Posts by Jesse Cook4

Jason Ortiz5 said:Man, you just don't get it... What would we even do with all those extra religion teachers? Where would they even work?

Not to mention how embarrassing that would be for the church itself... Totally unacceptable...

I actually had some American colleagues visiting the other day. Americans are EXTREMELY religious; they take that stuff very seriously.

But they were absolutely horrified by the mere idea of organizing religious education in our public schools—let alone when I told them about a few specific incidents (like a teacher tearing down displays the kids put up for Halloween etc).

I won't stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but they found the whole thing bizarre...

What would be the big deal if religious studies in school were only as frequent as people actually show up to church?

Twice a year, maybe twice a year... why does school need to be more Catholic than the Pope? 🙂

electricpilot4 said:I honestly have no intention of getting dragged into this debate, so please consider this my first and final word on the matter!
It’s quite fascinating how true believers—specifically Roman Catholics, rather than just some fringe extremist groups—actually coexist beautifully with scientific discovery, including the theory of evolution. After all, one day in the eyes of the Lord is akin to a hundred years on Earth, isn't it?
Similarly, mainstream Catholics don't find themselves at odds with medical advancements like IVF, provided we aren't discussing sperm donation.
You know, despite what some might assume, people of faith are certainly not lacking in intelligence, and I truly believe it is entirely possible to be both a deep intellectual and a devoted believer; the trick, I suppose, is to actually study your faith deeply enough to move past those overly simplified Sunday school stories.
Now, I'm not suggesting religious studies should be mandatory in our public schools, but I do find it rather disheartening to see such an intense clash between intolerant, narrow-minded religious types and fiercely tolerant atheists or agnostics.

On what date did an infallible Pope admit he was wrong and declare that Christian doctrine now officially accepts evolution?

Pretty sure that happened quite recently.

hiddenscout44 said:It’s definitely not secular. Secularism means a total separation of church and state. Period. That means everything the government touches has to be completely free of religious influence. Since schools are public institutions, religious studies shouldn't have any business being part of the official curriculum... I don't have a problem with schools letting churches rent out space for religious classes, but that should be an after-school activity, not part of the actual school day...

Totally. A lot of European Union countries, including the US, aren't even close to what actual secularism looks like. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing—especially if a nation thrives because of that community connection. But the issue I see with Americans is that we don't actually prosper because of religion. If anything, religion has always been the thing pushing us toward being submissive and stuck in this outdated, servant-class mindset, just like it does today. On the flip side, look at how things work in places like Denmark, where you have Krifa—that influential association of Christian labor unions. They’re an actual organization fighting for better worker rights based on Christian values. That is worlds away from our version, where you've got these feudalistic priests more interested in building themselves monuments out of onyx than actually helping people. They lose their minds the second some progressive Pope suggests the church should actually try to connect with real people... So, the real problem isn't religion itself, it's the way it's used by certain people here to spread a primitive worldview...

See, that’s exactly where it gets messy: ethics and morality are two totally different beasts that can end up looking at the same problem from opposite sides...
So, I was just digging into this whole "ethics vs. morals" debate... it’s actually pretty wild how much people mix them up. Basically, think of it like this: Morals are that internal compass you carry around. It's your personal gut feeling about what's right and wrong—the stuff your family or your upbringing drilled into your head. It's deeply personal, almost instinctive... Ethics? That’s a different beast entirely. Ethics are the external rules provided by an outside source, like your job or a professional organization. Like, if you're working at a big firm in NYC, there's a code of conduct you have to follow regardless of how you feel personally. You might personally disagree with a rule, but ethically, you still gotta play by the book... One is about who you are deep down, and the other is about how you act within a specific group or system. They overlap a lot, sure, but they aren't the same thing at all...

The biggest issue right now is how the church sticks its nose into ethics and tries to dictate the rules for society on everything from marriage and death to abortion and education... all based on these primitive, outdated views. And it’s even worse because certain people within the church—and I’m being careful not to say "religious people," since most aren't even religious fanatics who just use faith to vent their frustrations—these specific types feel like they have the right to call the shots... forcing it... People love telling everyone else how to live their lives. In actually secular countries, people just lead by example and show you how it's done through their own actions. But here? It's just our backwater priests preaching at us when they can't even set a decent example themselves with their own trash morality...

So here's my bottom line: since schools basically bake a certain worldview into everything they teach, I really don't want my kid getting brainwashed by those primitive ideas the local church keeps pushing on Americans... but if they were spreading prosperity-driven ideas like Krifa does in Denmark, then I'd actually be all for it

Sure, it's "secular," but only one way—as long as you don't even dream about the government meddling in church affairs, spaces, or messages. There's this impenetrable wall protecting them, and any attempt to challenge it is dismissed with a bunch of "but blah blah blah." 😉

mistydrifter55 said:Here is the full list, with my best regards.

I'm with the majority here regarding why religious instruction doesn't belong in public schools.

And let me add one more thing.
It's fundamentally illogical for religion to be part of the standard school curriculum.
Here's the reason: on one hand, students are taught creationism, and from day one, they're being programmed with a specific view of how everything came to be.
Then, in later grades, they're taught the evolutionary concept of origin and we expect them not to lose their minds from the conflicting information. How can we expect them to become educated, high-quality scientists or intellectuals if we're feeding them this kind of double bind?
There's just no logic to it.

Look, kids can still become scientists. Why not? As long as they accept that doing so makes them evil and destined for hell. 👍

Honestly, I struggle to think of anything that would do more psychological damage to kids in school.

redridge13 said:Nah, that’s just not how it works...
At my local high school, they definitely could have put together a separate group for the kids skipping religion, but they chose not to.
The real reason? It's probably because doing that would actually free up two hours of instructional time in the weekly schedule, and heaven forbid anyone disrupts the status quo. 🙄
We all know whose interests are being protected most within our American school system. ☕

The whole point is to take the pressure off kids in non-believing families so they aren't constantly being pushed toward the "right path."

If we made religious education mandatory in schools, the equivalent would be forcing lectures on materialism right in the middle of Mass. Not before, not after—dead center. And anyone who doesn't want to listen? They can just stand in the back and deal with it.

Sean Sanchez14 said:So, here’s the deal.
I really hope I’m posting this in the right spot. I’ve actually mentioned how much I’ve been struggling on this forum before, but things just keep getting worse. So, there's this ex of mine, right? He basically kicked me out of our apartment because he was totally intimidated by his sister, and now he’s acting all regretful—but honestly, what does that even mean? Everything has just spiraled. I ended up in the ER on meds and everything... life is just hitting me hard lately.
The other day, I happened to catch a glimpse of a conversation they had where he was basically saying I’m "not right" and that he doesn't even want to see me, yet the guy shows up at my job three times a week just to grab coffee 🤔 and if I give him a call, he’s right there, hugging me and kissing me...
But then she’s the one calling all the shots. Every single time he tries to head home, she forbids him from contacting me. She’s only two years younger than him, but she acts like the boss of the entire household—she’s basically running the show for everyone, including their parents and the whole crew...
I just don't get it. How can a grown man be so terrified of some girl who’s basically just a pretender? Is it just me, or is it crazy how everyone seems to be under her thumb?
It’s so hard for me to wrap my head around this mess... she tells him one thing, but he says something completely different to me?
He told me a long time ago that he’s always been this way with every girl he’s ever dated...
Has anyone else ever dealt with something this insane? 😠

So what now? We all have to be perfectly equal and liberated, but apparently, some guys still feel like they need to be able to bully women to feel like men.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Give me a break. It’s a total miracle how all the other electives somehow manage to avoid being scheduled in the middle of the day.

lonebadger6 said:Let’s play a little game, shall we... let's pretend I'm the moderator of this politics forum just so I can walk you through how I’d handle things, along with my reasoning (it doesn't matter if I moderate somewhere else; here I'm just a user, and there I'm just a user, so feel free to play along)...

0. Taking everything that follows into account, I actually agree with what Ryan Vaughn7 did, because honestly, you all brought this on yourselves. From the very jump, the thread wasn't normal, wasn't argued, and lacked any kind of actual quality discussion.

But, let's say it hadn't been locked.

1. The whole thing kicked off because of some banal comment by a man claiming women are more intelligent. It was a pretty stupid take, but calling it outright misandry is a massive stretch. Comparing it to skin color is completely off base, but I won't dive too deep into that, since the point isn't the opening post, but rather how I would have moderated it.
I'd agree that the Morning somewhat misanthropic headline is basically misandrist—though really, it's less about misandry and more just pure stupidity...

2. Morgan Rodriguez57 gets a custom 100 points for trolling, commenting on moderation, and being intentionally obtuse since they know they shouldn't be doing that (there's a separate thread for those kinds of comments).

3. dernakamal gets 30 points for trolling/off-topic posts.

4. Whatever anyone personally thinks about Hap's post—it's fine.

5. Jesse Cook4 -- deletion and a yellow card.

6. dernakamal—this is where you start seeing why the thread needs to be shut down; an unargued claim.

7. surround—all good.

8. Jesse Cook4—confirming there is absolutely no appetite, not just from him, but generally, for even attempting a normal, reasoned debate on this topic.

Ryan Vaughn7 simply took the shortcut and closed the thread without handing out a few deserved cards, which means certain people, especially Morgan Rodriguez57, got off easy. There you have it 🙂

Look, regardless of what people think about my "bad intentions," this specific point is just nonsense. If someone was bothered by the irony in my previous comment, fine. But here, I’m simply pointing out that a nearly identical thread was shut down abruptly after someone asked a question.

Tax collection is a nightmare because people always find ways to fudge their residency status. Honestly, we should just shift the entire tax burden from income to property—you can't exactly hide a house. Live wherever you want, fine, but deal with it. Besides, seeing folks who own massive estates but claim zero income is such a weird, uniquely American phenomenon... and frankly, it makes no sense.

Just be ready for them to rob you blind. 🙂 As soon as I started paying attention, I was floored by how many people in this city are just scanning everything, looking for anything useful they can swipe.

the edge said:I respect different opinions and strong convictions. But honestly, if you're out in the woods hoping to run into Milan Mlađan instead of a squirrel, you've got some serious issues.

Srđan Mlađan. 🙂

Carol Diaz said:A true animal🤣

Human life is sacred. Human life holds more value than any animal. The life of a single serial killer outweighs the lives of every dog currently existing on this planet.

There are no moral dilemmas here. Animals are primitive tools and resources utilized by humans to satisfy their own needs—including the needs of lonely individuals seeking emotional companionship. To even attempt to draw a pseudo-nationalist parallel between the hierarchy of human value and our relationship with animals is nothing short of perverse.
Human life is sacred. Human life holds more value than any animal. The life of a single serial killer outweighs the lives of every dog currently existing on this planet.

There are no moral dilemmas here. Animals are primitive tools and resources utilized by humans to satisfy their own needs—including the needs of lonely individuals seeking emotional companionship. To even attempt to draw a pseudo-nationalist parallel between the hierarchy of human value and our relationship with animals is nothing short of perverse.
Yeah, there's the core of it... some people think they're "worth more" than other animals...
It's just as valid to claim bears or squirrels are "worth more" than other animals.

Or, looking at it from the other side, that one specific human is "worth more" than all other animals—including great apes.
Take Stalin, for example. 🙂

For instance, I could personally decide I'm the most beautiful being alive and that every other creature, including other people, exists solely to "satisfy my needs." 😵

Objectively speaking, the value of any species can only be evaluated within the context of the entire ecosystem. In that sense, humans are basically just an invasive species...

The theory that humans "matter more" because we have "cultural heritage" ignores the fact that most of that "heritage" is total garbage and trivial junk. Plus, most people don't even have three clean thoughts between them. And fundamentally—as far as we know—humans are the only ones currently possessing culture.

A million years from now, or a hundred million... who knows where any species will evolve to.

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:Then explain to me why we are constantly hearing about being "threatened" when we aren't the ones in danger—it is clearly you who are.

You've got a perfect example right there. Once a year, some article pops up about workplace accident rates in the US. They list how many people were injured, how many became disabled, and how many died on the job.

When it comes to injuries, men are hit twice as hard. And when it comes to fatalities, it's almost exclusively men.

That's a solid, undeniable argument regarding just how burdened—or "threatened"—one gender is compared to the other in our society, or any society for that matter.

Everything else is just noise: people arguing over perceptions, who didn't get enough affection growing up, or legal rights that people are too afraid to exercise because they're worried about what the neighbors will think, which is basically 🙂

boldwalker12 said:It’s precisely because society still views the mom as the primary caregiver while the dad gets more freedom and way fewer responsibilities. Like I said before, we're just dealing with the leftovers of old-school patriarchal norms.

Give me a break... 😂

Hold on, I might choke on this... 😂 😂 😂

PS Does the fact that the principle of maternity is reserved strictly for mothers mean that fathers have more leeway and fewer responsibilities?

"The perpetrator can only be the mother. If another person commits the act, but the mother instigates or assists them during childbirth or immediately after birth while suffering from postpartum complications, she will be considered an accomplice, and the other person will be charged with murder."

Charles Howard74 said:Listen, just go out there and find some farmer who needs grass for his cattle, then have them mow it for you for free. Why bother planting forests? Who’s actually gonna deal with pulling up all those stumps later? Where do you even find people like that these days?

The Vrbovec-Krizevac move...

Question - total city boy here, thinking about buying some land...

I wasn't originally looking to buy much, just enough for a house, but the sellers are playing hardball—it’s all or nothing. They’re older folks looking to downsize into a condo, and honestly, the price is too good to pass up.

So, besides the lot for my house, I’d end up with about a dozen extra parcels of farmland and timberland. We're talking several acres in total.

Full disclosure: there is zero chance I’m actually going to farm any of this. My idea was maybe plant some trees on the plots where it makes sense geometrically and just let them grow. I'm assuming you don't really have to "maintain" a forest, right?

Here's the real question—what kind of headaches am I walking into? What are the penalties for a landowner who just lets the land sit idle? How difficult is it to lease out or sell these pieces (and what does the tax/fee structure look like)? Also, can I just plant trees like that, or is there heavy oversight/regulations involved?

I really don't want to buy something that ends up being a massive anchor around my neck. Any advice is appreciated.

Paul Davis51 said:I’m curious why anyone even bothers with Presta valves. Is there an actual reason they're better for cycling? 😕

The eternal debate... basically, they can hold higher pressure than those standard Schrader car valves, which is a necessity for certain builds (like road bikes). Plus, the diameter is smaller, meaning the rim hole is tighter—which makes for a sturdier rim, and honestly, you couldn't fit a car valve in there even if you tried.