CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Kenneth Cruz67 › Posts

Posts by Kenneth Cruz67

554 posts shown.

Richard Walker38 said:Both of them should get penalized, honestly. I think I'm just going to wrap this whole idiotic argument up, because there really isn't any point in debating with Tibi and his pink Fetl glasses anyway.

Meh. Well, if Tibi is rocking pink glasses, then I suppose you might as well be carrying a white cane and walking a guide dog. In my humble opinion, Russell vs Perez was just a racing incident, whereas in the case of Vettel vs Gasly, Gasly is clearly at fault here. If you take a moment to watch the onboard footage for both incidents, you can see exactly how Russell handles the steering wheel compared to what Gasly does.

image

Right before the contact happens, it looks like Gasly lost his line and the steering wheel basically slipped right out of his hands.

Just take a look at how Russell manages his wheel.

image
Richard Walker38 said:I posted a screenshot showing the exact moment they first made contact.


image

Well, I suppose this might just be your version of that moment of initial contact when you're looking at it from the outside, 🤣🤣
I think I saw Charles Leclerc pull ahead of Max Verstappen three separate times right near the flagger 🤣
darkmarlin16 said:Why do some people wear masks?

Sent from my iPhone 12 using Reddit

Well, I suppose it's because they’re looking out for themselves and everyone else around them.

Personally, I'm actually planning on wearing a mask every single year once flu and cold season rolls around, regardless of anything involving COVID. I used to catch a nasty cold or even end up with bronchitis practically every single autumn, but ever since I started wearing a mask, I haven't had any issues at all. I guess you could say I haven't had so much as a sniffle since 2020!
cosmicmoose2 said:I honestly think both the British and Dutch fans deserve some criticism here, because chanting during an accident on the track is just plain disrespectful, regardless of which driver is involved.

Well, I say let them celebrate! Why shouldn't they? I mean, if someone actually lost their life, then sure, celebrating would be totally out of line, but when a driver basically drives themselves into a wall through sheer stupidity, it’s only natural that people are going to cheer, poke fun, and stir the pot a little bit.

Everything in this sport seems to be getting so sterilized lately; it feels like the drivers have turned into these corporate puppets following a pre-written script. Honestly, fuck that. If that's the case, we might as well just put an AI computer in the car to drive it ourselves. At least the fans should be allowed to act like real human beings, with all the messy pros and cons that come along with being human.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly a fan of Max Verstappen, so I find myself hoping he crashes every single race, and I'll happily cheer for every mistake he makes—so if that bothers you, feel free to take it up with me.
Well, I suppose this season is officially wrapped up. Max is our champion, plain and simple. Time to shut down the workshop and pack up all the gear. I honestly think the remaining races will just be a bit of a tedious formality, almost like a slow procession.
Is this a chauvinistic signature? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I suppose Oshric tends to keep his cards close to his chest, sharing things only with those he truly knows and trusts 👍
Is this a chauvinistic signature? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
I'm honestly just curious if the lady who keeps posting those "vulgarities" in her sig will actually accept getting carded and banned because of them 🤣
Is this a chauvinistic signature? in Feedback & Suggestions ·
jebote Oštrić, what was that about grabbing onto your signature like that? Honestly, people can put whatever they want in their signatures, as long as it isn't offensive or inciting any kind of violence, so I don't really see why anyone should care. This isn't even a discussion post; it's just a signature. A signature doesn't necessarily have to be a collection of facts, you know? I mean, wtf? You're being really bizarre right now.
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
cosmicmoose2 said:I honestly don't know what it is about this Ferrari team that gets under my skin so much, but it feels like there’s absolutely no coordination happening at all. Even if they actually manage to put together a decent strategy, I guess it's just impossible to tell whether the drivers will actually follow it or not.
It’s just heartbreaking...
If Max Verstappen hadn't dropped out, this really should have been a perfect 1-2 finish for Ferrari. I just can't believe we let an opportunity like that slip through our fingers.

What do you mean nobody knows? It feels more like everyone is talking at once and nobody is actually listening!😁
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
Smooth operator 🤣 I really feel for him. It honestly seems like they're just giving him a hard time over at Ferrari.
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
Morgan Barrett6 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around why they kept Charles Leclerc out there during the Safety car instead of just bringing him in for some soft tires or even a whole new nose!

Well, I suppose it's because the folks over at Scuderia Ferrari are such absolute masters of tactical artistry, aren't they? 👍
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
A total smooth operator 🤣
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
Lewis Hamilton is out in front! I guess you could say the world is finally returning to its natural state of equilibrium. 🎉
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
Oh, just take a look at Ricciardo 🤦
British GP (Silverstone) | July 1–3, 2022 in Formula 1 ·
I can't quite wrap my head around it, but did Charles Leclerc seriously miss his pit entry? What on earth happened there? 🤣
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
lonetrucker4 said:I suppose some of us happen to read a bit more than just the American Wikipedia.

I felt compelled to jump in because there was mention of "falsifying history." I honestly think Silver Bear is onto something here, mostly because Kenneth Cruz67 wrote what essentially amounts to falsehoods—or at least some pretty questionable inaccuracies—under a heading titled "church history lie." Aside from all those other little distortions and half-truths spread by Catholic apologists (and let's be honest, even mainstream Protestants and Orthodox groups have historically persecuted or burned heretics), this particular point feels like a blatant untruth. It seems like a pretty heavy lie to me, so I’d agree it deserves a warning, even if we don't go straight to a super strict penalty right away.

There is certainly a lot going on in this thread that probably wouldn't even fly on the History subreddit.

I'm curious, which part is actually bothering you? Is it the claim about them being police, or the idea that most of those cultists in the church actually got exactly what they deserved?

The Pope isn't just a religious leader; he's also a head of state, a true *pontifex maximus*. Regarding the Cathars, the administration actually tried to handle things through peaceful means first. It wasn't until they essentially "took out his ambassador," so to speak, that he finally sent in the Inquisition.
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
lonetrucker4 said:@Kenneth Cruz67/">@@Kenneth Cruz67, I really think what you wrote there is actually quite a major factual inaccuracy.

I suppose one might be tempted to view the Inquisition as nothing more than a series of heretical atrocities, especially since we enjoy such freedom of thought, conscience, and faith today.

However, if you consider it, the office of the Holy Inquisition actually still exists in some form today, though it's now known as the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Personally, I don't really look at things through the lens of good versus evil; I tend to leave those kinds of judgments to the socialites and moralists out there. I guess those concepts are pretty much relative anyway, depending on where and when you're standing. What I am curious about is just how much the Church stood out from everyone else in terms of cruelty during that era, and my impression is that it didn't really stand out all that much. People used to justify all sorts of nonsense through incredibly brutal means, and so, I feel the Church wasn't necessarily any worse or better than anyone else back then.

So, what exactly is factually incorrect here? Is it the idea that witchcraft accusations had any real substance, or perhaps the suggestion that the Inquisition only targeted believers and converts to the Catholic faith?

Actually, I suspect the whole narrative surrounding the burnings is a bit overstated. If you look at the statistics, they suggest that over a span of 300 years, roughly 150,000 people were burned. That works out to maybe 1.4 people per day. It seems to me that more people likely perished in ordinary house fires than in those persecutions.
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
lonetrucker4 said:people were convicted of heresy or witchcraft by secular authorities, often receiving a "humane" instruction to avoid spilling blood—which basically meant they were burned at the stake. Meanwhile, your average passerby might end up being hanged, decapitated, or in even more extreme cases, tortured on the rack.

Look, there were all sorts of punishments and plenty of crimes to go around. In Spain, for instance, you could pretty much choose your own adventure—hanging, crucifixion, burning, drowning; they didn't really sweat the small stuff when it came to the method.

It’s quite clear we’re discussing heresy and witchcraft here.

Witchcraft accusations weren't just thrown around randomly out of some religious fervor, either; I suspect there was usually a very specific sin or a bit of greed driving those charges. In England, for example, the pyres were often fueled by brewers who were watering down their ale, poisoning folks, or straight-up robbing them. You also had instances of infanticide and pyromania, and I believe grave robbing wasn't uncommon either. There were even times when people were burned simply because they were sick—you know, like when the plague is sweeping through and you suddenly break out in a rash. All of that was just swept under the rug as witchcraft.

The Orleans case is actually a pretty good example of that.

When it comes to heresy, though, it wasn't exactly some mindless savagery; I'd say it was mostly just internal factional maneuvering and power struggles happening right within the Church itself.

If this were posted on the History PDF, it wouldn't be phrased like that, since they know they'd get flagged for breaking the subforum rules.

With a moderation style like yours, I guess you might have even burned Galileo alive if you had been the Pope back in his day!👍
Falsifying religion history in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Will these accusations of clerical fascism just be allowed to slide during such volatile times? I really wonder if people will get away with it.

I suppose only Judolino has any right to call me a fascist. When anyone else tries to pull that stunt, well, it's honestly just not a very pleasant experience to deal with.