Ministry of Truth

boldwalker12 said: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.

See, that's exactly why I mentioned that these kinds of topics require much more effort 😉

and I even said myself:

Whether a fetus is human or not is the central debate, but there is undeniably a connection to what is human, so I have to demonstrate how we handle things that are considered inhuman or dehumanized.

As for everything else, I'm right along with my colleague here:

lonebadger6 said:I don't really get these arguments against calling abortion murder... I mean, isn't that basically the whole reason people disagree on this in the first place?

Look, I'm pro-choice, but I honestly don't see the point in all this constant bickering.

Either just ban the > entirely on the platform. If you allow the discussion at all, it’s obvious one side is going to claim it's murder. That's the core of the entire issue. They aren't anti-abortion just because they have some vendetta against white corners...

slywolf45 said:Come on, let’s not deal with these half-baked arguments. If you’re going to be that extreme, it would actually be more honest to just advocate for the right to openly call abortion murder and label the women and doctors involved as murderers. At least then we'd be playing with a full deck.

What you just wrote is frankly insulting to anyone's intelligence. It’s basic logic: if you define an act as murder, then by definition, anyone performing that act is a murderer. It's not some deep mystery; it's just how language works.

But let's be clear: he didn't explicitly call women who have abortions murderers; he simply stated that abortion is murder.

🙄 🙄 🙄

Exactly. If I need to spell it out again, I'm pro-choice, and personally, I find most majority pro-life arguments pretty stupid, and they usually just irritate me...

But the whole damn foundation of the pro-life side is that abortion is murder. That's why they're against it . And what actually insults your intelligence—using your own term from earlier—is how nonsensical and hypocritical it is to allow the politics abortion debate on this sub, yet forbid anyone from actually calling it murder. What else is there to discuss? That's the entire point... 99.99% of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they see it as murder.

northerntiger said:Some people don't actually want a discussion; they just show up to preach at everyone else using all sorts of shady, unscientific stuff (basically just religious claims). So, I think the moderator made the right call here. It was the only way to go. Honestly, though, I’m a bit confused why this thread is even still live, considering we basically just moved a banned debate from the original PDF over here.

There it is. We probably feel the same way about abortion, but in my view, the moderator's decision is the only wrong one. The only bad one...

They can ban the politics abortion debate on this sub.
They can open it up to both sides.

Either choice is their business, and I support both options...

This part is just completely senseless.

It's like saying you can talk about abortion, but one side isn't allowed to mention their main—often their only—objection. 😁

Jessica Kelly4 said:I get why a site like Reddit would block sketchy links and bad arguments.
But that’s a whole different animal than the censorship you or slywolf45 are pushing for.

Look, mods aren't trying to start endless, pointless fights; they just want a decent conversation. You can't have a real discussion if one side is busy calling the other a murderer just because they support legal medical procedures here in the States.

What you're constantly hunting for is basically like someone starting a thread on a political sub supposed to be about policy, but instead, they just go off on how all Catholics are killers because the Church is against condoms, and therefore people die from AIDS. They'll find plenty of links, studies, and articles to back it up—because let's face it, you can find a "study" to support almost anything. Then, once the mods shut the thread down or give them a warning, they come crawling back here whining about how democracy is dead.

It's pretty simple: we either have total anarchy with zero moderation, or we follow the forum's rules. Personally, I think the admins have way more patience for this group of slackers than they should, for real.

lonebadger6 said:Exactly. If I need to spell it out again, I'm pro-choice, and personally, I find most majority pro-life arguments pretty stupid, and they usually just irritate me...

But the whole damn foundation of the pro-life side is that abortion is murder. That's why they're against it . And what actually insults your intelligence—using your own term from earlier—is how nonsensical and hypocritical it is to allow the politics abortion debate on this sub, yet forbid anyone from actually calling it murder. What else is there to discuss? That's the entire point... 99.99% of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they see it as murder.

There it is. We probably feel the same way about abortion, but in my view, the moderator's decision is the only wrong one. The only bad one...

They can ban the politics abortion debate on this sub.
They can open it up to both sides.

Either choice is their business, and I support both options...

This part is just completely senseless.

It's like saying you can talk about abortion, but one side isn't allowed to mention their main—often their only—objection. 😁

Seriously, tell me, how is it even remotely normal to say, "Sure, you can have a discussion, but we're going to gag one of you so you stay quiet..." 🙏 😁

@lonebadger6
You basically just answered your own question about whether debating abortion itself even makes sense here—especially on a thread focused on something like conscience clauses. Plus, if there’s a specific PDF meant for those kinds of deep dives, we should probably stick to that. We aren't even supposed to touch historical stuff on the Politics board, so no use complaining. Just head over to History instead. 🙂

The typical lifestyle crowd is doing their usual thing, playing the victim and whining that they aren't being allowed to voice their opinions. Honestly, what they have to say doesn't carry much weight on the Religion board anyway, and they could easily take it to the ZK. But no, they’re dead set on staying in Politics. If they don't get their way, they start acting like democracy is broken.

It’s starting to feel like a certain kind of fanaticism—just this obsessive behavior that gets exhausting really fast. Both for people trying to read the threads and for those of us moderating them.

northerntiger said:Look, mods aren't trying to start endless, pointless fights; they just want a decent conversation. You can't have a real discussion if one side is busy calling the other a murderer just because they support legal medical procedures here in the States.

What you're constantly hunting for is basically like someone starting a thread on a political sub supposed to be about policy, but instead, they just go off on how all Catholics are killers because the Church is against condoms, and therefore people die from AIDS. They'll find plenty of links, studies, and articles to back it up—because let's face it, you can find a "study" to support almost anything. Then, once the mods shut the thread down or give them a warning, they come crawling back here whining about how democracy is dead.

It's pretty simple: we either have total anarchy with zero moderation, or we follow the forum's rules. Personally, I think the admins have way more patience for this group of slackers than they should, for real.

Just because something was legal in different states at different times doesn't mean it was actually right. 😉

lonebadger6 said:Exactly. If I need to spell it out again, I'm pro-choice, and personally, I find most majority pro-life arguments pretty stupid, and they usually just irritate me...

But the whole damn foundation of the pro-life side is that abortion is murder. That's why they're against it . And what actually insults your intelligence—using your own term from earlier—is how nonsensical and hypocritical it is to allow the politics abortion debate on this sub, yet forbid anyone from actually calling it murder. What else is there to discuss? That's the entire point... 99.99% of pro-lifers oppose abortion because they see it as murder.

There it is. We probably feel the same way about abortion, but in my view, the moderator's decision is the only wrong one. The only bad one...

They can ban the politics abortion debate on this sub.
They can open it up to both sides.

Either choice is their business, and I support both options...

This part is just completely senseless.

It's like saying you can talk about abortion, but one side isn't allowed to mention their main—often their only—objection. 😁

A quick correction:
The fundamental basis of the pro-life position is that abortion is the killing of a fetus. That is their reason for opposition[/B]. It is nonsensical and hypocritical to permit a politics abortion debate here while stripping people of the right to define abortion and back those claims up with relevant sources. If you can't state your premise, there is no debate to be had. 99.99% of pro-lifers are against abortion because they see it as the killing of an innocent human being, which means it should be criminalized and treated under the law as murder.

This version is more accurate.

northerntiger said:Look, mods aren't trying to start endless, pointless fights; they just want a decent conversation. You can't have a real discussion if one side is busy calling the other a murderer just because they support legal medical procedures here in the States.

What you're constantly hunting for is basically like someone starting a thread on a political sub supposed to be about policy, but instead, they just go off on how all Catholics are killers because the Church is against condoms, and therefore people die from AIDS. They'll find plenty of links, studies, and articles to back it up—because let's face it, you can find a "study" to support almost anything. Then, once the mods shut the thread down or give them a warning, they come crawling back here whining about how democracy is dead.

It's pretty simple: we either have total anarchy with zero moderation, or we follow the forum's rules. Personally, I think the admins have way more patience for this group of slackers than they should, for real.

Well, now this is a topic actually worth debating. Should we allow a thread in Politics that challenges—and usually does so in a pretty blunt, "murderous" way—something that is perfectly legal in America? Personally, I’d say go for it; that’s what these forums are for, but hey, if the mods don't want it here, that's their call...

And the second part is still just a perfect example of my point—if that's the case, then why not just ban the politics abortion debate entirely and keep it strictly in the Religion section...

This is just nonsense—saying "you can talk about abortion in Politics, but one side isn't allowed to state the core of their belief." I don't know how people don't get it. You either decide "it's legal, period, no debates in Politics," or you pretend to allow a "discussion" while effectively silencing the pro-life side from making their fundamental argument. For God's sake, their name literally tells you what their main argument is...

northerntiger said:@lonebadger6
You basically just answered your own question about whether debating abortion itself even makes sense here—especially on a thread focused on something like conscience clauses. Plus, if there’s a specific PDF meant for those kinds of deep dives, we should probably stick to that. We aren't even supposed to touch historical stuff on the Politics board, so no use complaining. Just head over to History instead. 🙂

The typical lifestyle crowd is doing their usual thing, playing the victim and whining that they aren't being allowed to voice their opinions. Honestly, what they have to say doesn't carry much weight on the Religion board anyway, and they could easily take it to the ZK. But no, they’re dead set on staying in Politics. If they don't get their way, they start acting like democracy is broken.

It’s starting to feel like a certain kind of fanaticism—just this obsessive behavior that gets exhausting really fast. Both for people trying to read the threads and for those of us moderating them.

Sorry, just seeing this now...

Personally, I don't see any issue with a politics ban abortion debate on the Politics board...

My issue is when you allow the debate to happen, but then silence one side or hand out bans for saying exactly what their entire platform is built on. That's just messy, and those bans feel pretty unfair...

If a thread gets locked, fine. There's usually a reason for it. But letting a thread stay open only to penalize someone for expressing their core argument... that's just nonsense...

There shouldn't be any room here for playing favorites with one side or the other...

I see some clone account from Mexico constantly popping up on ZK, trying to spin stories about how evil Americans are. So, I figured I'd use that as an example...

It’s perfectly standard for the admins to shut down a thread titled "Operation Storm — Liberation or Genocide" immediately.

But if they actually let it stay open, it would be insane to ban someone just for calling it genocide, which is why they won't allow the discussion in the first place.

It’s the same deal with Politics—if the administration thinks there's no place for claims that abortion is murder, then they should just ban or close those topics entirely. But if they've already allowed the abortion debate on Politics, then it’s honestly nonsensical to delete or flag posts from just one side of the argument...

northerntiger said:Look, mods aren't trying to start endless, pointless fights; they just want a decent conversation. You can't have a real discussion if one side is busy calling the other a murderer just because they support legal medical procedures here in the States.

What you're constantly hunting for is basically like someone starting a thread on a political sub supposed to be about policy, but instead, they just go off on how all Catholics are killers because the Church is against condoms, and therefore people die from AIDS. They'll find plenty of links, studies, and articles to back it up—because let's face it, you can find a "study" to support almost anything. Then, once the mods shut the thread down or give them a warning, they come crawling back here whining about how democracy is dead.

It's pretty simple: we either have total anarchy with zero moderation, or we follow the forum's rules. Personally, I think the admins have way more patience for this group of slackers than they should, for real.

That’s a perfectly fine topic for a discussion.
I don't run from topics, debates, or having my arguments challenged.

@Jessica Kelly4
I mean, since you’re basically fine with any topic thrown your way, it really just shows that your main goal is preaching your religious beliefs.

PS It looks like the street lamps have stopped being released. In NYC, you haven't been able to pick up a new code from vendors for months now.

northerntiger said:@Jessica Kelly4
I mean, since you’re basically fine with any topic thrown your way, it really just shows that your main goal is preaching your religious beliefs.

PS It looks like the street lamps have stopped being released. In NYC, you haven't been able to pick up a new code from vendors for months now.

I honestly don't see the logic in that claim. 🤣

northerntiger said:@Jessica Kelly4
I mean, since you’re basically fine with any topic thrown your way, it really just shows that your main goal is preaching your religious beliefs.

PS It looks like the street lamps have stopped being released. In NYC, you haven't been able to pick up a new code from vendors for months now.

They had sales issues with the last issue, and they won't print a new one until the old stock sells (old funds the new). Plus, Pucić—the driving force behind the whole thing—got converted, finally decided to join the Franciscans, and left, so everything stalled out. It should pick up eventually, though; it'd be a shame if such a good project died out.

lonebadger6 said:Sorry, just seeing this now...

Personally, I don't see any issue with a politics ban abortion debate on the Politics board...

My issue is when you allow the debate to happen, but then silence one side or hand out bans for saying exactly what their entire platform is built on. That's just messy, and those bans feel pretty unfair...

If a thread gets locked, fine. There's usually a reason for it. But letting a thread stay open only to penalize someone for expressing their core argument... that's just nonsense...

For me, it’s all about the rhetoric. Calling women who have abortions "murderers"—even if you try to sugarcoat it—doesn't exactly help create an environment where anyone can actually have a reasoned discussion about the topic. Especially since even the medical experts aren't exactly in total agreement on when life actually begins.

Just a little personal take here. The pro-life and pro-choice movements aren't equally distant from some imaginary middle ground. One side is clearly more radical than the other, so moderation naturally seems to lean toward the pro-choice crowd. It would be a completely different story if the pro-choice side was making demands for forced abortions or sterilizations.

@Jessica Kelly4
Look, at the end of the day, you just need a platform where you can actually tell your side of the story. It doesn't even matter what we're talking about. You’re always going to stick to your guns—saying the West is losing its way, that it's becoming morally decayed, and that traditional family values are under fire because of all this liberalism, the abortion debate, and everything else. 🤣

We really need better organization on the streets. Even Facebook isn't cutting it anymore. There's plenty of love out there, but we aren't using it the right way. 😢

Bradley Sanders4 said:For me, it’s all about the rhetoric. Calling women who have abortions "murderers"—even if you try to sugarcoat it—doesn't exactly help create an environment where anyone can actually have a reasoned discussion about the topic. Especially since even the medical experts aren't exactly in total agreement on when life actually begins.

Just a little personal take here. The pro-life and pro-choice movements aren't equally distant from some imaginary middle ground. One side is clearly more radical than the other, so moderation naturally seems to lean toward the pro-choice crowd. It would be a completely different story if the pro-choice side was making demands for forced abortions or sterilizations.

But I’m looking at this through a political lens.

If I stormed into a parenting forum and started using that kind of language, they’d be totally justified in shutting me down because the context would be completely different.

The whole goal of pro-life political action is specifically to criminalize abortion by defining it as the killing of a human being, which means pushing to change current laws. Sure, the experts don't all agree, but if I drop a link to a major embryology textbook or a quote stating that a zygote is the start of a human life—and provide several links showing that a significant part of the scientific community agrees—then I believe my argument is rationally grounded. An admin shouldn't just use their discretion to ban my claims.

And for the record, the pro-life movement isn't some fringe group. It's a global movement with influence in major institutions and universities worldwide. Their discourse and demands are public and well-documented.

northerntiger said:@Jessica Kelly4
Look, at the end of the day, you just need a platform where you can actually tell your side of the story. It doesn't even matter what we're talking about. You’re always going to stick to your guns—saying the West is losing its way, that it's becoming morally decayed, and that traditional family values are under fire because of all this liberalism, the abortion debate, and everything else. 🤣

We really need better organization on the streets. Even Facebook isn't cutting it anymore. There's plenty of love out there, but we aren't using it the right way. 😢

It's about debating, not just talking.
This medium is built for debate; that's how it works.
If there's no debate, the whole platform is pointless.

Jessica Kelly4 said:But I’m looking at this through a political lens.

If I stormed into a parenting forum and started using that kind of language, they’d be totally justified in shutting me down because the context would be completely different.

The whole goal of pro-life political action is specifically to criminalize abortion by defining it as the killing of a human being, which means pushing to change current laws. Sure, the experts don't all agree, but if I drop a link to a major embryology textbook or a quote stating that a zygote is the start of a human life—and provide several links showing that a significant part of the scientific community agrees—then I believe my argument is rationally grounded. An admin shouldn't just use their discretion to ban my claims.

And for the record, the pro-life movement isn't some fringe group. It's a global movement with influence in major institutions and universities worldwide. Their discourse and demands are public and well-documented.

It’s honestly pretty ridiculous when you see people trying to justify their own behavior by pointing to the exact same mess they're actively making. You can't really claim the context justifies your actions when your actions are what created that context in the first place. It just doesn't add up. 🤷

The whole pro-life political movement is basically aiming to criminalize abortion by treating it as the killing of a human being—which means pushing to overhaul our current laws. Look, I get it, the medical community isn't a monolith and experts disagree on everything. But if I hand you a link to one of the most widely read embryology textbooks out there, along with a direct quote stating that a zygote is the start of a new human life, and then back that up with several other links proving that at least a significant portion of the field agrees with me... then I’ve built a rational case. It’s just wrong for an admin to use their discretionary power to shut down my arguments like that.

Look, I’ve said this before: expertise isn't some monolith. It's fragmented. So, if you aren't explicitly stating that your sources represent just one specific school of thought, your arguments aren't exactly grounded in logic. As long as you include those links and clarify that you're only presenting one piece of the professional puzzle, then fine—you're being fair to the field and to the people you're talking to. If you don't? You're not. Simple as that.

And just to top it all off, let’s be real: the pro-life movement isn't some obscure fringe group hiding in the shadows. It’s a massive, global movement. We're talking about organizations that have deep roots and serious influence within the most powerful institutions and universities across the country. Their arguments, their discourse, and their demands aren't secret—they are out there in the public eye, plain as day, and everyone knows exactly where they stand.

No offense intended, but that isn't even an argument.

I’m pretty sure William Bennett53 laid out the whole reasoning behind this decision just yesterday. Look, I get it—this conversation is getting incredibly heated and emotional, which is why the moderators really need to keep a close eye on any personal attacks or rudeness to make sure we don't lose the quality of the discussion. Please, let's all try to stick to their guidelines and keep the debate within the established parameters and rules.