Posts by rowdyotter25

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, rowdyotter25, since you basically earned yourself a one-way ticket to the principal's office with that last post—and we both know you did—let's just call it what it is.

I'm in.

Gregory Turner71 said:Look, aside from those absolutely revolting comparisons involving zoophilia and other kinds of illegal paraphilias that’ll get you slapped with a lawsuit, there aren't any blanket restrictions on what kind of arguments you can throw around here.

Sweet. Looks like my mission to vent was a success—I’ve officially secured the right to argue that drawing parallels between different types of discrimination is, in itself, a form of discrimination, all without Brenda Cook pulling a red card on me or risking a ban.

Thanks and cheers. 👋

So you're saying this is the criteria:

Grace Kim80 said:- Look, it’s fine to jump into a thread and drop a post that actually makes sense, stays constructive, and carries some weight. You could say something like:
In my view, homosexuality is a departure from what's considered standard or natural, because... (and then you lay out a legitimate argument, like citing those studies on the gay gene, Dr. Rice's research, or specific epigenetic markers).

The thing is, I got slapped with a ban on a post that was just responding to someone else's one-liner linking race to homosexuality (link). In my response, I was basically just showing how the legal tools being proposed by one side would actually play out if they were applied to a different minority group. I didn't twist their words or water down their logic; I just took those exact legal instruments and held them up against another group to show what they actually mean in practice.

Then, in a PM, I get warned about using "false dilemmas," which seems like a convenient way for the Appeals moderator to justify the ban by quoting a completely different post—which, fine, I agree that one was questionable and I won't make that mistake again.

But honestly, it's frustrating when Brenda Cook4 uses her own personal judgment to claim a dilemma is "false" and then threatens sanctions to demand that such dilemmas and anything even remotely similar be scrubbed from the discussion. Meanwhile, she uses that exact same rhetorical trick herself in much more trivial and downright rude ways (link). I don't go clicking the report button on her posts because I don't think she's actually breaking any rules, but the hypocrisy is glaring.

Brenda Cook4 said:Why are you making things up? I didn't "ban" you, I just answered your question about why the post got flagged—it's because you're repeating the same thing over and over (and honestly, I think that's just a circular, fallacious way to argue).

Look, if you're flagging someone for repeating an argument while letting other people loop the same tired talking points—like claiming homosexuality is unnatural—then you aren't moderating, you're just tilting the scales of the debate.

Brenda Cook4 said:Alright, so you're leaning on the mod status—you got one single warning out of 418 posts, which I think is probably the only strike in this whole thread I've handled, so where's the issue with moderation? Repressive? For what?

The real issue is that the warning is a heads-up on what not to do if you want to avoid a permanent ban. By explaining it that way, you basically admitted that certain arguments are off-limits. And instead of citing the actual Subreddit Rules, you just leaned on your own personal opinions.

It’s frustrating because you can't actually defend a strike using the Rules here; you're just trying to win the argument by debating the topic itself. It proves that when you moderate, you're just protecting your own side of the conversation instead of focusing on the quality of the discussion, which is the whole damn point of being a mod.

Brenda Cook4 said:Oh, give me a break. I didn't 'remove' your point—it's still sitting there dozens of posts back—I just handed out a card to anyone repeatedly trying to throw that same tired argument at people.

Brenda, you're grasping at straws.

1. This isn't a duplicate post. The argument keeps getting recycled, but every single time it's being spat out as a response to some other user's comment.
2. You actually used a private message to shut me down for pointing out what I see as a total false dilemma.
3. Over on the Zalb thread, you tried to justify the ban by quoting something that wasn't even in the flagged post, and then Ego used that nonsense to double down on the card.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, I'm not stepping in to punish anyone, nor am I trying to play judge over anyone's values or moral compass.

Right here, in a thread where we're all airing grievances about how you moderate, you decide to pivot into a whole debate about homosexuality instead of just explaining how your moderation aligns with the Rules..

Brenda Cook4 said:I already explained why you got the card, and honestly, getting a card is just an excuse to go on a loop, repeating the same tired nonsense over and over again. No matter who says it, your go-to defense is always just screaming 'racism.' But once I laid out how racism is a fundamental human right under the UN Declaration, and then dropped the legal precedent from the Supreme Court stating that marriage isn't actually categorized as a fundamental human right in this context, your little argument falls apart. You're just spinning your wheels saying 'it is what it is' without any actual substance.

Just because you personally think my analogy doesn't apply doesn't mean you have the authority as a moderator to yank my post based on your gut feeling. It’s the same old song—you keep insisting homosexuality is unnatural, but so what? Is that considered trolling now too?

Brenda Cook4 said:By the way, why the hell are you linking to the exact same post twice in those links up there and writing 'once more'?

My bad, just a copy-paste fail. I deleted it because I didn't save the second link and don't have it handy.

Brenda Cook4 said:That card was the only one, handed out specifically for the trolling found in your massive pile of over 400 posts—which, by the way, is nearly triple everyone else's. So I don't see how anyone could say we're 'preventing' actual debate.

You slapped me with a card over a racism analogy that I fully broke down in my response. My post wasn't some repetitive loop. Then, in a PM, you told me I'm not allowed to bring up that "false dilemma" anymore. You're basically cherry-picking one valid line of reasoning and using your moderator powers to gatekeep which arguments are allowed to exist in the conversation and which aren't.

Furthermore, on the Zalb thread, you pulled a quote from a completely different post—one that had nothing to do with the card—just to manufacture support from the other moderator. That moderator then took your bait, accepting your quote instead of the actual content from the flagged post. You essentially misrepresented the whole reason for the card.

I’m throwing my hat in the ring to say the moderator for this thread is totally biased, straight-up breaking the subforum rules herself, and handing out penalties just because she doesn't like the debating tactics she uses herself.

Brenda Cook4 trolling:
putting words in people's mouths
pure trolling—dodging the actual point and turning everything into a ridiculous caricature
"it's obvious you don't get it, so it's my way or the highway"

Furthermore, she slapped me with a penalty on this post where I was drawing an analogy between race and sexual orientation (just for the sake of repetition), then had the nerve to slide into my PMs telling me I can't use that argument anymore, only to lie about it in the Appeals section by quoting some old post that had absolutely nothing to do with it. The post she penalized doesn't even break any of the subforum rules.

Brenda Cook4 says:
You keep spinning this same pseudo-dilemma from one post to the next (along with a whole bunch of other variations from the same tired playbook: ' The point is, for those of you too lazy to stand up when women are hitting or bullying others, you defend the idea that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry just to play it safe.'

My point stands: by using the threat of sanctions, the moderator is effectively shutting down arguments in a discussion where she's also acting as a participant, all while she ignores the rules herself—both the ones actually written in the Rules and the ones she uses to penalize everyone else.

Megan Diaz33 said:And you know there's always going to be a couple of fools around here looking to make a scene. 🤣Man, they really fell for that cheap little scam, didn't they? Just total suckers for the low-budget hustle. 😂

That scene where Alex is driving through that absolute madness is killer—it’s raining, snowing, everything is going to hell, but then you look out his rearview mirror and it’s like there isn't a single drop falling behind his car. It’s wild. 😲 I don't even know where to start with this one, honestly. It’s just one of those days where everything feels like a massive, exhausting joke, you know? Like you're staring at a brick wall and someone expects you to find the hidden door. It’s all just noise at this point. 😲 It’s like the car and Alex are both just trying to shake off the bad weather like it's some kind of curse. 🙏 🙏

🤣

Man, I totally missed that detail. 😁

I noticed that the exact second the ice breaks through the windshield, the hail just stops hitting—like the rest of the scene just shuts off. You know what I mean? It’s like God was just taking aim at him until he finally landed a direct hit, and then He was just done with it. 🙏

So then Alex starts breaking down, crying his eyes out because the guy actually died, hops out of the car—you can still see the body slumped right there in the driver's seat—goes over to comfort this pregnant woman, and then he just wanders back, climbs back into the driver's side, and suddenly the guy is gone like he vanished into thin air. 😁

Jerry Adams71 said:These kinds of movies come from a studio that basically specializes in churning out dirt-cheap rip-offs of big Hollywood blockbusters meant straight for home video. It’s the same old playbook: when Transformers hits theaters, they drop Transmorphers, when The Day the Earth Stood Still comes out, they pump out some low-budget imitation, and now they're doing the exact same thing with 2012.

The outfit behind this mess is called "Faith Films" (web). I couldn't dig up anything remotely intelligent about them, but they don't look like your run-of-the-mill copycat crew.

Honestly, it’s pretty obvious they saw that massive 2012 blockbuster coming down the tracks and decided to jump on the bandwagon to grab a quick buck.

Megan Diaz33 said:In the lab, she’s staring at the computer claiming C14 dating proves the crisis happened between 300-600 BC.
Now the second guy pipes up: Does that prove the Maya had crises too?
And the third one hits back: No, it proves Christians discovered America before Columbus. 🙏 🙏 😂

Man, that whole exchange is just priceless. 🤣

First off, they're trying to date gold using first C14 methods. 😁
Then there's this gem of deduction—absolute peak comedy right there. 🙂

I also love that photographer who acts all hesitant about working with this crazy woman, only to flip-flop in the very next sentence without anyone even having to talk him into it. 😁

It honestly feels like the filmmakers were desperately trying to churn out some evangelistic flick and were sweating over how to actually make it hit with an audience... until someone had that lightbulb moment: "Hey, let's just slap a Mayan prophecy theme on it since people are totally obsessed with that," and then they just forced the Christians into the Mayan story to make it fit. 😁

Megan Diaz33 said:Look, I’ll just come out and say it—I’m actually kind of embarrassed that I sat through that movie over the weekend. 🙈 🤣

Fuck, I honestly can't remember the last time I watched something this bad. It felt like the whole damn thing was filmed inside a cramped studio set rather than anywhere real.🤣
And before I even hit play, people were hyping it up, telling me there were these incredible scenes—you know, how the water somehow made its way to Tibet and all that crap... Ari sits through the entire movie waiting for one single moment like that, but absolutely nothing happens. 🤣 There's basically zero action in this thing. 🤣
I was struggling so hard, but I forced myself to see it through to the end. 😢

Favorite moments? 😁

It just reminded me of those scenes where a new character walks in and it feels like the actors didn't even get a script, they're just winging it on the spot. "Frank, um, (does some random gesture and covers his mouth while looking at a beast nearby), this is, um, Dr. um, Trish lan (beast looks confused again)." It's like the actor couldn't even remember their own character's name, but apparently, it was too much work to redo the scene because of it. 😂

David Price5 said:So it’s actually so bad that it circles all the way back to being good?

Hypnotic? Sure. Good? Not even close, man. It doesn't even touch that level. This thing is so spectacularly terrible that it bypasses that whole "so bad it's good" phase entirely, loops right back to the start, and hits a brand new peak of pure suck 😁

I was honestly hoping I could get a kick out of roasting some scenes here on the forum, but it looks like hardly anyone even watched this crap, so I guess I'm being robbed of that little pleasure too 😁

Eric Garcia85 said:It’s a total tragedy; honestly, you’re better off just avoiding it entirely. I accidentally downloaded it and sat through the whole thing by mistake. What a complete waste of a burned disc. 🤮 🤮 🤮

But you actually finished it, didn't you? 😁 Personally, I figured out within the first fifteen minutes that we were looking at an unprecedented pile of garbage, but I couldn't quite look away—it was like some twisted compulsion to see if it could actually get any worse, and man, did it deliver. The movie somehow manages to tank in quality with every passing minute, and the climax is just out of this world bad. 😁

Austin Ward4 said:I accidentally clicked on this thinking it was that one movie currently playing in theaters... what a total train wreck.🙂

I’m honestly just sitting here floored. But look, there are some absolutely priceless gems buried in this movie—like how every single character, in the middle of total panic and pure chaos, keeps blabbing "my gosh" or "oh my gosh." It’s like the director was too embarrassed to actually write characters who would even bother invoking God's name without a damn good reason. 🙂

Then you've got that whole cheesy happy reunion at the end where the shot slows down, everyone’s hugging it out, and the credits just keep rolling over the top.

That scene in the ambulance where they’re talking while driving? It was obviously shot from behind the scenes, and honestly, my favorite part is how they just jerk the camera up and down to fake the motion—it's such a cheap trick. 😁

element - rain and snow 🤣

Anyone else catch this absolute pile of trash?
Look, I'm not talking about some massive blockbuster currently tearing up the box office—this has absolutely nothing to do with that.

trailer : trailer : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=example

I’m honestly floored by how much of a disaster this movie was, right down to the last microscopic detail. It’s not even one of those "so bad it's good" flicks you can sit on the couch with your buddies and laugh at, because it’s just too exhausting to even deal with. I’ve been stuck at home under the weather, looking for something brainless to zone out to, so I figured I’d power through it until the end—and man, I’m speechless. It’s genuinely hard to wrap my head around the fact that someone actually sat down and made this absolute garbage with a straight face. 😳

Look, if there are any other survivors left from this absolute train wreck, let's get together and swap notes on our favorite "highlights" from the disaster. 😁

Arthur Anderson49 said:Okay, I can roll with that, but honestly, this means we really need to nail down a definition for the verb "to exist" just so this debate can actually move forward.

I'm not so sure that any kind of "ratio" in nature actually "exists." A ratio doesn't have a purpose or a function of its own. It only "exists" if there's an observer there to see it.

A ratio is the result of a comparison, and a comparison is an action, not a physical object. You can't have the action without someone or something doing the comparing. There are only the objects that *could* potentially be compared—but only if there's a comparator present.

In that sense, I'm also arguing that numbers don't exist. Numbers only exist as a possibility that comes to life once a counter shows up.

Let’s swap out the word 'exist' for 'real.' My take is that the patterns math describes are real—meaning they work perfectly fine regardless of whether we stumble upon them or invent some fancy way to write them down. Think about it: if some alien creature halfway across the galaxy decided to compare a circle's circumference to its diameter, they’d end up with the exact same value we call Pi, no matter how they perceive it, how they record it, or if they even bother calling it a ratio. Even in a cold, dead universe void of any intelligent life, that mathematical truth would still hold sway as a fundamental law, even if there isn't a single soul around to notice it.

There’s Pi as a human convention, sure, but then there’s Pi as the actual relationship it represents. And that underlying reality? That part is completely independent of us.

MrBeast, look, just because our description of something isn't pinpoint accurate doesn't mean the thing itself isn't real. It’s basic logic—I exist right now, even if your entire perception of me is stuck inside the text of my posts. If you suddenly blinked out of existence, I wouldn't just vanish into thin air 😁
.
It's the same deal with colors; "color" is just the label we slap onto the way certain electromagnetic frequencies reflect back at us. Or take Pi—that's just our shorthand for the ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter. And honestly, you can write that down with perfect, surgical precision; in math, at least, we have the luxury of actually knowing what we're talking about
.
So, how can a ratio exist if it's supposedly just a product of human perception? It exists as a fundamental rule, a pattern baked into the universe that stays put whether anyone is watching or not. Maybe some alien intelligence out there perceives reality through a totally different lens and wouldn't bother naming it, but that doesn't change the fact that the math behind it is absolute
.
Even if we couldn't wrap our heads around the decimal expansion of Pi, we could still manipulate it algebraically simply because we understand what it represents. You just invent a symbol for it and call it a day. At the end of the day, worrying about how precisely we can write it out in base ten is a completely irrelevant limitation
.

Mark Torres14 said:It exists in a "limbo" of possibility. Think quantum mechanics. Meaning—subjectivity—only kicks in once a human perceives it. I don't believe objective value judgments exist. Period. The whole concept of a "judgment" basically requires a conscious being aware of itself and its surroundings. The "self" is the foundation for making any judgment at all. Even if we run into another intelligence out there, I still don't think they'd have "objective" values. Essentially, claiming objective values exist implies the existence of God, if you define God as something sitting above and outside human consciousness.

That's an interesting way to look at it, mostly because quantum mechanics is basically what's blowing open all our old ways of thinking. You've got this wild idea that a particle isn't even really in any specific state until we force its hand and make it manifest a result, which explains why physicists spent decades losing their minds over experimental data while trying to cram the entire universe into these neat little models of particles just doing stuff.

The truth is, reality is just one continuous transition from one state to another, driven by some mathematical logic that the universe follows—logic that’s, frankly, pretty counterintuitive, so it took us forever to finally observe enough patterns to actually write down and describe how it works. Particles aren't the "thing" itself; they're just the mental map we use, and the weird behavior we see is just the underlying machinery showing through the cracks of our model.

It's the same deal with language: every concept we define is out there existing perfectly fine without us ever giving it a label. It's just a specific configuration of reality that we eventually decided to slap a name on.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

I gotta say, MrBeast, you're totally out of your depth here, which honestly catches me off guard. It happens to the best of us, I guess. 😉

Look, sure, we can't write out pi as a clean decimal, but we can express it perfectly through multiple different methods. Besides, pi exists because it defines the relationship between a circle's diameter and its circumference. Sure, pi is an abstract concept, but the existence of that mathematical relationship doesn't depend on whether some guy in a lab coat perceives it or not. Humans just picked a specific language to describe what's already happening.

Even if humanity vanished tomorrow, nobody would be calling it "pi," but circles and their ratios would still exist exactly as they are right now.

It's the same deal with numbers—they're just our way of mapping out patterns that are baked into reality. "1" doesn't exist without us, but the concept of "oneness" or having a single distinct object is a property of the universe regardless of us. So, numbers exist as a framework built on top of those truths, whether anyone is around to notice them or not.

"If a tree falls down in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Can someone (with an actual brain) explain what this drug actually is and if it’s going to give me a third breast or something? Seriously. I’ve heard every crazy theory under the sun. Over in Austria, they prescribe it like it’s nothing, but over here, you practically get burned at the stake just for bringing it up.

Here’s the deal. After spending way too much time bouncing between doctors who basically treated me like I was losing my mind—giving me those patronizing little smiles and suggesting I just take some happy pills to feel better—I decided to head into civilization. In Vienna, a doctor actually took me seriously and figured out that a) my head hurts like hell and b) I’m constantly crashing because my vertebral artery is being pinched, which isn't helping since it's a bit thin and lacks elasticity. So, he gave me this plan:

1) Neck muscle exercises to fix the tension and loosen things up
2) Dihydergot to help sort out that vertebral issue

The guy actually tested his theory about the neck spasms by injecting a relaxant right into the spot. It worked, honestly. Then I went to get the whole thing blessed by an American neurologist, who reacted to the mention of Dihydergot like 😈 then like 😠 and finally like 🙄. She acted like it’s strictly forbidden, like it's only something they hand out in the wild parts of South America, or like it's some massive scandal. The nečastiv guy uses it like it's some kind of promotional candy.

Anyway, long story short, the American neurologist thinks my issues are mostly psychogenic and wants me on Helex instead. If I’m still hurting, she says I should just pop some Maxal.

So, who’s the crazy one here? Me, the doctor in Vienna, or the American neurologist? And does anyone actually know anything reliable about Dihydergot? By the way, I’m not a pill addict. If there are multiple ways to fix this, I’m picking the one with the fewest pills and the most actual effort involved.