Insulting American people!!!

Melissa Peterson19 said:I am siding with the moderation on this dispute. Even for a user who used the term "Taliban" as a sharp illustration of their stance toward the official Church during a debate with the Government, I wouldn't issue a ban—I'd just warn them not to let the discussion radicalize any further.
As for you, Walter Brooks5, moving slightly off-topic, I ask you to explain based on your own creed exactly where and when Jesus said, "Rather be lukewarm, if you aren't hot"?!
I ask because your description of Christ's intervention in the Temple is flawed and suggests a fundamental ignorance of the Gospel, which calls into question your right to act publicly offended as a zealous Catholic. What on earth are idols and souvenirs doing in the Temple? Explain it if you can. If you can't, then realize your faith is merely a syncretism dressed up as traditional, national Catholicism, and that is the only reason you feel insulted by attacks on Bozanica. But lest you take offense now, honestly, sincere, committed syncretism is very pleasing to God! Explain the hot/cold part and the idols!

Everything you need to know is right there in your avatar, so you don't really have to say much. Just show up, drop three dots, and anyone curious enough to look at your profile will know exactly what those three dots signify.

You want to talk about the Bible?

The answer to your first question is right here:
http://www.biblesos.org/en/bible/cro...6166003015017/

The answer to your second question is right here:
money changers—a metaphor for cash.
souvenirs—a metaphor for pigeons.

Got any other brilliant questions?

And regarding the word "Taliban," do you honestly think it's reasonable to call Milanovic or Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" purely out of spite???

And you think that shouldn't result in a ban?

If your answer to these is "yes," then we have another question: If someone were allowed to call Milanovic and Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" on this forum without consequence, what kind of title could they possibly dream up for someone like Jovanovic?

Any suggestions?

Now, just imagine if someone launched a verbal assault like that against your favorite politicians, and then someone else protested that attack, only for the protester to get two red cards while the guy who actually called "Milanovic and Josipovic the worst communist Talibans of all time" gets absolutely nothing???

Can you picture a situation like that?

Then, the person who got the cards comes back here to complain about them, and finally, someone in your position steps in claiming the cards should be retracted for the guy who was baselessly insulting Milanovic and Josipovic, while finding it "too hard" to even imagine a title for Jovanovic.

As the most principled person on earth, would you probably jump to defend the guy who just insulted everything represented by your precious little avatar?

Come on, don't be ridiculous. There's enough hypocrisy in your posts as it is; you don't need to embarrass yourself further with these pointless, incredibly naive stories for the clueless.

William Bennett53 said:And there you have it—you clearly don't understand the American people very well at all...
Without offering a single counterargument to what was said, you simply launch this pseudo-subtle ad hominem attack against someone you don't even know or understand... It shouldn't surprise me then that you find it bothersome when someone labels a church leader a totalitarian... ☕

And yes, I am American and I am Catholic. However, that doesn't mean I have to view the world through a narrow lens like a camera obscura, nor will I allow anyone to question my religious or national identity simply because of how I choose to act.👍

If you're Catholic, then I'm an atheist. Look, maybe you're Catholic on paper, but it's pretty obvious you don't even grasp the basics of what Catholicism actually is, so there's really no point in continuing to embarrass yourself like this.

Walter Brooks5 said:If you're Catholic, then I'm an atheist. Look, maybe you're Catholic on paper, but it's pretty obvious you don't even grasp the basics of what Catholicism actually is, so there's really no point in continuing to embarrass yourself like this.

That’s all there is to it—a mere camera obscura...
whenever I find myself rereading the name of the rose. 👍

William Bennett53 said:That’s all there is to it—a mere camera obscura...
whenever I find myself rereading the name of the rose. 👍

Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

Is insulting Bozanica really an insult to the American people?
Then why is it considered acceptable to call President America Yusupovic?
The individual in question was elected in a nation where the majority is American, securing the bulk of the votes.
Bozanica didn't choose the American people.

Walter Brooks5 said:Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

So, what exactly does it mean when we say the Church has been sidelined from society?
They are practically allowed to proselytize their religion right in the middle of public schools. They have regular slots on television, their holidays are official national holidays, and whenever their leader speaks, every single media outlet picks it up and broadcasts it as gospel. Is it even a question anymore?
Why exactly is the Church being cast out of society?

Anyone who participates in the promotion of abortion, pedophilia, or pornography should be considered automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Is there any other way to view it?

And if we are talking about practicing pedophilia, then just transfer him to be a priest in a different parish.

Walter Brooks5 said:Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

Regarding point one: secularism is the civilizational achievement of separating the state from the church, not the other way around. The church, naturally, should and must be involved in society, but the state does not have to—though it certainly can—follow sermons from the Vatican.
Regarding point two: what does any of that have to do with this? That individual who wrote somewhere that Bozanica is a Taliban didn't just avoid insulting the American people or Catholic believers; they certainly didn't promote anything like pedophilia by saying that.

To conclude, your inability to stick to the topic you yourself introduced clearly shows that your only interest is baiting trolls from subforums onto this one.

Walter Brooks5 said:Maybe you should go out and hunt for some lost book by Aristotle yourself. Just imagine if you actually found it, read it, and realized you’ve had a completely wrong idea about how to be funny this whole time?

Trust me, you’d be pretty shocked.

As for your basic lack of understanding regarding Catholicism, I’ve got two little lessons for you:

1. According to the Council's view, the Church is separate from the State, but it shouldn't be sidelined from society—the Church *is* society, or rather, the specific part of society made up of its members.

2. Anyone who participates in abortion or the promotion of pedophilia and pornography is automatically cast out from the Catholic Church.

Do I even need to remind you of Jesus's words: "It would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck and be thrown into the sea than to lead a child into sin!"

So, there you go—that's the extent of your sense of humor and your grasp of Catholicism!

I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

This is honestly starting to get awkward to read.

slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

yet he's a thief 🤣

Anthony Jackson2 said:yet he's a thief 🤣

Hey, take it easy—that’s insulting the American people! 😬

slybison8 said:I really do apologize for stepping back into this discussion when it doesn't directly pertain to my PDF, but I suppose I found this quite intriguing.

Do you happen to have an explanation as to why Ivo Sanders wasn't automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

If I recall correctly, he even admitted recently on Stankicev's program that he was selling erotic material to the Messenger's House back in the late eighties, which I believe is a well-known part of his biography anyway?

And yet, he comes from a family where his brother is a priest and his sister is a nun... and he hasn't been excommunicated, nor is he today. He certainly promoted pornography—well, soft erotica, if you know what I mean?

Like this>
Anyone who participates in an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Period.
I threw in the bit about promoting pedophilia and pornography myself because, honestly, I see them as being just as destructive as infanticide. People pushing that kind of filth aren't just mentally breaking kids; they're actively creating a playground for actual crimes to happen—like those tragic cases of underage pregnancies that almost always end in abortions.

Now, someone with half a brain might try to argue that Jovanovicev’s approach to sex education is actually just a way to prevent teen pregnancies from spiking—or even bring those numbers down.

Look, from a purely moral standpoint, we all know exactly where the Catholic Church stands regarding the fourth module of the ZOa. But let’s be real—you can't just strip morality away from the practical, technical side of things. They're tied together.

Let’s look at this issue from a purely practical and technical standpoint:

How do we actually stop these mass killings by deranged lunatics in American cities?

Following the rules to get your hands on a firearm. What kind of vibe are we going for here? Give me some direction.Either... or what?
2. Armed to the teeth with paranoid Americans. What's actually going on? So, what happens when things like this actually go down? What’s the fallout?

Look, incidents are always going to happen—that's just a given. But instead of getting boggeded down in the whole moral high ground and "teaching lessons" debate, we should be looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. From a technical and functional perspective, what actually works better?

How do we actually build an environment that fosters real moral development—one that shapes kids into confident, self-aware, and responsible adults rather than just compliant robots?

We really need to foster a culture centered around actual moral maturity—one where the conversation isn't about "when, how, or with whom" you can get away with it, but rather how to protect yourself. It’s about understanding that physical readiness is nothing without psychological and emotional maturity, which carries its own heavy weight of responsibility. The real question we should be asking is: what is the absolute minimum age someone needs to reach to start being sexually active without causing themselves devastating psychological damage or facing practically tragic real-world consequences? And let's be clear—this holds true regardless of how much anyone overestimates the effectiveness of protection or various safety mechanisms. We're talking about the fundamental intersection of mental stability and life-altering decisions.

Look, I played nice and gave you an answer just to be polite, and honestly, I kept it brief to save us both some time. But moving forward, let’s keep things on track—I’m staying away from any more off-topic tangents in this thread.

Can't believe I actually find myself rooting for the moderators... man, life really is full of surprises...

Brenda Cook4 said:Hey, take it easy—that’s insulting the American people! 😬

You think they can apply it retroactively, though—since he isn't the Prime Minister anymore anyway. 🤔

Don't you think you're overstepping a bit here?
And honestly, what does Sanders have to do with this lady's complaint on the forum anyway...

wanderingheron52 said:Don't you think you're overstepping a bit here?
And honestly, what does Sanders have to do with this lady's complaint on the forum anyway...

Because her complaint is totally baseless, and dragging Sanders into this whole thing is just unnecessary.

wanderingheron52 said:Don't you think you're overstepping a bit here?
And honestly, what does Sanders have to do with this lady's complaint on the forum anyway...

Well, you know how it goes—Dostoevsky talks in The Brothers Karamazov about a specific breed of people who basically sit around salivating at the thought of someone else's misfortune just so they have something to gossip about.

Just look at war zones; there are always those rare souls (like Saint Stepinac or other "righteous among the nations," for example) who risk their own lives to save anyone caught in the crosshairs of some inhumane regime, regardless of religion, nationality, or skin color.

But those people are always in the minority.

Unfortunately, that first breed always seems to have the numbers.

Daniel Ward87, I saw your reply to Unknown in the banned corner, and I wanted to take a second to thank you for being so level-headed while addressing his behavior.

I'll probably still lose points for trolling, even though my take on Meadowin's reasoning makes it pretty clear that using that controversial comparison was purely illustrative and shouldn't be seen as problematic at all (in my book).

Walter Brooks5 said:Everything you need to know is right there in your avatar, so you don't really have to say much. Just show up, drop three dots, and anyone curious enough to look at your profile will know exactly what those three dots signify.

You want to talk about the Bible?

The answer to your first question is right here:
http://www.biblesos.org/en/bible/cro...6166003015017/

The answer to your second question is right here:
money changers—a metaphor for cash.
souvenirs—a metaphor for pigeons.

Got any other brilliant questions?

And regarding the word "Taliban," do you honestly think it's reasonable to call Milanovic or Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" purely out of spite???

And you think that shouldn't result in a ban?

If your answer to these is "yes," then we have another question: If someone were allowed to call Milanovic and Josipovic "the worst communist Talibans of all time" on this forum without consequence, what kind of title could they possibly dream up for someone like Jovanovic?

Any suggestions?

Now, just imagine if someone launched a verbal assault like that against your favorite politicians, and then someone else protested that attack, only for the protester to get two red cards while the guy who actually called "Milanovic and Josipovic the worst communist Talibans of all time" gets absolutely nothing???

Can you picture a situation like that?

Then, the person who got the cards comes back here to complain about them, and finally, someone in your position steps in claiming the cards should be retracted for the guy who was baselessly insulting Milanovic and Josipovic, while finding it "too hard" to even imagine a title for Jovanovic.

As the most principled person on earth, would you probably jump to defend the guy who just insulted everything represented by your precious little avatar?

Come on, don't be ridiculous. There's enough hypocrisy in your posts as it is; you don't need to embarrass yourself further with these pointless, incredibly naive stories for the clueless.

Stop unloading these interpretations of Holy Scripture on me. You take John's fantasies from Revelation—things meant only for him near the end of his life, which can be interpreted a million different ways—put them in quotes, and attribute them to Christ?

I think those merchants should have been whipped with a lash.

I’ll confirm that insecurity for you. In John's Gospel alone, he used a "whip" made of rope. In Matthew, Mark, or Luke, there is no such thing.

And where on earth does he find these metaphors? Where does he find the mafia, the souvenirs, or the trinkets when they weren't even allowed to breathe inside the Temple? Only oxen, sheep, doves, and money. That kind of organized crime hasn't been permitted among the people since Sinai and the golden calf! It just doesn't happen.

I might try to wrap my head around "Communist Talibans" if there were actual arguments proving they persistently advocate for and practice Stalinism or Maoism, for example. Like Bozanic's stubborn opposition to sex education! He wasn't called a Taliban "out of the blue."

And sure, the people would have much more right to be offended by I. Sanders, whom they elected twice as their leader in free elections, than by Bozanic, who was politically imposed upon them by the Vatican and the Pope—someone they are supposed to respect. Well, Alexander VI was a Pope too. Vojtila still needs to find his place in history once it becomes clear what his (un)finished work actually amounts to.
Do not identify the American people or yourself with the clergy, and don't wedge them between yourself and God! Goodbye.

Daniel Ward87 said:Matter's settled, the post was flagged, so there's really no point in dragging this out any further.

Just when I thought getting a card from Unknown might feel like a tiny bit of payback—especially given how you shut him down in that first post—it turns out otherwise. People on Forum.hr have been preaching about "reciprocity" for years, mostly because they clearly feel like they're being treated like second-class citizens (and honestly, they're probably right to feel that way). But instead of getting that sweet justice, you just team up with the moderator Unknown to flip the script and label it "heavy trolling!" instead. Real classy move.

So now you’re actually going to try and tell me that starting this thread was a waste of time?

As long as there’s no equality for us and no justice to be found, nothing changes!

I think I laid it all out pretty clearly in my first post on this thread.
Let’s look at a hypothetical scenario where if the roles were reversed in a similar conflict, the moderators would have reacted completely differently. I'm talking about a situation where nobody would even dream of reclassifying certain comments as "heavy trolling." Instead, that kind of rhetoric would be flagged immediately as hate speech—which is exactly what it is—and the sanctions would be heavy enough to actually satisfy the victim while staying strictly within the forum's rules.

Twisting the rules just to manufacture violations for one person while letting someone else off easy for serious insults—where there isn't even a shred of actual hate speech based on nationality or religion—is ridiculous. First, they slap you with a standard warning card, then, behind closed doors with the moderator, they decide to upgrade that same penalty to "heavy trolling" the very next day. That kind of moving the goalposts does absolutely nothing for fairness or maintaining any sense of balance between different ideologies on this forum.

Unfortunately, a wolf might change its coat, but its nature stays exactly the same.

Daniel Ward87, look, you aren't some wild animal driven by instinct; you’re a man. That whole "wolf and its nature" comparison shouldn't even apply to you. So, the real question is: are you actually going to find the backbone to help ensure this forum finally starts treating everyone by the same set of rules, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines?

Thanks for the partnership!