Posts by Walter Brooks5

It feels like every time a team gets some momentum, someone goes down with a freak injury and the whole strategy just falls apart. It’s so hard to recover once that domino effect starts. Does anyone else think a team's depth is more important than their star players when it comes to staying consistent?

shadoworca3 said:Walter Brooks5, just to clear things up, I wasn't the one who signed off on your ban from the IRS; that was actually Zachary Mendoza2. However, the moderation team had already reached a consensus: if you kept up this specific pattern of behavior, you would be cut off. Since you didn't heed our warnings, Zachary followed through on what we all agreed upon. I was away from the forum for an extended period at the time, and since this was his first major call, he didn't realize he needed to send you a formal notification beforehand.
I sincerely apologize for the procedural slip-up, but the penalty itself stands.

PS, I’m pretty sure I spotted a clone of yours over on the IRS boards.
Don't even think about it.

"Apologies for the procedural error"? You've got a hell of a sense of humor!

And regarding this whole thing where you think I have a clone running around the IRS... what am I even supposed to say?

Can you seriously not suppress those Inquisitor impulses, even in a moment like this?

It’s like showing up to a funeral with a buddy like Zachary Mendoza2 and telling the widow, "Hey, looks like I saw your clone on the way in!"

I honestly couldn't care less what you "think"!

So, why haven't you permabanned that clone yet? 😂😂😂

This is peak stupidity for the world's "intellectuals"!!!

For the love of whatever sanity you have left—and for anyone reading this later—why don't you tell us here: who exactly is this clone of mine over at the IRS???

Just so I can head over there and see what kind of logic led you to believe they were me.

But to check that, I'd actually have to log in, right buddy? As Eric Adams would say, "partially"...

Zachary Mendoza2 said:What do you think of this latest post, the Inquisition, the witch hunt... 😁

Look, you received your partial suspension on October 29, 2012, along with a three-day ban. It was a bit clumsy since you can't receive PMs while you're banned. This wasn't just about one single post following a warning; it was regarding your entire contribution to the site and your general modus operandi. You received several warnings—not just from shadoworca3, but from me as well—yet you ignored them all and simply kept doing what you were doing.
The "Advanced Physics for Laymen" thread, specifically when looking at the posts from October 29, 2012, and your attempt to "debate" the Skeptic, becomes one of the most tedious reads on the whole site. It’s everything: trolling, dumping massive walls of incoherent text, and constant provocation and mockery without even knowing who or what you are targeting.
Then, in this post, you pointed out the reason for all that rambling and nonsense:

Which once again exposes you as a creationist troll, which isn't your first time. You already had a warning before, when I caught you using that "I don't want to say X, but X" rhetorical trap. This time, you got a red card for trolling.
Even a red card didn't stop you; instead, there was a series of provocations aimed at wand and the Skeptic, who had to state twice that he was stepping away from the argument with you. That resulted in your three-day ban, and after you failed to provide any valid reason why you shouldn't also receive a partial suspension, that was issued as well.

So, according to you, nature and its laws have no purpose—it's all just pure randomness. Only someone who has never truly engaged their brain regarding questions that Immanuel Kant (though you don't need to be Kant to get it) called a philosophical axiom would think that: "In mundo non datur casus, non datur hiatus, non datur saltus, non datur fatum!"

And Isaac Newton said this regarding the scientific inquisitors who are blinded by atheism:

Quote:

Regarding the Divine Creator of nature, my theory illuminates Him perfectly, making it necessary to acknowledge His immense and infinite power, wisdom, and providence, which inspires deep respect, gratitude, and love within us, thereby completely dismissing the trivial fantasies of those who believe the world arose by chance, or could have been constructed by some fatal necessity, or that it has simply existed forever, governed by its own inherent laws. First off, regarding the idea of chance, here is how they argue: combinations of a finite number of terms are finite in number, but a combination spanning through all of eternity must be an infinite number, even if we define "combination" as the entire sequence occurring over thousands of years. So, if we’re talking about the random shuffling of atoms—assuming everything plays out like the long string of coincidences we usually see—every single combination would have to repeat an infinite number of times. This means the probability of this specific combo we’re looking at popping up again by pure chance is infinitely higher than it ever returning through some kind of non-random fluke. People mess up here because they assume something is truly "random." In reality, everything in nature stems from determined causes. We only slap the label "random" on things when we're too clueless to identify the underlying causes driving them. But even putting that aside, saying the number of possible combinations is finite is just plain wrong if you actually account for what makes up the universe. Sure, the number of combinations is finite if you define a "combination" as just a simple sequence where one thing follows another. Here’s my take: imagine you took every single letter from a Virgil poem, tossed them into a bag, and started pulling them out one by one. If you kept doing that forever, you'd eventually get that exact Virgil sequence back, provided the number of consecutive repetitions exceeded any fixed limit. The thing is, the makeup of the world relies first and foremost on how matter is arranged in space—across length, width, and depth. Plus, you’ve got an infinite number of directions in a single plane, just like there are an infinite number of planes in space. For every direction in any given plane, there are infinitely many types of curves starting from a single point in that direction. And within each of those types, there are vastly more curves that *don't* pass through a specific set of points. So, when we try to pick a curve that passes through all those points of matter, we’re already dealing with an infinity of at least the third order. On top of that, if that curve is determined, the distance of any point from its nearest neighbor can vary infinitely. That means the number of possible arrangements for any single point—assuming everything else stays still—is absolutely infinite. Consequently, the total number of ways all these arrangements can change is infinite, at an order equal to the number of points raised to a power increased by at least three. It’s the same deal with velocity. The speed of any given point can vary infinitely, and its direction can vary infinitely of the second order, thanks to that endless supply of directions in a plane and planes in space. Since the entire structure of the world and the chain of events it produces depend on speed and direction—which scale up through levels of infinity—the number of distinct scenarios has to be multiplied three times by the number of particles of matter. Therefore, the number of different scenarios isn't finite; it's infinite, at an order of the fourth power of the number of points, increased by at least three. And this holds true even if the curve itself is determined by a force, which, by the way, can also vary in countless ways. Bottom line: the number of combinations regarding the composition of the world isn't finite at any given moment. It's infinite, of the highest order, considering the infinity of the points in space along any direction extended infinitely in both ways. Now, that infinity is analogous to the infinity of moments in all of eternity, since time only has one dimension. Because of this, the number of combinations is infinite, at an order much higher than the infinity of temporal moments. So, not only is it not guaranteed that all combinations will repeat infinitely, but the ratio of combinations that *don't* repeat is an infinity of the highest order—specifically, the fourth power of the number of points increased by at least two, or maybe three, if we’re allowed to tweak the laws of force. That whole argument basically falls apart and becomes worthless...

Would you actually start cherry-picking facts just because of this text and Isaac Newton?

Shame on you!!!

What’s the alternative to Intelligent Design or creationism if that's how you want to play it? Evolution? Calling evolution a "theory" is about as scientifically sound as claiming the universe is run by pure randomness instead of having an actual purpose. 🤦

The mainstream media should have been reporting on this kind of scandalous moderation at the IRS a long time ago. Honestly, this has moved way past being just bad taste; it's crossed into much more serious territory.

rustydrifter10 said:Yeah, you definitely have some funds sitting there at the IRS. I’m honestly not sure why you didn't get an alert about it—maybe you were under a temporary ban or something back then, which would prevent the mods from sliding into your inbox with a notification. Let me check in with them and see what's up.

So, the Inquisition never sleeps. It seems they’re most productive while the rest of us are catching Z's. 🙂

Since I actually ended up getting a partial on the IRS site, it makes you wonder why such a one-track dictatorship exists there in the first place.

Maybe it's because you aren't allowed to claim something like this on the IRS site:

"This magnificent solar system of planets and comets could only have arisen as the product of the plan and action of a single intelligent and powerful being!"
Isaac Newton

"Supreme design and perfect order prevail throughout the entire universe, governed by these fundamental forces!"
Isaac Newton

Everything is determined by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
Albert Einstein

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr IT is wrong to think that The task of physics is to find out How Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.
Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr When IT comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images.
Niels Bohr

Looking at those quotes, it's pretty obvious that the people trying to turn the IRS site into an "exact" science won't let anyone near who dares to "walk the edge of science" (whatever that means) or ask questions that the greatest physicists of all time dared to pose constantly—the very same guys who are actually the biggest disgraces to science itself.

The people moderating the IRS site this way would be chased off with the harshest insults imaginable by the very people those moderators aren't even worthy of looking at their shoes, let alone polishing.

If there's such a thing as "over-moderation" on this forum, then it's high time someone seriously considers how far this pathetic witch hunt—which has been happening in its most extreme form on the IRS site for years—is actually allowed to go.

It’s been a minute since I felt like posting anything on the IRS, and now I find out I can’t even log in. If this is about some kind of partial ban, nobody bothered to tell me. The only person who ever mentioned anything was shadoworca3, who basically threatened that if I kept posting a certain way, I might end up getting my access partially revoked.

And here’s the kicker: I didn't just stop that specific type of posting; I stopped posting altogether. It’s been months since I last said a word on there. So now, when I actually want to jump back into a discussion, I realize I’ve been locked out.

If shadoworca3 was actually serious about that threat, wouldn't it have been the decent thing to do to give me a heads-up?

Besides, what was the logic behind a partial ban anyway?

The whole reasoning was that if I didn't quit a certain style of writing—which could be interpreted as "skirting the edge of science" (as if an entire army of physicists isn't doing the exact same thing)—then I’d get hit with a partial ban. Well, I didn't just stop that style; I went totally silent on the IRS for a while, yet somehow, I still managed to get hit with a secret partial ban regardless.

Honestly, if this really came from shadoworca3, it feels a bit much... 🤦

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly find it baffling that anyone would deny that declaring Bozanica a religious figure is an absolute truth.
How exactly would you describe a man who, out of pure devotion, walks away from the pleasures of the world to embrace a life of modesty and celibacy—someone who travels the earth in simple robes, spreading nothing but messages of love and faith?
Personally, I call such individuals religious fanatics, and I’ll stand by that label even if it means facing a ban on this forum.

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!!!

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!!!

Susan Price30 said:deleted by Susan Price30

First off, I was sitting here wondering what on earth you were trying to get at.

Then I spotted the edit tag at the bottom of the post and realized you probably just typed something totally awkward, like this ???

Am I hitting the nail on the head here?

If whatever you wrote is still hanging around in some archive or your computer's memory, feel free to shoot me a PM. Honestly, my curiosity is piqued—I'm dying to know what actually prompted you to wipe out the entire content of your post.

Daniel Ward87 said:The real key here is that Unknown realized he messed up. He's willing to take the hit even if the punishment is overkill or if the admin made a mistake. You could say he's ready to serve his time for an honest error. Half the battle is already won since he admitted he went too far, so we decided to soften the blow by changing the type of infraction, but the 7-day ban still stands.

At the same time, we've sent a clear message regarding the phrase "Catholic-Taliban." 🙂

If he realized he was wrong, then he surely realized *how* he was wrong—specifically how severe the violation actually was and which category it falls under. If he's supposedly willing to serve time for a mistake he didn't commit, then he should be more than ready to serve time based on a fair and just judgment, rather than some watered-down euphemism, right?

I have never seen an explanation like this for downgrading someone's violation before!

And what is even the point of softening the charge if he’s stuck with 7 days anyway???

Does this not apply because Unknown is a notorious repeat offender? His "handwriting" is unmistakable: he persistently attacks and falsifies the Bible, insulting not just Christian followers, but Jews and Muslims too, all while using his signature hate speech against the God of the Bible. This is a chronic insult to anyone who respects the Bible in its entirety or the foundational parts upon which various faiths and denominations are built.

Daniel Ward87 said:Matter's settled, the post was flagged, so there's really no point in dragging this out any further.

Just when I thought getting a card from Unknown might feel like a tiny bit of payback—especially given how you shut him down in that first post—it turns out otherwise. People on Forum.hr have been preaching about "reciprocity" for years, mostly because they clearly feel like they're being treated like second-class citizens (and honestly, they're probably right to feel that way). But instead of getting that sweet justice, you just team up with the moderator Unknown to flip the script and label it "heavy trolling!" instead. Real classy move.

So now you’re actually going to try and tell me that starting this thread was a waste of time?

As long as there’s no equality for us and no justice to be found, nothing changes!

I think I laid it all out pretty clearly in my first post on this thread.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario where if the roles were reversed in a similar conflict, the moderators would have reacted completely differently. I'm talking about a situation where nobody would even dream of reclassifying certain comments as "heavy trolling." Instead, that kind of rhetoric would be flagged immediately as hate speech—which is exactly what it is—and the sanctions would be heavy enough to actually satisfy the victim while staying strictly within the forum's rules.

Twisting the rules just to manufacture violations for one person while letting someone else off easy for serious insults—where there isn't even a shred of actual hate speech based on nationality or religion—is ridiculous. First, they slap you with a standard warning card, then, behind closed doors with the moderator, they decide to upgrade that same penalty to "heavy trolling" the very next day. That kind of moving the goalposts does absolutely nothing for fairness or maintaining any sense of balance between different ideologies on this forum.

Unfortunately, a wolf might change its coat, but its nature stays exactly the same.

Daniel Ward87, look, you aren't some wild animal driven by instinct; you’re a man. That whole "wolf and its nature" comparison shouldn't even apply to you. So, the real question is: are you actually going to find the backbone to help ensure this forum finally starts treating everyone by the same set of rules, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines?

Thanks for the partnership!

wanderingheron52 said:Don't you think you're overstepping a bit here?
And honestly, what does Sanders have to do with this lady's complaint on the forum anyway...

Well, you know how it goes—Dostoevsky talks in The Brothers Karamazov about a specific breed of people who basically sit around salivating at the thought of someone else's misfortune just so they have something to gossip about.

Just look at war zones; there are always those rare souls (like Saint Stepinac or other "righteous among the nations," for example) who risk their own lives to save anyone caught in the crosshairs of some inhumane regime, regardless of religion, nationality, or skin color.

But those people are always in the minority.

Unfortunately, that first breed always seems to have the numbers.

Daniel Ward87, I saw your reply to Unknown in the banned corner, and I wanted to take a second to thank you for being so level-headed while addressing his behavior.

I'll probably still lose points for trolling, even though my take on Meadowin's reasoning makes it pretty clear that using that controversial comparison was purely illustrative and shouldn't be seen as problematic at all (in my book).

slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

Like this>
Anyone who participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Period.
I threw in the bit about promoting pedophilia and pornography myself because, honestly, I see them as being just as destructive as infanticide. People pushing that kind of filth aren't just mentally breaking kids; they're actively creating a playground for actual crimes to happen—like those tragic cases of underage pregnancies that almost always end in abortions.

Now, someone with half a brain might try to argue that Jovanovicev’s approach to sex education is actually just a way to prevent teen pregnancies from spiking—or even bring those numbers down.

Look, from a purely moral standpoint, we all know exactly where the Catholic Church stands regarding the fourth module of the ZOa. But let’s be real—you can't just strip morality away from the practical, technical side of things. They're tied together.

Let’s look at this issue from a purely practical and technical standpoint:

How do we actually stop these mass killings by deranged lunatics in American cities?

Following the rules to get your hands on a firearm. What kind of vibe are we going for here? Give me some direction.Either... or what?
2. Armed to the teeth with paranoid Americans. What's actually going on? So, what happens when things like this actually go down? What’s the fallout?

Look, incidents are always going to happen—that's just a given. But instead of getting boggeded down in the whole moral high ground and "teaching lessons" debate, we should be looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. From a technical and functional perspective, what actually works better?

How do we actually build an environment that fosters real moral development—one that shapes kids into confident, self-aware, and responsible adults rather than just compliant robots?

We really need to foster a culture centered around actual moral maturity—one where the conversation isn't about "when, how, or with whom" you can get away with it, but rather how to protect yourself. It’s about understanding that physical readiness is nothing without psychological and emotional maturity, which carries its own heavy weight of responsibility. The real question we should be asking is: what is the absolute minimum age someone needs to reach to start being sexually active without causing themselves devastating psychological damage or facing practically tragic real-world consequences? And let's be clear—this holds true regardless of how much anyone overestimates the effectiveness of protection or various safety mechanisms. We're talking about the fundamental intersection of mental stability and life-altering decisions.

Look, I played nice and gave you an answer just to be polite, and honestly, I kept it brief to save us both some time. But moving forward, let’s keep things on track—I’m staying away from any more off-topic tangents in this thread.

William Bennett53 said:That’s all there is to it—a mere camera obscura...
whenever I find myself rereading the name of the rose. 👍

Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

William Bennett53 said:And there you have it—you clearly don't understand the American people very well at all...
Without offering a single counterargument to what was said, you simply launch this pseudo-subtle ad hominem attack against someone you don't even know or understand... It shouldn't surprise me then that you find it bothersome when someone labels a church leader a totalitarian... ☕

And yes, I am American and I am Catholic. However, that doesn't mean I have to view the world through a narrow lens like a camera obscura, nor will I allow anyone to question my religious or national identity simply because of how I choose to act.👍

If you're Catholic, then I'm an atheist. Look, maybe you're Catholic on paper, but it's pretty obvious you don't even grasp the basics of what Catholicism actually is, so there's really no point in continuing to embarrass yourself like this.

Melissa Peterson19 said:I am siding with the moderation on this dispute. Even for a user who used the term "Taliban" as a sharp illustration of their stance toward the official Church during a debate with the Government, I wouldn't issue a ban—I'd just warn them not to let the discussion radicalize any further.
As for you, Walter Brooks5, moving slightly off-topic, I ask you to explain based on your own creed exactly where and when Jesus said, "Rather be lukewarm, if you aren't hot"?!
I ask because your description of Christ's intervention in the Temple is flawed and suggests a fundamental ignorance of the Gospel, which calls into question your right to act publicly offended as a zealous Catholic. What on earth are idols and souvenirs doing in the Temple? Explain it if you can. If you can't, then realize your faith is merely a syncretism dressed up as traditional, national Catholicism, and that is the only reason you feel insulted by attacks on Bozanica. But lest you take offense now, honestly, sincere, committed syncretism is very pleasing to God! Explain the hot/cold part and the idols!

Everything you need to know is right there in your avatar, so you don't really have to say much. Just show up, drop three dots, and anyone curious enough to look at your profile will know exactly what those three dots signify.

You want to talk about the Bible?

The answer to your first question is right here:
http://www.biblesos.org/en/bible/cro...6166003015017/

The answer to your second question is right here:
money changers—a metaphor for cash.
souvenirs—a metaphor for pigeons.

Got any other brilliant questions?

And regarding the word "Taliban," do you honestly think it's reasonable to call Milanovic or Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" purely out of spite???

And you think that shouldn't result in a ban?

If your answer to these is "yes," then we have another question: If someone were allowed to call Milanovic and Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" on this forum without consequence, what kind of title could they possibly dream up for someone like Jovanovic?

Any suggestions?

Now, just imagine if someone launched a verbal assault like that against your favorite politicians, and then someone else protested that attack, only for the protester to get two red cards while the guy who actually called "Milanovic and Josipovic the worst communist Talibans of all time" gets absolutely nothing???

Can you picture a situation like that?

Then, the person who got the cards comes back here to complain about them, and finally, someone in your position steps in claiming the cards should be retracted for the guy who was baselessly insulting Milanovic and Josipovic, while finding it "too hard" to even imagine a title for Jovanovic.

As the most principled person on earth, would you probably jump to defend the guy who just insulted everything represented by your precious little avatar?

Come on, don't be ridiculous. There's enough hypocrisy in your posts as it is; you don't need to embarrass yourself further with these pointless, incredibly naive stories for the clueless.

Let me clarify my last point a bit more.

Look, if someone labels Nikolic (the President of Mexico) a mass murderer and uses a movie like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfMijGa1GNs as their "proof," that’s one thing. But if someone claims the President of the US—let's say Josipovic—did something similar without providing even a shred of actual evidence, they wouldn't just be looking at legal trouble from the American judiciary; the moderators of this forum should be stepping in to delete that post and slapping the author with a 1,000-point penalty.

Does that make things a little clearer?

And I don't see why Bozanic should get a free pass here. Is it because he's a cardinal in Pakistan? My bad, I meant America.

Brenda Cook4 said:We’re talking about private lawsuits here, which essentially empowers whoever claims to be "offended"—whatever that means. Honestly, it feels like we're one step away from full-blown Orwellian territory or some old-school totalitarian crackdown on speech, but let's not get sidetracked. To suggest that the American people should be placed beyond criticism by Bozanica or anyone else is, at its fanatical core, on the same level as an Islamic fundamentalist reacting to a caricature of Muhammad. All we need now is a fatwa. Seriously, I don't think this kind of thing even existed in the Middle Ages. So, giving Unknown a strike for "hate speech" was definitely a mistake; it seems like a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Otherwise, it's a blatant violation of the US Constitution, which protects our right to express our own opinions. A forum user voiced them. If someone felt targeted by that criticism, they have every right to file a private lawsuit. But if we start developing this idea on the forum—that criticizing a public figure warrants a strike for "hate speech"—then we've really lost the plot. I'll believe it when I see ninety percent of the political forum users getting banned just for daring to criticize any government official, past or present. For God's sake, how far has this special pleading gone?

If you actually sit down and think about the logic behind what you just wrote, you'll realize that by that same standard, you might as well sentence someone to death whether they stole an apple from a stand or if they're a serial rapist, pedophile, and murderer who slaughtered thirty innocent girls.

Look, if Bozanic did something immoral or disgraceful and people lashed out with insults and criticism, I’d probably be right there among those supporting the critique; it wouldn't be my first time, and I wouldn't think twice about it.

But when a person gets attacked simply for defending Ms. Kristo—who gets suspended for the exact same qualifications Kinsey used, which could have been heard on the nightly news days before her segment aired (the news was produced independently and just broadcast later), yet the news editor walks away after a "detailed analysis" of their sources without any sanctions—then it becomes crystal clear who is bullying whom and who belongs in the Middle Ages.

YES, you are absolutely right; things like this didn't even happen back in the Middle Ages!

You are spot on!!!

Daniel Ward87 said:Did you report that shady post from an Unknown? You did. Was it penalized? It was. Just because it didn't happen instantly doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It’s a total myth, especially over in the Religion section, that people aren't allowed to have their own opinions—and honestly, I'm not even going to bother defending or explaining that. The real issue is that people can't wrap their heads around why there are Americans who don't view religion (any religion, for that matter) through the exact same lens as believers. In that sense, the Religion section isn't a monolith, which is why we even set up a separate sub-forum so our religious users can talk about faith-based stuff in peace without getting interrupted by "non-believers."

As an admin, I definitely have the responsibility you mentioned, but that’s only half the battle. The other half has to be handled by the community itself.

God help us with this kind of logic! What are you, a Catholic? 😂
Look, it would be a lot more decent if you just came out and said what you actually believe; I have respect for people who do that. If you’re a Hindu, just say: "Yeah, I'm a Hindu!"... if you're a Communist, go ahead: "I'm a Communist!"... and so on. But trying to sell people this absolute garbage is pointless. People aren't quite as gullible or naive as you seem to think they are, you know?

Even if you were a Hindu or a Communist, it still wouldn't have anything to do with these incredibly blasphemous lies and accusations being thrown at Bozanic. That's just pure fabrication, lying, and plain old disrespect.

My issue with Bozanic is that he rarely speaks up—and certainly not enough—about the massive injustices happening in this society. If I were Bozanic, every Sunday in the Cathedral, lightning and thunder would be practically shooting from the pulpit, and politicians, regardless of their party affiliation, would be getting exactly what they deserve, just like they did back during the era of Cardinal Kuharic and Saint Stepinac.

Christ said: "Better to be cold than lukewarm!" Basically, being lukewarm is useless and unworthy of a cardinal's robes. When Christ entered the Temple, he tossed out all the trinkets, souvenirs, and junk that were dishonoring the holy place—I bet he even lashed those souvenir peddlers with a whip. So, when someone criticizes Bozanic for speaking out in a situation where the Cathedral itself should be crying out for him to keep going, it doesn't mean they aren't Catholic; it means they're something I can't even mention here without hitting my second strike.[/color]

Daniel Ward87 said:First off, it’s 86%. Second, there were hints in the news about those polls being rigged. Third, a title is a title and people are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean they won't face consequences. Even non-believers have their own "symbols" they get worked up over, so what then?

I am an admin, but I wrote that the moderators would make the call. While we're at it, I'd suggest you watch your tone when talking to the Religion moderators here on KZ.

Let’s start with your little suggestion that I should "watch my tone" with the moderators.
I guess I should apologize immediately for calling Meadow "sweetie"—which, by the way, is just a diminutive for "daughter" (mine), a completely harmless term, or even better, a word used to be affectionate. My apologies for my overly nurturing tone!

See, I’m actually willing to apologize for someone else’s bruised ego caused by a single affectionate word.

It would have been much nicer if you had simply noted that Meadow did the exact same thing and issued a card for my post, where I was merely protesting an outrageous insult directed at the vast majority of the American people—represented by the integrity of the cardinal in New York, who holds his title and position as a symbol for that very majority.

But here’s the real question: if hate speech is being thrown at one single individual who represents nobody but themselves, isn't that still hate speech?

Or better yet: imagine if Unknown had claimed that the Orthodox bishop serving mass yesterday—the one attended by the President of the United States—was, say, the worst Orthodox Taliban of all time???

And why would he say that? Because he’s defending the right of one of the interested parties to express their view in a debate about sex education. And that side happens to be the one making up this 87%, yet they supposedly have no right to voice their opinion?

Doesn't it bother you to live in a society that tolerates this kind of one-sidedness?

As an admin, shouldn't you be doing everything possible to ensure Forum.hr demonstrates care and respect for the principles of tolerance and coexistence? Shouldn't you make a small contribution through your posts to foster an atmosphere where everyone respects one another?

Wouldn't you?

Daniel Ward87 said:I’m guessing this is about the part where Bozanic gets called a Taliban. Why on earth would that be considered insulting to the American people? Whether it counts as hate speech is up to the moderators, but if it does, then it's just "hate" directed at a specific person, an institution, or a religion—not the whole nation.

Doesn't the title held by the cardinal in a city like Chicago represent way more than just some symbolic gesture for the 90% of Americans who identify as Catholic?

Do I even really need to spell this out for you?

So, are we just leaving the final call up to the admins?

Wait, you think I'm an admin? Not quite.