CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › urbangull90 › Posts

Posts by urbangull90

41 posts shown.

Moderation for PDF: Edge of Science II Alternatives in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Matthew Castillo5 said:If someone, despite having access to all the facts, decides to try and treat their cancer with fruit juice, shark cartilage, bioenergy, or by visiting Ivo Pavić and praying instead of using actual medical services, that's on them. They own that choice and they deal with the consequences.

Besides, official stances on whether certain foods are "good" or "bad" change all the time anyway. One day lard is the villain, then butter is the enemy, and suddenly margarine is the only way to go—only for them to turn around later and show that margarine might actually be the worst of the three.

In my humble opinion, moderators shouldn't be playing judge and jury over whether someone's opinion is "correct." Their job is to make sure the conversation stays civilized. At the end of the day, people have the right to hold views that others might completely disagree with.

And look, that’s fine for adults making their own mistakes. But the real issue starts when these moral monstrosities keep trumpeting the idea that vaccines are dangerous despite overwhelming evidence, which basically puts children's lives at risk through proxy.

The alternative sub-forum shouldn't—meaning, it really shouldn't—become a breeding ground for anti-vax hysteria. You can't help the idiots or the lunatics, but we should at least try to protect the blessed fools from parents who will happily refuse to vaccinate their kids just because they read some nonsense online! Or because it's posted on some massive internet board! There's even this one guy who claims a nurse told him that none of the doctors vaccinate their own children—now, why on earth would anyone think that's true?!?!?!?!!!!!!one

urbangull90
Alternative treatments (vaccinations) - moderators in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Look, democracy isn't some kind of free pass to just declare absolute nonsense or completely unhinged ideas as "miraculous" when there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to back them up.

urbangull90
Religion classes in school - Megathread in Students & Teens ·
Lawrence Torres56 said:
says:
but wait, if believing in Santa Claus is considered BELIEF, then isn't Catholicism basically just the study of belief? (I mean, that's literally what the word implies). So, shouldn't they be teaching about the belief in Santa Claus in religion class too? Or is this strictly limited to Catholic religion classes (and where exactly does it say that?)

Look, Santa Claus is all about marketing; he's got absolutely nothing to do with actual faith or any kind of theology😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

Christmas and Santa Claus aren't even in the same universe; Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, whereas Santa Claus is just some character cooked up to drive consumer spending...
and honestly, once people stop trying to link every single little thing to Christmas, I doubt religious instructors are going to be out here ruining anyone's holiday vibes.
And speaking of "ruining someone's vibes"—what's that supposed to mean? Are we saying the police shouldn't step in when some unstable person starts attacking someone because it might ruin their "magic"?🤣

So, where is the actual issue there? Why should teachers and staff be bogged down every single year with unnecessary paperwork just because some parent finds it too much work to write a quick note to the school before the new semester starts, letting them know their kid won't be attending religion class anymore?🤣
Do you seriously think someone who signed their kid up for religion class just "because everyone else is doing it" is actually going to go out of their way to unenroll them?🤦

I'll just leave it here...

👏

urbangull90
I reported this post to the mod team in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Gerald Rivera17 said:So far, not a single post I’ve flagged using the report button has actually resulted in any kind of disciplinary action—not even a simple courtesy reply or some feedback to let me know it was seen. I figured I’d start a thread about this specific post just to see if I can get an actual response out of anyone here...

Because at the end of the day, we’re talking about a moderator...

The mod in question is going around calling two distinguished academics—professors, PhDs, members of the National Academy of Sciences, basically—nothing but "vampires," all because they don't align with his personal views...

If any regular user on this board said stuff like that, they’d be banned before they could blink. It makes me wonder—do the mods actually have to follow the rules too? Or are they above them?...

To be fair, the moderator isn't technically wrong. I mean, strictly speaking, they aren't vampires—since those things don't exist in reality—but still...

urbangull90
Insulting public figures and hate speech in the Politics subforum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Just a theoretical question here:

If Franjo Tuđman was once a member of the Communist Party, and then he eventually broke away from them, isn't it technically possible that he could have swung all the way the other way and become a fascist?

urbangull90

p.s. I'm not actually suggesting that's what happened, I'm just asking as a matter of principle...
ZK strikes again! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
brightcrane56 said:So, basically, anyone who took that post as an insult to believers is just an idiot, and you moderators are the only ones with any sense.
Well, that’s exactly what I’m getting at—that right there is the core issue with how this whole board is moderated.

Why would they be idiots? Look, there was a disclaimer clearly stated—you can agree with it or not, but it was plain as day—so if people still read that post and think it's an attack on faith, they could be anything from being impulsive or distracted to being genuinely malicious, totally checked out, dealing with ADHD, or just completely illiterate...

The possibilities are endless.

SF
ZK strikes again! in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Megan Torres said:Fine, I’ll play by the rules, but then you guys better start playing by them too.

It’s always the same thing—as soon as some "controversial" thread pops up here on ZK... honestly, nobody can figure out the criteria for why certain people get a pass while others don't, but sure, let's just watch the same old pattern repeat itself.

I go into these threads expecting a little bit of healthy, irreverent banter, but instead, I realize I'm just looking at the same predictable cycle we see in every single one of these discussions.

The mods swoop in and ban me for addressing someone directly with an insult, yet JPK doesn't get flagged even though he was loud and clear about calling me an idiot.

this didn't get banned;

while my response to them gets me tossed out...😕

(...)

Regarding my own post, I’d really appreciate it if you’d take another look at the back-and-forth between that guy and me that happened right before what I wrote.

If anything is confusing you, I'm more than happy to walk you through it.

SF

p.s. Honestly, I couldn't care less if he got banned for those posts aimed at me. It's not like I went running to the mods asking for him to be kicked. At the end of the day, we all just leave our posts behind for ourselves to live with...
The issue with cardboard recycling in Feedback & Suggestions ·
casualharbor3 said:Those brains poisoned by communism just can't wrap their heads around it, but that’s how people actually lived (as I described)—those so-called "internal enemies and dishonest intellectuals."

So, either you skipped school entirely, or you went, but clearly nothing stuck...

Anyway, I'm OFF. Daniel Ward87, (or whatever admin or supermod is babysitting this subforum), please feel free to hit me with an appropriate penalty for being off-topic, trolling, or just dragging out a useless argument after a moderator warning/________________ (add whatever fits here). Honestly, I probably deserve it since I'm apparently too thick to figure out who's actually worth talking to in the first place...

Thanks for listening.

SF
The issue with cardboard recycling in Feedback & Suggestions ·
casualharbor3 said:Only if you were some climate change activist, stayed far away from politics, and made sure to spend your weekends at Republic Square in the city watching lectures about our "beloved dictator."
Back home, we had dear Comrade Marshall, the white violet, while over in North Korea, they have their own beloved leader. ☕

Did you actually attend school back in the old days under the old regime? Did you even go to school at all?

Good grief, reading your posts is really bringing back memories of life before the '90s—it’s only now, looking back through your words, that I remember how a random cop or a soldier would rough me up on my way to class, or how they’d snatch whatever lunch money I had left after school just because they could. And it wasn't even because the country was so oppressed by those moronic communists (and why call them morons? What else do you call people who take every teacher deemed an enemy of the system and shove them into one school, effectively breeding the very people who will eventually tear down and destroy democracy?) that we didn't have enough to eat. They even peeled bark off trees to survive, the absolute bastards.

We lived on nothing but thin air and pure American spirit.

SF
The issue with cardboard recycling in Feedback & Suggestions ·
casualharbor3 said:(...)
America was such a democratic country that my grandmother was punished by being transferred to a different school, and she almost lost her job altogether because she was an educator who attended church. My grandfather was an officer in the home guard after the war and couldn't find work anywhere. They survived solely on my grandmother's teacher's salary.

So, basically, Grandma had a job. And she earned enough that they could (obviously) make a living. We can debate the quality of life all we want, sure.

By the way, France is pretty famous for how Vichy officials and soldiers just automatically landed jobs right after the war...

casualharbor3 said:My grandma and mom had me baptized on the sly. I was baptized at St. Mark's Church in the Upper Town. So much for that "democratic American communist regime."🙂

Aha, so you could still get kids baptized? It wasn't actually banned? 😂

And those baptized kids still went to (free) school, went to (free) college, got (free) medical care in hospitals...

SF
Censorship in the Law subforum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
granitegull51 said:Oh, come on, stop lecturing everyone like we haven't all figured this out already. It’s blindingly obvious that these kinds of topics are just a massive, festering wound on the reputation of our legal institutions—you know, those pillars of justice that are supposedly actually doing their jobs.

So, look, you can go ahead and delete or censor whatever threads you want if that’s how you want to play it, but don't kid yourself—they aren't actually gone. They just end up sitting there, archived somewhere else, tucked away out of sight. It’s all just moving things from one folder to another, really.👍👍👍👍👍

granitegull51 said:"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Honestly, if you take enough time to sit back and look at how things actually work around here, that line hits a little too close to home, doesn't it? It’s easy to get caught up in the noise, thinking there's some grand design or some group of people actually looking out for us, but once you stop expecting anything from the powers that be, the cynicism starts feeling less like a burden and more like a survival tactic. You just sort of drift through the chaos, watching the same old patterns repeat themselves, realizing that the most peaceful state of mind is probably just staying detached and keeping your own counsel.

Go ahead and let her delete whatever threads she deems "inappropriate"—it’s all just a way to scrub the record anyway, since everything eventually circles back to him regardless. 😁

Yeah, that's just how it goes. ЗАВЕРА!

🙄

I mean, honestly, looking at this whole mess, you just have to wonder where we went wrong, doesn't it? It’s like we’re all just circling the drain, watching the same old patterns repeat themselves while everyone pretends everything is fine. I was thinking about it earlier—just sitting there, staring at the news—and it struck me how little has actually changed, despite all the noise and the constant shouting matches on cable news. It feels heavy, you know? That kind of deep, bone-tired exhaustion that comes from realizing the systems we're supposed to trust are basically held together by duct tape and wishful thinking. It’s almost funny if you don't find it absolutely depressing. Anyway, just my two cents. Probably doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Partials at MK in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I already told you what actually set the trigger for that last ban. This is only my second time back in such a short window, and since they wiped out almost everything I ever posted on Reddit, I guess I’ve effectively shielded myself from getting banned again for a while.

MK is definitely a bit of a troll, if we're being honest. But even he can't get away with those kinds of provocations; the mods have already warned him about that stuff multiple times after the PM stepped in.

Look, let's be crystal clear about this one because there’s no room for debate: sex with minors is strictly prohibited under US Federal Law. It's one of those non-negotiable lines in the sand that we all have to respect. Look, I’m not even joking here—it’s not like we’re just messing around; this isn't a violation of the Reddit rules, nor is it a breach of US Federal Law, which is stuff we're all technically obligated to follow anyway.

LP Quote

Jose Ruiz2 said:Man, the only real screw-up I made was posting that photo from some random user—she wasn't even the person in the picture, just had a similar handle—and yeah, I already sent you an apology via DM, didn't I? So then I end up getting into this back-and-forth with this one guy who started coming at me with all kinds of insults, which honestly, I guess that photo hit him way harder than I expected, and suddenly there I am, getting slapped with 100 points. My first official warning from MK. Then, while everything was still blowing up, I managed to rack up two more warnings, one for 10 points and another for 35, which eventually landed me right in the middle of a ban. It’s wild... just three strikes from MK and I'm facing a partial ban. Total joke.🤷 Sex with minors? Seriously, who exactly told you I’m over 18 or that I’ve even reached legal adulthood? It’s all so arbitrary. And don't even get me started on those trolls lurking around the forums—the ones who spend their entire lives just racking up massive amounts of karma and nothing else. It's exhausting. Meanwhile, I get hit with a partial ban just for having three karma points to my name. Makes you wonder how any of this actually works.🙄Something smells fishy here. Honestly, it feels like a backroom deal between some users and the mods, because there’s just no way you can pull off a partial payout that easily without someone pulling strings behind the scenes.🤷
I haven’t even received a single DM from a moderator, if you can believe that. I’ve got three strikes on my record and one warning because of that one photo, but honestly, I apologized, it won't happen again, and that was that.

Look, having sex with someone over the age of fifteen is perfectly legal, provided you aren't running straight into the territory covered by Article 159 or similar sections of the US Penal Code.

Sexual abuse involving a child under the age of fifteen.
I was reading through the US Penal Code earlier—just one of those rabbit holes you fall down when you can't sleep—and I stumbled upon Article 158. It’s one of those sections that really makes you stop and think about how much control the legal system actually holds over our daily lives. You know, those specific statutes that seem almost arbitrary until you realize how they shape everything we do. It’s heavy stuff, honestly. Just sitting here thinking about the implications of it all while the coffee goes cold.
So, I was reading through some legal jargon earlier—you know, that soul-crushing stuff that makes you wonder why we even bother with language—and I stumbled upon this specific section of the US Penal Code. It’s pretty heavy stuff, honestly. It basically lays out the consequences for anyone who engages in sexual intercourse, or any act that's functionally the same thing, with a child under the age of fifteen. It goes even further than just the direct act, though; it also covers those who manipulate or coerce a kid into having sex with someone else, or even trick them into performing those kinds of acts on themselves. It’s dark, grim, and exactly the kind of thing that reminds you just how messy and broken human nature can get sometimes. Just one of those things that sticks in your head and follows you around all day.
We’re looking at a prison sentence ranging from one to ten years for this.
So, I was reading through some legal jargon earlier—you know how that goes, just endless rows of dry, soul-crushing text—and I stumbled upon this specific section regarding sexual misconduct involving minors under fifteen. It’s pretty heavy stuff. Basically, if someone performs a lewd act on a child under fifteen, or even manipulates them into performing such an act with someone else or even on themselves, they're looking at serious consequences under the US Penal Code. It’s one of those parts of the law that really makes you sit back and realize just how dark things can get, though I suppose it's not exactly surprising given the state of the world we live in. Just one more grim reminder of why we need these protections in place.
We're looking at some serious jail time here—anywhere from six months up to five years, depending on how the judge feels that day.
So, according to the US Penal Code, there’s actually a loophole here—it’s not considered a crime under sections one or two if the age gap between the people involved isn't more than three years. It basically says that if they're performing any kind of sexual act or even just something equivalent to it, as long as that age difference stays within that three-year window, the law doesn't touch them. It’s one of those weirdly specific legal technicalities that makes you realize how much nuance goes into these statutes.
So, looking at this part of the US Penal Code, it’s pretty heavy stuff. Basically, if someone is under a "remissible error" misunderstanding—meaning they genuinely, albeit foolishly, believed the kid involved was at least fifteen years old—they’re still staring down a prison sentence ranging from six months up to five years. And if they were under that same kind of mistaken belief regarding the child mentioned in the second paragraph, the penalty caps out at three years. It’s one of those legal nuances that feels incredibly harsh when you really sit with it, but that's just how the system is structured.
So, if you look at how this is laid out—specifically regarding anyone committing the acts mentioned in paragraph one—it gets even messier when you factor in the heavy stuff. We're talking about someone using force, making threats, pulling some shady deception or outright fraud, or just straight-up abusing their position of power. It also covers those who exploit a child's vulnerable situation or any kind of dependency they have on that person. It’s pretty grim, honestly, but that's just how the US Penal Code handles these kinds of predatory dynamics.
they’re looking at three to fifteen years behind bars.
(6) Anyone who commits the act described in paragraph 2 through the use of force, threats, deception, fraud, or by abusing their authority or a position of power—including exploiting a child's dependency on them,
will face a prison sentence ranging from one to eight years.

Sexual abuse of a minor over the age of fifteen
Article 159.
(1) Any individual who engages in sexual intercourse, or any comparable sexual act, with a minor over fifteen who has been placed under their care for education, supervision, guardianship, or general care—or anyone who induces such a minor to engage in sexual acts with another person or performs such acts upon themselves—
shall be punished with imprisonment from six months up to five years.
(2) Under the penalties set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the same punishment applies to blood relatives, adopted family members in the same line, or stepparents who engage in sexual intercourse or comparable sexual acts with a minor over fifteen, or who induce said minor to participate in such acts with others or perform them alone.

SF
How big is a Jew's kit?" according to the moderator in Feedback & Suggestions ·
A slur for Jews.

SF
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:this feels like it's veering into threat territory...

My God, the way believers get hounded on this forum and across this whole country!

😁

SF
Is it legal to use a single signature on a PDF? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
feralranger said:
Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
I wasn't actually inquiring about the specific information you've chosen to provide.👍
Is there any actual morality to be found in defaulting on one's debts?😕

This is entirely beside the point, really, because the Vukics didn't exactly borrow money from anyone else—aside from the bank, of course, to which they were dutifully paying back their installments.

Since this isn't strictly relevant to our current topic, I’ll offer a broader observation: if a parent is facing the prospect of their children going hungry because there are no jobs available, and they happen to owe money to someone living a life of absolute luxury—well, honoring that debt simply isn't a moral imperative. In such a context, it would be nothing short of immoral and inhumane; it would be downright criminal to allow children to perish from starvation just to settle an account with those who have more than enough.

If you actually happen to have some cash on hand, yet you still refuse to settle that debt from ages ago... $33 If you are some sort of destitute retiree teetering on the very brink of starvation, then naturally, such an act becomes utterly reprehensible and morally loathsome.

Ultimately, everything hinges on the specific circumstances at hand, but if one truly desires an answer, they ought to start by employing a modicum of brainpower, consulting their conscience, and attempting to apply some basic human decency.

Debt isn't just about what you borrow, you know? It’s more complicated than that. People always act like debt only happens when you swipe a credit card or take out a loan from a bank like Chase, but it's deeper than just those transactions. It's built into the very fabric of how things move.

feralranger said:
Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
I wasn't actually inquiring about the specific information you've chosen to provide.👍
Is there any actual morality to be found in defaulting on one's debts?😕

This is entirely beside the point, really, because the Vukics didn't exactly borrow money from anyone else—aside from the bank, of course, to which they were dutifully paying back their installments.

Since this isn't strictly relevant to our current topic, I’ll offer a broader observation: if a parent is facing the prospect of their children going hungry because there are no jobs available, and they happen to owe money to someone living a life of absolute luxury—well, honoring that debt simply isn't a moral imperative. In such a context, it would be nothing short of immoral and inhumane; it would be downright criminal to allow children to perish from starvation just to settle an account with those who have more than enough.

If you actually happen to have some cash on hand, yet you still refuse to settle that debt from ages ago... $33 If you are some sort of destitute retiree teetering on the very brink of starvation, then naturally, such an act becomes utterly reprehensible and morally loathsome.

Ultimately, everything hinges on the specific circumstances at hand, but if one truly desires an answer, they ought to start by employing a modicum of brainpower, consulting their conscience, and attempting to apply some basic human decency.

That’s great, really. It’s just a shame that this is the topic we're stuck with. The New York TimesI mean, honestly, what else can you even say? It’s just one of those things where you look at the situation, realize how absurd it all is, and just kind of shrug. There isn't much point in overanalyzing it when the outcome feels pretty much set in stone anyway. Just another day in the life, I guess. Spot on.So, look, it’s basically what a bunch of people have been hammering home lately—both in this thread and over on the Law subreddit—that The New York Times is the one actually calling the shots when it comes to passing legislation.

Honestly, on a forum that’s laid out like this one—where you actually have dedicated sections for stuff like The New York Times coverage or legal discussions kept as separate entities—it would be nice if people actually tried to put their posts where they belong. It shouldn't be this hard to stick to the designated spots.

I don't know, man. I've been staring at this screen for an hour trying to wrap my head around it all, and honestly, it just feels like we're spinning our wheels in the sand. You look at what's happening, you read the latest deep dives in *The New Yorker*, and you realize how little actually changes. It’s always the same cycle. We talk, we argue, we pretend we're making progress, but then the sun goes down and we're right back where we started. Just another day in the grind.
Looking to move the May Square thread back to the main PDF in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I’m all in on this proposal, honestly. I back it 100%.

SF
We still don't actually know for sure who those people killed were.

It’s all just guesswork at this point, though some people might be more right than others about it...

I can't help but wonder: what if it turned out, say, that the people killed there were Cherkez and Chetniks? How would everyone here react then?

(Look, I’m not trying to imply that it was just Cherkez and Chetniks in that mine, or even that they were among the victims at all.)

urbangull90
Brenda Carter24 said:(...)

Look, it’s pretty simple: he either changes his tune or he needs to step down from the moderator seat once and for all.🤷

Kanye West, I feel like you totally overlooked the third option here:

Either you get kicked off the forum entirely...

which, honestly, feels like the more likely outcome to me.

SF
Local PD in Law ·
Nicholas Chavez70 said:I was exaggerating there, though I suppose that’s how it looks—following some sort of twisted, nonsensical logic where you should probably just get hammered before committing a crime just to lighten your sentence... It's a bit absurd when you really sit down and think about it, isn't it?🙄


Honestly, what kind of insane logic is that?

Your logic, apparently.

Maybe try reading what znatizeljni22 actually wrote one more time, and this time, try doing it with an ounce of comprehension...

urbangull90
test in Forum Help! ·
feraltinker10 said:1+1=5-14=22 (what kind of logic is that?)😕 😕 😕 😕

hop, hop, hop😍

test