Posts by Timothy Robinson2

Linda Price5 said:You are spreading falsehoods; physical discipline and abuse are not the same thing. An elderly person isn't an abuser just because a senile grandmother loses her temper once and gives them a quick smack, but that smack is still violence and is prohibited under Family Law.

From what I've observed here, nobody has claimed that every single strike is abuse, but every instance of physical punishment is violence, and all physical punishment is illegal in the US.

Moderator Charles Fox10 has been encouraging physical punishment of children, which is prohibited by law.

That is precisely what this topic is about.

Aside from the fact that you constantly go around calling people abusers and violent thugs on this forum whenever physical discipline—or even just a verbal disagreement—comes up, extrapolating everything into beatings and assaults. You're basically just verbally abusing others by slapping labels on them as part of your usual trolling routine.

In America, certain types of marriages are banned, so some people promote them instead. I haven't noticed you calling them abusers. ... A lot of things are prohibited, so if people think those rules aren't realistic, they share their opinions against them.

Nicholas King said:A little bit of futurism here: if—or rather, when—some individual or group (from that persistent collection of clowns we deal with) decides to hire some high-priced, flashy lawyer to discreetly threaten a lawsuit and a subsequent media circus (which isn't even particularly likely, since such stunts are perfect self-promotion for the individual or organization involved), the MK policy will pivot by about three hundred and sixty degrees before you can even finish saying "defend the status quo." Until then, moderation will continue under the principle of, "Man, here we go again, they’re messing with us on PŽK again—I get it, I really do—but look, we have to do this, just keep it low profile so we don't make waves now and regret it later..."

The thing is, no matter how much we have to admit there is an enviable level of skill in the "I'm going to screw them over, but I can't prove it" department (think atomic bomb metaphors or funeral processions during discussions about Pride parades—of course, nobody actually wants anything bad to happen to the participants, because who would ever think of being that malicious 🙄), there is always some clumsy, half-baked attempt at camouflage. Take, for instance, this: "In order to protect ourselves from this vile disease, we won't just take to the streets; the streets will be orderly and become a safe extension of our own backyards where our children can grow up without having to stare at that queer FILTH!"—which, I suspect, would be incredibly difficult to prosecute as a call to clean up neighborhoods or pick up cigarette butts in the park.

To support my thesis regarding the instant course correction triggered by the mere threat of a serious lawsuit, I offer just two words: Robert Pauletić.

Exactly. We should just monitor everyone's internet traffic from here to eternity to keep those creeps in check. I mean, nobody’s coming after our privacy, right? Let's just bake Article 123.2 straight into the Penal Code. It could basically say you have to be a "good citizen" and ignore whether any law actually makes sense, works, or is even remotely realistic. Then we can just ban whatever we want whenever we feel like it. I guess.

Maybe we can just quietly tip off the court about the adultery thing. Then, when some high-priced lawyer decides to show up, they can finally clean up this mess...

A fetishist lawyer, some non-profit association, and a threat... that’s the recipe for happiness and satisfaction, I guess. Real peace and quiet. Cheers to those associations that exist just to push whatever agenda keeps them funded. 🙂

You can keep going until Linda Price5 decides she likes it. 😁

Someone told me that when they were kids, they used to listen to classical music by pressing their ear right against the speaker of a record player. I guess that’s how things work here—you can only discuss certain topics if you stay within the lines, because undercover cops are basically patrolling the sub-forums.

So, discussions about race, sexual orientation, parenting... they're fine, as long as you don't cross the line set by the agents on duty, since apparently someone told them some article somewhere says a certain thing is harmful.

Anyway, I read those articles. The idea that spanking a kid on the butt or fingers is harmful is about as proven as saying using a cell phone is harmful. It’s just not recommended, so people try to avoid it, but it doesn't exactly show any massive, devastating effects.

People can check that out for themselves in their own neighborhoods. In mine, I'm pretty sure almost everyone got swatted at once or another, and not one of them turned out to be a criminal or an abuser. You've got all sorts of people—doctors, lawyers, engineers... a smack on the butt didn't influence their life choices one bit. Honestly, I'd say non-verbal, non-physical communication—just the way their parents acted—had a much bigger impact than those hits. At this rate, I expect Family Law will soon make it illegal for a parent to even come home tired from work or something. 😁

Long story short... topics where activists have hijacked both science and practice...

Alex Thomas27 said:It would be discrimination if Muslims and Jews had to go to the Religion forum just to learn about Islamic wedding customs or other traditions from Catholics.

So you're saying only Christians belong on Religion, while everyone else goes to mosques, synagogues, etc., on different subforums.

Only people of a certain faith—Christians—baptize their kids.

That's why this topic doesn't belong on RiD.

Look, plenty of parents baptize their kids, and since most people aren't religious experts, that's where the discussion belongs. I don't see what the big deal is about Christians baptizing children.

Are Christians only allowed to talk in places specifically marked for them? Is that somehow discrimination? I guess that's how some people apply the whole "equal but separate" ideology, fueled by that typical cosmopolitan love for diversity.

If you were a Muslim woman looking up customs, maybe it would fit there, but you're probably just being a provocateur trying to stir up trouble. 😁

Alex Thomas27 said:People from all sorts of different religions get married.

So what, people getting married in a church should just switch over to Religion?

Maybe they should just scrap the whole wedding topic entirely, just so they don't have to deal with the backlash from folks who live together without the ceremony. I guess.

Alex Thomas27 said:But a baptism is different. It isn’t just some party; it’s a religious rite.
A dinner at a restaurant with champagne is just a celebration, same as moving into a new house, landing a job, or celebrating a birthday.

Look, since you clearly have an issue with religion, I guess it's obvious you don't really get whether they're the same or not. I'm telling you, a housewarming party isn't the same vibe as a baptism.

Most weddings happen in a church, and people ask there about decorations and stuff... I don't see how that affects the religion itself. You think believers aren't allowed to ask questions in public? Should we just ghettoize them or something?

Besides, if some Muslim woman asked what they bought or how they handled things, I bet they'd just let her be and maybe even connect it to something else later. If you were Muslim or Jewish and wanted to know what they got for a circumcision ceremony, go ahead and ask. Maybe you'd even get some ideas for a baptism.

From your post, it's pretty clear you don't care about circumcisions or anything else—you just want to shut down a thread where parents are helping each other plan a day, purely because that day has a religious character. That feels like discrimination, or just being intolerant on your part.

If the question was about how they organized a baby's birthday, I assume you wouldn't be trying to kill the thread... It's pretty obvious this isn't about religion, it's about logistics and common sense questions that priests—or most regular folks—don't really know much about, but parents who just went through it do. But you're just acting like a provocateur, riding some wave of self-righteous anger over normal life events for an average American family. And with that anger, you want to wreck a perfectly logical place to find info, just so the words "baptism," "priest," or "church" don't accidentally pop up. You're complaining about potential discrimination by showing your own religious intolerance. Real classy.

Baptism basically has two sides. There’s the theological part—the stuff you can find endless threads about on the Religion subforum, depending on whether you're looking at it through a Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist lens...

Then there’s the folklore side. That’s all the non-church stuff that actually eats up most of a parent's time. I mean, the actual ceremony lasts maybe thirty minutes, but the logistics? That takes days. Picking godparents, buying gifts, outfits, deciding who gets an invite and who doesn't... none of that has anything to do with the church or theology. As far as the church is concerned, parents and the godparent show up, they leave, and that's that.

Your ridiculous demand—which clearly comes from some deep-seated resentment toward baptisms—is just absurd. It’s like asking to move wedding topics from the Relationships subforum over to Religion, or moving questions about food and clothing over to Gastronom or fashion.

The way you're trying to fight for "justice" is pretty sneaky, which says a lot about you. You start by indirectly targeting Muslims and Jews, and then you pivot to attacking Christians, all because of your own aggressive narrow-mindedness. It isn't just potential religious intolerance; it's a sure thing.

fadedmason6 said:Grouping pedophilia and homosexuality together is just lazy. And offensive.

It’s kind of like saying you can group heterosexuality and pedophilia together. 😁

You talk like it would be offensive to suggest most pedophiles are straight men, or if saying most zoophiles are men was somehow an insult.

Heterosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, even homosexuality—biologically speaking, they’re all just variations of the same drive, the need for sexual connection expressed in different ways. So, I guess it's fair to debate how common they are, which ones have evolutionary backing, and what the pros and cons might be for each.

fadedmason6 said:Whatever. It’s like we're second-class citizens or something, since you've decided my words count as hate speech. 🙄

That "hate speech" stuff is just in your head.

Scientists say there isn't just one version of "normal" sexuality. Everything he was looking into and debating were just biological connections—not cultural or legal ones.

The whole idea of what's considered "normal" versus "abnormal" regarding sexual preference shifts constantly through history. If you look at a hundred years before or after any given point, you get a totally different perspective.

It's legitimate, and under free speech, people should be allowed to point that out and ask why, without getting censored.

Kate Bishop76 said:You started this by saying: "It's just as evolutionarily useless since there's no offspring produced. But for pedophilia, that doesn't apply to legal standards, just biological ones, because a 13-year-old can technically have kids. So the "shift" from the "optimum" is actually smaller than it is for homosexuals 😁"

Regarding pedophilia, you say: "But that's done to protect kids, not because pedophilia itself is so much more messed up than anything else; that specific feeling is just an irrational taboo caused by society's need for 'virgins' to be outraged over"

Quoting you again: "Of course the difference is that a child can be harmed, which is why it's equated with rape, but from a psychological or whatever perspective you want, from a standpoint of natural disorders, rather than legal regulations meant to protect victims instead of demonizing a phenomenon, I don't see a significant difference; homosexuality seems even 'less natural' to me even though those scales are pretty meaningless and subjective. "

Where exactly is the hate speech? He's just putting forward some theories people might or might not agree with.

The only possible answer is that it's in the biases you're projecting onto someone else's words. You claim it's hidden, so if it's hidden, maybe just leave it hidden instead of stirring the pot.

You talk about how meaningless and subjective these scales are, yet you didn't miss the chance to mention that homosexuality is "less natural." :slow clap:

And what exactly was said wrong? He gave his opinion that homosexuality is less natural than pedophilia. This sub is for natural sciences; you could have provided data showing that x% of the population is homosexual and y% is pedophilic, making one "more natural" than the other. Instead, you're projecting your own political beliefs onto his statements on a natural science forum.

Sure. Total abuse of power. If you had approached the topic differently, maybe the mods would have acted differently too.

On topics like this, I'm honestly always curious to hear how someone could express those ideas without getting hit with all the nasty labels thrown at anyone who questions the civilizational status of homosexuality.

I guess nobody's going to answer.😁 The whole idea is just trying to break taboos by creating new ones 😁

Plus, you keep labeling people as homophobic. Phobias are basically mental health issues that should be handled by psychologists or psychiatrists, so I guess one could argue your stance is actually just disguised hate speech against people dealing with mental health struggles they didn't ask for.

But hey, you're just stating your opinion, I suppose 😁

Ronald Morales51 said:They actually went as far as banning anyone from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or any other kind of pathology.

This subforum is for natural sciences. It should be a place to toss out hypotheses without getting bogged down by someone's political leanings. As long as you aren't inciting violence—which wasn't the case here—comparing different states is perfectly legitimate, I guess.

Both those things fall under the same umbrella of variations. The only real difference is that one version is socially and politically acceptable to some people, while the other isn't.

I still think those ideas are just inappropriate for the kind of society we're aiming for today.

I don't know if everyone is actually aiming for the same thing. If we were, there wouldn't be any issues to begin with.

There's no question that these are topics that can't be ignored.

But they're heavily censored by the "progressive" crowd at the expense of the "traditional" ones.

So much 😁

bluerider41 said:They aren't untouchable; they can't just go around insulting people without facing consequences... If they're acting like typical low-life thugs, do they treat their wives like that at home too?

Only on weekends and when they deserve it, I guess.🤷

bluerider41 said:Yeah, I produce my own sperm.

I don't need some forum lawyer. I know how to fight my own battles. Early on, Nicholas King actually said something in my favor, and he's the one I respect most on this site. ☕

You listening to Miš Kovač?

It could be a nice friendship, I guess😬

bluerider41 said:Easy for you to talk when you're sitting pretty in that top 1% .

It’s not even about me posting—I mostly just lurk. The issue is you're fixating on the wrong thing. If people talked like this in a Social Studies class, or even Religion, they'd probably all get detention.

Just let this be a space where people can mess around.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve by trying to suppress everything and ban it?

bluerider41 said:You can't just joke around when it comes to someone's actual life. What they're mocking is reality to me, so I don't find it funny—it’s tasteless. It shouldn't be tolerated just because it's happening on MK. I started a thread about dogs and used the term "cranky old ladies" to describe those walking them, and my intro was wiped and the whole thread stolen. Basically, my input isn't respected. Double standards everywhere. Well, not on my watch. Just because some group of guys thinks it's hilarious doesn't make it okay, and it shouldn't be allowed. I'll take this straight to Anderlon and tear this whole thing down because this behavior is completely unhinged.

From what I can see, you're the only aggressive one here. Ever thought about how acting like this just feeds into all those stereotypes? You think being aggressive is going to stop them, or is it just going to make it worse? Maybe you're just into diversity when it suits you, but exclusionary when it comes to your own issues.

Besides, try finding a thread with that kind of talk on any other subreddit—you won't find one. People get banned there for that stuff, even just hinting that gay people are sick.

Look, just realize this is a place where people mess around; it's not some formal public debate. What exactly do you think happens if you get it banned there? All you'll do is fuel the resentment toward you, and then toward gay people too, making them look like uptight people who won't let anyone breathe because they're so obsessed with tolerance and respecting everyone's opinion. 🙄

bluerider41 said:Time for a little trash talk:

So, we’re actually sick... This is terrifying.

You can find just about anything on here—honestly, pretty much every post is total garbage.

It’s not that. It’s more about how raising kids with two parents of the same sex is being framed as if it’s exactly the same thing as having a mom and a dad. 😉

Maybe read a bit closer.

brightcrane56 said:Under Article 5 of the Family Law of the United States, marriage is legally defined as the union between a woman and a man. Because of that, "lesbian marriage" isn't actually a legal thing, so you can't really claim someone is being offensive by joking about something that doesn't exist in the eyes of the law.
It’s honestly just like getting all worked up because someone made a silly joke about SpongeBob SquarePants.

It’s kind of like making fun of people who worry about GMOs. You know how it goes—the media outlets always have some spokesperson claiming everything is perfectly fine, basically implying that if you're against it, you're just uneducated or stuck in the past. I guess.

At the end of the day, people just have to accept that GMOs are fine. If you start claiming you wouldn't want them on your own land, then you're basically messing with the free market... which makes you a GMO phobe, I guess.

So now they want to take it public too? Honestly, trying to police what people say even in their own homes... that’s just insane. 😁

bluerider41 said:Since when did the Family Law of the United States suddenly become the gold standard for accuracy and fairness? That doesn't give you any right to label us as "sick" or whatever else. It’s just not happening.

Pure homophobia right here:

Ever since the US Congress passed them. 😁

Anthony Perez9 said:Nah. They're completely clueless when it comes to the whole solstice thing. 😉

The winter solstice is basically when the days start getting longer again, though it feels like the darkness lasts forever. It’s that turning point where we finally stop sliding toward the bottom of the pit.

So, basically, Julius Caesar set December 25th as the winter solstice date back in 46 BCE.

Yeah, according to the Julian calendar. I guess there's no real reason to follow the pope's calls.

Basically, Orthodox Christmas was just the Julian Christmas converted over to the Gregorian calendar. So, that sun celebration you're talking about would actually fall after New Year's if you look at it through the lens of the pope Gregory XIII's
calendar.

Anthony Perez9 said:The winter solstice hits on 12/21, but if you check that link you posted, it says it can shift a day early or late. Back in 2011, it actually fell on December 22nd.[/I]

Exactly. You take those three days and three nights (God hanging out in the dark underworld) starting from 12/22, and boom—you get Christmas, right when the days finally start stretching out. Christmas is born.

Don't worry about thanking me for the deep dive.

So what does any of this actually have to do with Christmas or this thread?

Just the other day on Catholic Radio, one of your priests mentioned that Christians didn't want to scrap all the old traditions, so they just folded the solstice celebrations into Christmas. It wasn't even because Jesus was born then.

There. Now you see the connection. 🙂

It’s connected, I guess, but back then they weren't celebrating that specific holiday—it was Christmas, and everyone knew exactly which kind of Christmas they meant. We can probably just assume that on January 7th, there'll be that same intense urge to celebrate the sun, since that's basically when the sun was honored around that time. The Gregorian calendar basically skipped some days just to fix things up and make sure we didn't drift too far off.

So, if you're looking at those old celebrations, the Julian calendar is probably more accurate. 😉

mistyjackal14 said:It feels almost absurd, doesn't it, to see people dismissing New Year's as the actual rebirth of the sun while simultaneously insisting that Christmas serves that exact purpose, though I suppose this isn't really the right place to get into such a deep debate anyway.

What really sits heavy on my heart is seeing all this celebration of pagan customs being pushed onto a subject that just doesn't feel appropriate for such a topic, don't you think?

It’s almost like living in a place like Pakistan and having your birthday fall right on December 25th, where someone comes up to you and offers their warmest wishes for Christmas, yet completely fails to acknowledge the actual day you were born. Doesn't it feel a bit strange when the holiday overshadows the individual? 😵

Well, it looks like Nicole James finally caught the error, so starting next year, you’ll be free to celebrate all your pagan holidays in the proper threads where they belong.

I am genuinely relieved that we were able to reach an understanding and find some common ground between us. 🙂

I think you misread that. They’re opening a thread specifically so there’s zero doubt about people trying to provoke or mock others.

Even if Nicole James treated it like a federal holiday, they should still have a separate thread for those types. I mean, sure, it's the same day, but we aren't celebrating the same thing. It's kind of like if two kids, say Ivica and Marica, were both born on December 25th, but one lives in Miami and the other lives in El Paso, and you congratulate the kid in El Paso and claim it's basically the same as congratulating the one in Miami just because the date matches. Doesn't really track.

Then there’s his post in English, which is apparently against the rules.

If you quote or link to text in a foreign language, you have to provide an American translation. For longer pieces, you don't need a word-for-word breakdown, but a summary covering the essential points for the discussion is mandatory.

Of course, whenever he pops up, you get all these other types who just feel this irresistible urge to stir the pot on a simple topic—something that probably should just be a handful of posts saying "Merry Christmas" and moving on.

Some people actually enjoy talking about religion and having real discussions with anyone, but man, it's exhausting when "sponsored" spammers show up on every single thread. I report them constantly, whether they're religious or not, but they just get left alone to do their thing until the people who actually wanted to discuss the topic eventually give up. Bit by bit, everyone stops posting anything meaningful. Everything just turns into bickering with spammers and trolls.