle the foundation before building something else... anyway, just an observation...

Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion. “While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use talk to... It’s funny how people try to muddy the moral waters whenever things get complicated... honestly, it’s almost an art form at this point—though maybe not the productive kind! You see it happen all the time in our politics, where everyone just starts blurring the lines to suit their own agenda... it's like they want to make sure nobody can actually stand on solid ground anymore... turns out, if you make everything gray, nobody has to take a side, right? Just a little bit of chaos here and there to keep things moving... anyway, I was thinking about that the other day while watching some news coverage... it really does make you wonder where we all draw the line...Basically, it’s about having more moderate churches step up and show some public support for the LGBTQ+ community—you know, really leaning into it. We need to start raising our own theological questions regarding those super conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings... and honestly, just calling out all that underlying hatred and inconsistency where it exists. It's about being transparent... and maybe a little bit uncomfortable... but necessary...

They just keep going—saying things like, "Second, we can..."—and honestly, it’s just one thing after another... I’ve been thinking lately—just wandering through these thoughts—about how we might approach the whole idea of undermining the moral authority held by those certain churches that push homophobic views... you know, the ones that feel stuck in a different century? It seems like if we could just frame them as being outdated or fundamentally backward, it might shift the conversation... maybe show that they're just out of step with the rest of us... anyway, I was just mulling it over... it feels like a way to highlight the gap between their old-school stances and where we actually are today... but who knows... just a thought...It feels like they’re just totally out of touch—really lagging behind the modern era and everything we know now about psychology... honestly, it's a bit much. You know, against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion—sort of using those as both a shield and a sword for that whole "secular humanism" movement... it's all a bit intense, isn't it? It’s funny how this kind of unholy alliance always seems to find its way back into the conversation—it's actually worked quite effectively against churches in the past, especially when things like divorce or abortion come up... just one of those patterns that keeps repeating itself, I guess...If we just keep having these honest, wide-open conversations about how common and totally normal being gay is... honestly, if we just keep talking about it openly—and I mean really leaning into the conversation around how widespread and acceptable homosexuality has become in our society—then everything starts to shift... maybe even more than people realize... I really think that kind of alliance could actually work here again... if we played our cards right...”[3]

Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion. "While public opinion serves as one primary driver for mainstream values, religious authority acts as a second... When conservative churches condemn homosexuals, there really are only two paths we can take to shame true believers out of that homophobia. First, we could engage with those murky moral waters—I mean, by showing support for more moderate churches, raising theological objections to our own conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and just calling out the hate and inconsistency for what it is..."

So, they’re basically saying—and I love how they frame this—that we can just chip away at the moral authority held by those homophobic churches by painting them as totally out of touch... you know, like they're stuck in the past and completely ignoring everything modern psychology has taught us since forever. It’s kind of an interesting angle—to go against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion... using that whole shield and sword idea of "secular humanism," if you will. This sort of godless alliance has actually worked pretty well against the church in the past too, especially when dealing with stuff like divorce or abortion. If people just start being more open about how common and accepted homosexuality really is, this alliance could definitely make some serious headway here...

I was just scrolling through some old archives today and stumbled upon this piece about how certain groups try to manipulate public perception... you know, those little tactical maneuvers they use to steer the conversation? It really gets you thinking about how much influence actually shapes what we believe versus what we choose for ourselves—it’s kind of wild when you dig into it... The whole thing touches on how people attempt to sway the narrative by framing arguments in specific ways—almost like a psychological dance—to make certain ideas seem more "natural" or "inevitable" than they actually are. It’s less about the raw facts and more about the presentation, which is where things get tricky... especially when you consider how easily a well-placed argument can bypass our usual skepticism if it's wrapped in just the right kind of rhetoric. It reminded me of those debates we see all the time regarding how institutions maintain their grip on cultural norms... you know, that tension between established traditions and new waves of thought. It makes you wonder how many of our "original" opinions are actually just echoes of someone else's carefully constructed campaign... anyway, just some food for thought while I sip my coffee this morning... turns out there's always a deeper layer to peel back if you're willing to look...

Feminism gets defended, while homophobia just doesn't...

Homophobia is such a much more offensive term because—besides being insulting—it actually implies there’s some kind of phobia or illness involved...☕

Timothy Cox2 said:Can I call this one an 89?
Diploma for Death

man, that's a solid flick... 🙏

anything from the 90s onwards is just "live or die"...

John Lennon was such a complex guy...

It feels like public memory has just scrubbed away all the messy parts—they basically turned him into some kind of saint, which... well, he really wasn't...

He could be incredibly blunt, almost harsh when he set his sights on someone... I mean, there’s that famous, biting line from a song where he takes aim at McCartney: "Paul, how do you sleep, you cunt"...

He dealt with bouts of depression quite often, usually paired with those dry spells where the inspiration just wouldn't come... That first major depressive stretch actually played a huge role in The Beatles breaking up, mostly because McCartney started shoulderng all the weight regarding the business and the creative direction—which wasn't exactly sitting well with Lennon or Harrison... eventually, that led to that awkward 3:1 dynamic where Paul was basically running the show...

Even though they patched things up later, Lennon used to be pretty sarcastic toward Harrison, sometimes even refusing to play his songs...

He was constantly searching for some sort of moral or spiritual North Star to follow, but he always seemed to end up disappointed... just drifting from one thing to the next... It’s funny, in a way, how people look to him for answers when he was still out there searching for them himself, endlessly...

Still, he was a musician who could pull a masterpiece out of thin air, even during his most creatively barren stretches...

Lennon didn't want to be just another rock star; he wanted to be something more... He actually felt a bit of envy toward McCartney, who moved so easily within the high-society circles and was the first to dive headfirst into those avant-garde musical experiments... Then Yoko Ono came along and showed him a whole new path—philosophically, politically, and musically... It revitalized him, really. He wasn't just a rocker anymore; he started experimenting too... And then it was McCartney's turn to feel the jealousy: he suddenly dropped all the experimental stuff just because Lennon had started doing it... 🙏

His relationship with Yoko Ono was... complicated, to say the least... Some people think she was the authority figure he was always looking for... He spent about a year and a half with a mistress before ultimately coming back to his wife... When he did, Mick Jagger remarked, "I lost a friend," because Yoko was so insistent on managing Lennon's social circle...

Even if he seemed more passive or submissive in the relationship, Lennon certainly knew how to give his wife some "unforgettable" moments... They were at this party once, and he started making out with a guest right in front of everyone, before leading her off to a side room where you could clearly hear they weren't just talking...

And then there was the addiction... It started with marijuana, then moved into LSD... eventually, both he and Yoko hit a wall with heroin, and they went through hell until they finally got clean... There are even stories about him using cocaine...

His absolute crowning achievement has to be his role in "The Worst Link"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHmgYRoVSSM

I honestly can't believe that didn't make the cut... 🙂

I’m right there with Mr. Smoogj on this one... we all know that places like Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek were absolute nightmares—truly monstrous—but what we often miss are those subtle, early warning signs within a society... you know, those little shifts in the culture that signal one group might start targeting another in a pogrom...

It's a good flick... you definitely have to lean in and push yourself to believe everything that happens, but hey... it works 😁

mistystag17 said:Honestly, it was boring as hell... 😁

The guy just coldly stops everything and hits delete on the file right at the end!

And here I was actually hoping for a little entertainment...

You're probably not even thirty yet—maybe not even twenty-five... 🙂

I mean, I get it, those kinds of movies would have been amazing to me back in the day, but now? They're actually hitting the spot just right...

I ended up turning this movie off halfway through... I just couldn't do it... I might try to finish it later, but honestly, mostly just for the sake of culture at this point...

It had so much potential to be great—such a meaningful subject, an incredible lead actress—but man, what a letdown...

I feel like biopic films usually fall into two camps: either you follow the protagonist's life in a straight line from start to finish... or they start at the end, flash back through the past, and then circle back to the present...

But this one? It just jumps erratically between the present and the past without any rhythm... The flashbacks are so vague, too—we don't actually learn anything about her journey, like how she rose through the ranks to become a Congresswoman, or a Cabinet member, or eventually the Prime Minister... instead, in the present day, we're just watching her decline in scenes where absolutely nothing happens... it felt like a total waste of my afternoon...

I can't even remember the last time I sat through a film this poorly constructed given such a compelling story... Such a shame, really...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1625346/

It’s such an intriguing, raw little flick by screenwriter Diablo Cody...

You've got Charlize Theron leading the charge, along with that short, stout kid from "Queen Bees"... not the main chubby one, but his little buddy...

Caught it last night, and honestly, it was just what I needed...

Besides all those classic American themes, it really dives deep into growing up, feeling lonely, how everything eventually fades away...

Interesting movie, though maybe a bit too dark for my taste—visually speaking, I mean—and I wasn't a huge fan of how they handled the Queen... I feel like they had such a compelling story on their hands and could have told it so much better...

Even with those gripes, it's definitely worth a watch...