Ego: F in the chat 📉

Gregory Turner71;

rowdydrifter22 said:What was the reason for the yellow card? Pick it out and quote it.

You need to check your ideological biases at the door, because what you just said is straight-up slander, and I consider it a serious matter.
I never labeled anyone a brutal killer. That’s just a narrative you've constructed because you clearly don't grasp the basic terminology here, though given how you continue to play the part of the willfully ignorant amateur, it's obvious that's your strongest argument.

Several times during this discussion, Unknown has gone out of his way to slander me by claiming I called certain women brutal murderers. I have never once made such a statement. Feel free to check the logs yourselves. I can wrap my head around a single mistake, but I attempted to explain the distinction between committing a murder and simply using the word "kill," and that nuance was clearly ignored.
Honestly, it’s high time I set the record straight regarding a statement that is nothing short of a blatant lie and a serious smear against my character.
Now you’re stepping into the role of moderator and completely ignoring the lies and slander, effectively silencing me just because I presented a fact instead of siding with the one spreading falsehoods.
By doing this, you’re sending a clear message that lying and slander are perfectly acceptable in a debate, yet defending oneself against them is strictly off-limits.

You still missed the part about how nobody actually cares or sheds a tear for them, which is exactly what demonstrates genuine concern for the women who have endured the trauma of recurrent miscarriages. (And by the way, you already managed to slip that into your previous post.)

Why exactly do you find this controversial?
For most women, a miscarriage is a deeply traumatic experience, particularly when it happens more than once.
The Unknown user has been warned multiple times, yet they continue to ignore it.

Let’s not forget the Irish situation, where your ideology takes precedence over any actual facts. You continue to prioritize your agenda over objective information and scientific expertise, which you consistently choose to ignore.

I am stating this fact once again. Experts conducted a full investigation into the controversial death case, and I have provided the links to back it up.
Even Nepoznati continues to insist these are pro-life doctors, maintaining his claim that the cause of death was a decaying embryo. He provides zero sources to back this up, and since labeling a "decaying embryo" as a cause of death is clearly just his own ideological construct, I don't see what's actually being disputed here. Explain yourself.

The exact same logic is being applied to the argument over whether a fetus constitutes a human being, despite the fact that science and medical expertise provide an unquestionable confirmation on the matter.

The links are right there. Science is unambiguous on this: an embryo or fetus is a distinct human being at the very beginning of its development.
I have provided links and professional literature to support my position on multiple occasions during this discussion. Not one person has contested them.
To claim otherwise is a direct violation of the very subforum rules you happened to draft yourself. Yet, here you are, handing out bans just because I called out the blatant disregard for the truth.

Gregory Turner71, is there some kind of ban on stating facts within the abortion thread over on the religion subforum?
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if you have an opinion, but your bias is seriously overstepping the line of what constitutes objective moderation.
I'm not asking for a formal strike; I'm asking for impartial moderation so we can prevent these kinds of posts from happening in the first place.

There is a massive difference between stating a simple fact or pointing out a misunderstanding and writing something just to paint someone as a clueless idiot because of ideological bias and a lack of actual arguments. By the way, this isn't the first time you've tried to push an agenda onto other people in these discussions—so consider this a fair warning to stop doing it.

Gregory Turner71 said:There is a massive difference between stating a fact or correcting a misunderstanding and accusing someone of being an ignorant hack just because you lack actual arguments and want to trigger an ideological reaction.

When I correct someone multiple times on the exact same point and they continue to misinterpret it, we aren't talking about a mistake anymore—we are talking about pure ignorance. It's amateurish.😍
Furthermore, as a moderator, it is your job to call out this kind of slander.

By the way, this isn't the first time you've tried to push an ideology onto other users, so consider this your warning to stop.

Are you serious, Gregory Turner71?
What about your own supporters who try to label me with an ideology?
I don't go around projecting ideologies onto people; I simply back my claims with objective sources while others attempt to refute me using baseless, ideological rhetoric without any evidence at all.
It is perfectly fine if someone chooses to label me, considering I have never once relied on an ideological argument to make a point. Yet, you remain silent when that happens.
As I have already stated, these types of posts are the direct result of a failure to moderate objectively due to bias and the double standards I am currently calling out here.

I don't recall seeing an application submitted by you.