Posts by boldwalker12

Jessica Kelly4 said:That context is perfectly valid. In almost every country in the West, this kind of activism is standard, using the exact same rhetoric and signing petitions against fetal termination. If it's allowed in the public square, why not here? Honestly, it would be more natural if it were the other way around—if this forum actually encouraged debating different ideas and claims, no matter how twisted they might seem.

But hey, it’s not banned on the forum itself. You can talk about it in the Religion section because that’s largely considered part of a religious worldview, especially here in the States.
Since the law here says abortion is legal and isn't classified as murder, I don't see why those kinds of debates belong in Politics. 🤷

Context is everything here. When a pro-life advocate uses the word "murder," they aren't just making a casual observation; the context is worlds apart from someone saying, "Yeah, I killed a spider." For those advocates, using that specific word carries this massive, heavy stigma aimed directly at women seeking abortions. It’s meant to condemn them. It’s meant to label them murderers. And it targets doctors, too. We really shouldn't pretend that this isn't on a completely different level than "killing" a bug.

Look, sure, they dehumanized them, but let’s get one thing straight: they dehumanized actual people. Not some minor flaws, not a strand of hair, and definitely not someone's fingernails. They dehumanized the entire human being. There is a massive distinction there. These were independent individuals—not some parasitic growths attached to someone else's body, sucking out nutrients while lacking the capacity to think or feel.
That whole line of reasoning is just completely invalid.
But honestly, this isn't the place to get into that specific debate.

rowdydrifter22 said:I was naive enough to hope you would respect that I am expressing my own views and reasoning rather than speaking on behalf of a majority. I have no way of knowing what others think or what they are demanding. I read what the original poster wrote and I agree with him, yet you still choose to call me a liar.
No, I am not asking for abortion to be called murder; I have stated that multiple times, quite the opposite actually. Despite this, you persist in repeating "But you constantly push for abortion to be labeled as murder," which is precisely why my criticism is directed at you as a moderator. It feels like a setup designed to slap a label on people, or at least that's how it comes across to me.
As far as I can tell, neither the thread starter nor I are demanding that abortion be classified as murder.
If there really is a user here who believes abortion is murder and wants to write about it in this thread, then direct those comments to the appropriate person, not to me or to us, but to them.

Honestly, I was naively hoping you'd actually read your own posts with a bit of comprehension. By using phrases like "we don't call anyone murderers," you basically lumped yourself in with that side, actively defending their position while pretending to know exactly what they think—even going so far as to claim "we" represent them. I see zero reason to address every single person individually when someone makes such an unambiguous move to group themselves under a "we" or "you" while doing the exact thing they claim not to do.

Also, you clearly didn't even bother reading the very first post in this thread. It seems to me you haven't read a damn thing, because the whole point of this dispute is that abortion is no longer allowed to be called murder in the Politics section.
I'm done talking about this; I'm exhausted from spinning in circles with you guys.
So, let's boil it down to three things:

- You're pushing for abortion to be called murder or some other euphemism for it.
- You're insisting that if abortion is murder, you haven't actually called anyone a murderer.
- You're drowning out those first two points with noise about everything else, muddying the waters so it stays unclear that you're essentially trying to brand people as murderers.

Go ahead, spin another circle trying to argue that I'm wrong about this or whatever, but I'm officially opting out of this merry-go-round.

Look, you're sitting here claiming you guys don't go around calling anyone murderers. But let's be real—you're constantly pushing the idea that abortion should be labeled a murder, even though the law doesn't see it that way.

rowdydrifter22 said:

boldwalker12 The user states:
It surprises me that those drawing parallels to zoophilia aren't vocalizing their complaints as well.
Look, it isn’t about whether you identify as right-wing or not; the issue is that you lot seem incapable of maintaining even a basic level of civilized discourse. Labeling women who seek abortions as murderers, or branding gay people as pedophiles and zoophiles, isn't an argument—it is pure, unadulterated primitivism. It's beneath any standard of decent human interaction. This isn't a debate.

I held off on commenting on this because I wasn't aware you were a moderator.
That was a pretty distasteful post from the moderator, so I’m adding it to the list.
Just like rowdytiger13, you’re busy slapping labels on people and attributing claims to your opponents that they never actually made. We aren't sitting here discussing whether women are killers; that’s just a point you keep repeating over and over again.So, it’s just a label now—a smear tactic that suddenly and aggressively expanded to include pedophiles, zoophiles, and primitives. Go ahead, add to the list.
The issue is simple: you cannot allow any entry that challenges the remaining ideological foundations of that movement. It is pure dogma. And you execute that quite effectively through censorship.

mistyseal8 said:It’s a classic journey, really: moving from one set of dogmas to another. It might take a little while, but eventually, we'll have a complete dictionary of all the "correct" opinions. Discussions will basically just consist of everyone nodding in agreement and giving each other pats on the back. Honestly, we already see plenty of threads like that on this forum! 👍

Yeah, sure. ZK is so famous for everyone being best buddies and constantly agreeing with each other that they even made a custom smiley just to capture that specific brand of harmony. Give me a break.

Total dogma. Talk about the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the damn log in your own.

Susan Price30 said:I find myself wondering—how much longer will our esteemed moderator above flaunt her status?

We all heard it (or rather, we read it, lol), since she basically repeated the exact same thing ten times in a row.

And?

wth?

Given how stubbornly you keep pushing certain agendas, I feel like I have every right to speak my mind. What you're trying to pass off as "freedom of speech" is actually pretty dangerous, and I'm totally against it.

If I'm breaking any rules, then fine, hand me the ban—I honestly care more about this than some digital strike. But until then, don't come at me for doing things you're doing yourself.

rowdydrifter22 said:You’ve completely misread my point. My post wasn't an invitation for a debate; it was a critique of how the moderators handle anyone who disagrees with them.
We can discuss specific topics and terminology in the appropriate threads, provided the moderators actually allow for discussion to take place.

Actually, I didn't misread a thing. You guys are basically demanding permission to call abortion murder. I already pointed out that by doing that, you're effectively labeling people as murderers. And don't even try to lie and say nobody is calling anyone a murderer.

mistyjackal14 said:For some people, the concept of "choice regarding abortion" serves as the very benchmark of a civilized society.
Yet, for others, the "child's right to life" is what defines the level of our civilization.

Both sides possess their own internal logic and arguments, and personally, when I find myself in a debate, I try to explain why my position holds an imperative weight over anyone else's.
I mean, I acknowledge the other side exists, and I recognize the necessity for different viewpoints to exist, but I use arguments to demonstrate how my perspective, in a specific instance, carries a moral imperative that cannot be ignored.

It seems useful to accept that there are people who feel the exact same depth of empathy for the victims of the Holocaust, Bleiburg, and the LGBTQ community alike.

In today's world, it is socially unacceptable to refer to Holocaust victims with certain disparaging terms, and similarly, it is socially unacceptable to speak of the victims of Bleiburg in such a way, but for many people, it is equally unacceptable to refer to the LGBTQ community with derogatory labels, especially when accompanied by appropriate smirks.

Holocaust victims were never called "uncles"—it’s honestly horrific to even joke about that or try to make a point with it.

I have no clue who is grinning or using that specific term, but I haven't seen it once from anyone on the pro-choice forums. Because let me be clear: being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion.

The second you start equating murders and genocides with abortions, we aren't having a debate anymore; we're just labeling doctors and women as murderers. I don't know why you people refuse to accept that and try to wrap it up in some other fancy wording. The person committing a murder is a murderer. Period.

rowdydrifter22 said:

boldwalker12 The user states:
It surprises me that those drawing parallels to zoophilia aren't vocalizing their complaints as well.
Look, it isn’t about whether you identify as right-wing or not; the issue is that you lot seem incapable of maintaining even a basic level of civilized discourse. Labeling women who seek abortions as murderers, or branding gay people as pedophiles and zoophiles, isn't an argument—it is pure, unadulterated primitivism. It's beneath any standard of decent human interaction. This isn't a debate.

I held off on commenting on this because I wasn't aware you were a moderator.
That was a pretty distasteful post from the moderator, so I’m adding it to the list.
Just like rowdytiger13, you’re busy slapping labels on people and attributing claims to your opponents that they never actually made. We aren't sitting here discussing whether women are killers; that’s just a point you keep repeating over and over again.So, it’s just a label now—a smear tactic that suddenly and aggressively expanded to include pedophiles, zoophiles, and primitives. Go ahead, add to the list.
The issue is simple: you cannot allow any entry that challenges the remaining ideological foundations of that movement. It is pure dogma. And you execute that quite effectively through censorship.

So, if it's not them, then what exactly is the person committing the murder? I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

mistyseal8 said:I remember that whole situation clearly. We were mid-debate, and you were just tossing out clichés without any actual evidence or reasoning, while I was backing up my points with several links. One of them happened to be from a major news outlet, but honestly, I could have linked to ten other reputable sites. It was purely coincidental that I picked that one. You didn't have a single real argument on your side, so you resorted to that "hahaha, they used a mainstream link!" tactic just to disqualify me. It seems like that's your go-to move whenever a debate gets serious. Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. 🙂 🙂

Sure, moderation requires a certain level of robotic consistency. Honestly, it might be better if you just moved on, because every time you post, you're just proving that you can't stay objective. ☕

Look, I’m not saying I disqualified you or anything, but let's be real—you were just echoing the same kind of nonsense that pops up on major news sites like CNN every single day. You didn't even need to drop the link; honestly, it was just the cherry on top of a pretty ridiculous sundae.

It’s honestly hilarious watching you lecture someone else about being "ideologically biased" when you’re clearly deep in the trenches of your own worldview yourself. You're basically preaching to the choir while wearing the exact same colors. Look, I'm not going to get into a massive back-and-forth with you over this, though—this isn't exactly the right venue for a full-blown ideological brawl.

Yeah, let's be real—moderation definitely involves a certain amount of robotic, mindless busywork. Honestly, it might be better if you just stepped down at this point, because every single post you make just proves you’re completely incapable of being impartial. ☕

Look, sure, being a mod involves certain boundaries, but that doesn't mean a moderator has to be some mindless, soulless drone without a single opinion of their own. Honestly, trying to attack someone just because they have a viewpoint—and then spinning that into some big "critique of the moderation"—is just plain stupid.

I'm on it. Be there in a sec. 😁

mistyseal8 said:You’re acting as one of those ideological moderators. You aren't being neutral; you're showing clear bias. All you have to do is look at your own posts on this thread, where you immediately label anyone with opposing views as "disruptive" or claim they're acting beneath a civilized standard. It never even crossed your mind that the other side is perfectly capable of engaging in cultural debate, backed by their own facts, sources, and research to support their positions.

See, this moderator is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. 👍

Since you were trying to toss me links to CNN and stuff during our argument, it’s pretty hard to agree with you that those count as actual "sources" or a real debate.

Just wanted to make sure there wasn't a grain of truth in what you said. Look, I don't hide my opinions—I'm not a robot. If being a moderator required me to be a mindless drone with zero backbone, I never would have taken the job in the first place.

mistyjackal14 said:I remember when the first gay pride march happened—how many years has it been now?—and I think there was a man named Manzin who acted somewhat like their spokesperson back then.
The main objections at the time were centered around the idea that "they want to adopt children and get married," to which he would respond that this wasn't true and certainly wasn't even on the agenda.

Manzin eventually moved on, but then exactly that happened: "marriage equality" and adoption rights became the reality.

One could argue that Manzin wasn't lying, since others took up the mantle after him, but one could also say that those who insisted from the very beginning that the agenda was about "life partnerships and children" were actually right all along.

It ends up feeling as though people only believe one side, where their version of events is simply accepted as fact, which clearly kills any real debate.

Furthermore, there was a recent case in the Netherlands involving the president of an LGBT organization (one that is quite active within the UN) who was accused—and ultimately convicted—of pedophilia.

It would be wrong to claim based on that alone that all LGBT activists are pedophiles, but isn't it logical to assume that if someone is a pedophile, they might try to hide under the guise of being homosexual?

The newer a movement is, the more things tend to get tangled up in it!

And the same goes for zoophilia; it doesn't just involve certain types of behavior, but various other perversions as well.
It seems clear that by liberalizing this particular social segment on the margins, various other forms of sodomy (if that's what we should call them) are being pulled into the mainstream.

Here we clearly run into the problem with moderation itself, where certain individuals place themselves on a moral pedestal as "guardians of civilization"! (Does that sound familiar?)

One could almost interpret it to mean that all conservatives are actually on the wrong side of "moral justice," yet they are tolerated anyway.

Our current civilization is perhaps only twenty to fifty years old; perhaps we are merely dealing with self-appointed guardians.movements within our civilization, a movement is inherently revolutionary by its very nature, which inevitably brings us to the doorstep of those who act as guardians, or perhaps even the vanguard of that revolution or movement.

To claim that all gay people are pedophiles just because of certain individuals within official institutions is foolish, and it is equally foolish to assert that those organizations themselves are pedophilic, if we simply take a moment to remember who was the first to employ such sweeping, generalized logic in the first place?

The core issue here is that one particular type of discourse—the kind driven by trolling—is permitted whenever we find it convenient, yet the moment the roles are reversed, the moral outrage begins.

It seems that everyone judges based on their own yardstick, so in one instance, heavy-handed trolling is tolerated, while in another, even a reasoned debate is immediately dismissed as nothing more than potential trolling.

For some, "a woman's right to abortion" serves as the ultimate benchmark for a civilized society.
For others, the "child's right to life" is the true definition of a civilization's level.

There isn't much utility to be gained from the "arguments" of katotalibani versus child killers, and frankly, that's just trolling, but providing a reasoned explanation of one's stances—even if it doesn't quite qualify as a full debate—is absolutely essential, otherwise, no meaningful dialogue can ever truly exist.

It is perfectly acceptable to view opponents of abortion as religious fundamentalists, provided you explain why you see them that way; perhaps then those individuals might reflect on whether that is actually true, and if it is, they might at least acknowledge that this is why the two sides remain so deeply divided.

Similarly, it is valid to view proponents of abortion as killers (a heavy term used to describe those who end life in accordance with the law for the sake of social utility), and if you explain that reasoning, perhaps they too will undergo some introspection.

But it is simply unwise to let people do whatever they please without pointing out how they are perceived by other groups, all for the sake of avoiding hurting someone's feelings!

If we attempt to suppress discussion, it won't simply vanish; it will merely build up pressure until it erupts even more violently!

Look, just because a pressure cooker is about to blow doesn't mean you should hand out matches to the people trying to set it off. Suppressing things isn't the answer, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate garbage that's straight-up subhuman. If we start letting everything slide under the guise of "open debate," we're basically giving a free pass to every xenophobic jerk out there who wants to calmly explain why certain people are "lesser" because of their skin color or where they were born. That's not how this works. Just because some toxic, pathological hatred is bound to boil over somewhere doesn't mean we have to validate it as a legitimate part of a civilized discussion. If some hateful nonsense starts bubbling up, we shouldn't be feeding it or giving it a stage to perform on.

Susan Price30 said:Oh, I almost forgot—it seems you two "self-proclaimed anti-church" types have come up with a specific label for people of the Catholic faith.

It might be interesting to hear what the forum owner thinks about this particular "term."🙂

Best regards,

Don't try to twist my words. When I say "yours," I'm not talking about believers in general; I'm talking strictly about you and those posts of yours that have popped up on my radar a few times now.

Susan Price30 said:To make a long story short—you are personally suggesting that the moderators and supermods of the Politics section, which you don't even moderate despite being active in discussions regarding pregnancy termination, should ban or otherwise regulate the use of the legitimate term 'fetal murder.' You claim this terminology might "hurt" someone emotionally, even though we aren't talking about born babies, but rather fetuses.

🤦
>

And honestly, that generalization—'it will hurt women'—isn't even true. I am a woman, and I have absolutely no problem with the term fetal murder; it doesn't offend or hurt me in any way.

Look, I’m just sharing my take as a regular user who happened to be part of that discussion, not as some moderator.

And honestly, sorry, but I'm not going to go back and forth with you; I already know how irrational you get.
I've said my piece. Calling people murderers is still calling them murderers, no matter how much fancy packaging you wrap it in. And hey, even Željko Markić keeps it civil. 🙂
Anyway, I'm stepping out of this because I really don't want to clog up the thread.

Jessica Kelly4 said:Thanks for the long reply, but I think it’s pretty biased.
I know you don't owe anyone an explanation for your calls, but since this affects a whole group of serious, long-time users, providing specific arguments would be the fair thing to do.

At the end of the day, here are my actual points:

1. That term is standard American English used to describe ending a living being's life. By banning the phrase "killing a fetus," you aren't just policing form; you're interfering with the substance of the debate.
By doing this, you're effectively using moderator power to decide that a fetus isn't a living being, which is the core argument of the pro-life side—an argument supported by the links I already provided.

2. The term "killing a fetus" is used all the time in the public square here in the US and everywhere else I know. Pro-life groups even use petitions demanding an end to the killing of fetuses.

3. The pro-life movement is primarily a political movement, not a religious one. I don't see why religious discourse is allowed on the Religion subforum while the discourse of a political movement is banned on Politics.

Sure, I could find other terms or talk about "terminating life," but it bugs me that you're using moderator authority to tilt the entire debate. When I use the phrase "killing a fetus," I'm not attacking anyone personally, using ad hominems, or labeling people.

Oh, you totally are labeling. You’re labeling the women reading this who might actually feel like killers because you're suggesting they killed a child. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain the difference between infanticide and abortion to you, since the law makes that distinction perfectly clear. So, why are you trying to sidestep the legal definition just to slap the label of "infanticide" on women? And why on earth do you think this forum should be used as a platform to shame people and dump all that guilt and horror onto them?

Cut the act and stop trying to justify yourself by saying you aren't calling anyone a killer. If someone "kills," then they are a "killer." It’s pretty basic logic, and I know you're more than capable of grasping it.

Sophia Thomas7 said:I guess it’s because most of the arguments trying to link the two basically boil down to "well, if this becomes legal, then pedophilia is next," at least according to the crowd over at Reddit. 🤦

Honestly, I’m surprised the people drawing parallels to bestiality aren't getting yelled at too.

Look, guys, it isn't about being on the right or the left—it’s that some of you just can't seem to stay above a basement-level level of discourse. Labeling women who have abortions as murderers, or equating gay people with pedophiles or zoophiles, is just straight-up primal nonsense. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. That isn't a debate; it's just noise.

Honestly, I’d love to invite all those ladies who keep sliding into Carl Fisher7's DMs to just say what they actually think about our moderation team—whether you want to go public or keep it in the private messages, whatever works for you. We aren't going to bite.

It’s honestly not fair to dump all this on Carl Fisher7. He shouldn't be stuck dealing with a mountain of complaints about how we moderate things when he isn't even the one in charge of making the calls—that's our job.

The guy has been catching heat for the mods for years now. Ladies, please, just come to us directly and give him a break.

Carl Fisher7 said:Nope, let me set the record straight: I definitely didn't say that, nor did I even hint at it. And just for the sake of clarity, you and I have never once swapped DMs. So, there goes your little theory about me gossiping. 😁

That’s why you were busy bragging about how ten forum ladies are practically too terrified to even file a complaint against us "dictators," yet they're all over you for sympathy. Look, this isn't gossip. And no, it’s not like you’re some saint who avoids drama or whispers. Honestly, nobody cares who you're sliding into the DMs of.

Carl Fisher7 said:So here’s your little dictionary entry 😲 What makes mine any different? 🤣 By claiming she’s your "friend," you’re basically admitting you can't moderate her posts objectively. In the political world, they’d call that a massive conflict of interest.

Look, you clearly live for this—you just love the constant bickering. Well, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction of a back-and-forth. I'll just leave you with these three points:

- Nobody called you a psychopath.
- The thread on domestic violence is closed, and for the record, I DID NOT moderate it.
- If you're so desperate to keep up this crusade, feel free to take your little hobby over to private messages and open your own counseling practice. As far as I'm concerned, be my guest.