Insulting American people!!!

Susan Price30 said:

It’s almost like we’re living in North Korea, where one word against the Great Leader or his ideas is enough to land you in a camp. Did someone freeze you all back in the fifties and just thaw you out? Are you still struggling to wrap your heads around democracy and free speech? Seriously, someone touched a nerve with a sacred truth—let's drag them to the gallows. 😲😠
I can't believe what I'm reading. 😕

I honestly don't understand why that term is even being used. Us versus them.That alone says quite a lot about someone's mindset or how they approach things, I would say. (And that's without even considering those emojis.)

And now that this is being dragged out... The distinction between "we" and "you." Is there really a difference? It’s just like some of those other subforums, honestly... anyway, I'm heading out to lunch.😁

It’s probably because they just don't share your specific views or perspectives. Because of that, they refuse to be lumped into your "us" group.

Brenda Cook4 said:No, this isn't some case of being stuck in the past. This is a calculated tactic to gag people and strip away their right to speak freely. But here's the kicker: it only seems to apply to certain groups. Just look at today's headline in the USA Today bold print—and mind you, this targets entire groups of people rather than criticizing a single individual. This is what they're labeling as "hate speech": Theologian Adalbert Rebic: 'A conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians will destroy America!'
And let me say it again: this kind of punishment sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

Brenda Cook4 said:No, this isn't some case of being stuck in the past. This is a calculated tactic to gag people and strip away their right to speak freely. But here's the kicker: it only seems to apply to certain groups. Just look at today's headline in the USA Today bold print—and mind you, this targets entire groups of people rather than criticizing a single individual. This is what they're labeling as "hate speech": Theologian Adalbert Rebic: 'A conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians will destroy America!'
And let me say it again: this kind of punishment sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

So, what's actually the difference between Rebic and Grubisic, other than who they're aiming their "criticism" at?

Drew Jones6 said:Get real, kid! If some Unknown guy wrote that Bozanic was a moron, I don't believe for a second that colleague Walter Brooks5 would go out of her way to report it, and even if she did, nobody would give a damn.

But you can't just write that the Cardinal is the biggest Catholic-Taliban ever—you seriously don't get the difference?

It’s the same as saying, I don't know, maybe Josipovic is some massive American Stalinist terrorist, and you think someone who writes that without any actual argument wouldn't catch a bit of heat?

Of course you don't! Well, then stop lying!

So, calling someone a Taliban (= religious fanatic) is unacceptable, but calling them an idiot (= mentally slow) is fine?

Is it because when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they started ruling through terror? I mean, that’s just what all fanatics do once they get power. So, basically, he was implying Bozanic is a religious fanatic (which, as far as I know, he isn't).

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with "insulting the American people"?

And since when am I a "kid"? Just because I'm debating a guy with fewer than 200 posts who's only been on this forum for a few months?

Drew Jones6 said:The answer to your fiscal question is sitting right there two posts above yours, in post #57.
And as for that nonsense about Grubisic being some kind of association with Supek—honestly, whoever told you that was probably hammered, or maybe they're just straight-up insane. 🤷

In that thread, you claim someone called Bozanic an idiot and that Walter Brooks5 didn't report them, yet when it comes to calling Bozanic a Taliban, she felt she absolutely had to.🤣
It seems both Mom and her entire company felt deeply insulted by the mere suggestion that Jesus might not have existed.
In reality, the only double standard I can see here is your assertion that one can call him an idiot, but labeling him a Taliban is where we draw the line.😕 🤷😍

Drew Jones6 said:The answer to your fiscal question is sitting right there two posts above yours, in post #57.
And as for that nonsense about Grubisic being some kind of association with Supek—honestly, whoever told you that was probably hammered, or maybe they're just straight-up insane. 🤷

That individual took the time to explain their reasoning to me—though we certainly don't have to agree with them—yet you chose to launch an ad hominem attack instead of addressing a single actual argument.
It really appears that you haven't grasped any of what has been discussed up to this point.☕

Paul Anderson2 said:So, calling someone a Taliban (= religious fanatic) is unacceptable, but calling them an idiot (= mentally slow) is fine?

Is it because when the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, they started ruling through terror? I mean, that’s just what all fanatics do once they get power. So, basically, he was implying Bozanic is a religious fanatic (which, as far as I know, he isn't).

Anyway, what does any of that have to do with "insulting the American people"?

And since when am I a "kid"? Just because I'm debating a guy with fewer than 200 posts who's only been on this forum for a few months?

The moderator for Religion has already explained and provided the reasoning regarding the sanctioning of certain posts.

It’s quite simple—you went too far. Things get heated on the Religion boards and people say all sorts of things to one another, but you really overstepped this time. Furthermore, by labeling him the ultimate Catholic-Taliban, you're implying that there are lesser ones out there, suggesting they actually exist. There is a difference between criticizing someone or even "spitting venom," but this is just excessive..

Are you seriously going to ask Socrates to explain why the moderators made that specific decision, or what their exact purpose is?

Look, if calling the President—you know, the guy who actually won the majority of the American people's votes—a "moron" isn't considered insulting the people, then how is calling the highest representative of a religious group a "Taliban" an insult to the people?

That seems more like an insult to Catholics or the Catholic Church, or honestly, just to Bozanic himself.

Where do we draw the line? I’m being serious here. I don't really use those kinds of terms myself, but some people sure do.

It’s pretty common on here to see Mexicans equated with Royalists, priests with pedophiles, or GOP-ists with criminals. It’s definitely not exactly high-level discourse.

What would happen if someone wrote that Bozanic, Rebic (we could throw in Ratzinger too, I guess) are fanatics or fundamentalists? Again, that’s not my take, but where does it end?

Drew Jones6 said:See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

Drew Jones6 said:See? That’s the whole difference right there.
If Rebic is lying, then yeah, he's clearly a Taliban.
But if the guy claiming Rebic is lying is actually the one lying, then it's absolutely true that a conspiracy of gays, communists, and lesbians is threatening to tear America apart.

It comes down to arguments and nothing else. Pure logic.
But none of this mess would have even happened if people actually respected basic tolerance, decency, and democratic procedures.

Who didn't follow the rules? Bozanic? Or Jovanovic?

If that question is too hard to answer, let's try a backup:
Who attacked whom:
1. America attacking Mexico
2. Mexico attacking America

Run that poll in Mexico and you'll see how "conspiracy" and "self-deception" are just terms used to describe a surreal—but totally real—reality.

That kind of reality is the root, the seed, and the cause of every evil imaginable. And the foundation of that reality is one of the oldest, most venomous snakes in existence: LIES!!!

To figure out what's a lie and what isn't, we have to let both sides speak. Otherwise, you just end up with Stalinist show trials where the verdict is decided before the trial even starts.

And when people protest against those rigged trials, they're labeled "enemies of the state." Seriously, guys, those days are over. Haven't you learned anything from history?

Look, when the past doesn't serve as your teacher, you're on a surefire path to ruin!!!

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how we use perception and linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis...
When someone calls Bozanic a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he's literally a fanatic who's the first one in town throwing stones at adulterers. Rather, it’s a vivid way to emphasize that his views on sexuality aren't aligned with the modern era; instead, they lean toward older, religiously inspired values, much like those most visible among the Taliban today.

So, because of that, as a moderator for DZ, you're okay with terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' being used as a label for people in debates, or just generally (if that's what they call it)? Or are you not?

shadoworca3 said:It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

"Spirit of the times"? Give me a break. That’s just some fancy-sounding nonsense used to hide snake legs. The Catholic Church doesn't give a damn about those kinds of empty, flowery phrases—and honestly, they’re right not to.

The spirit of the times—man, Raspudic really nailed it in that article for the Daily News. He was tearing into Jovanovic, basically pointing out how this guy thinks that just because he’s living 500 years after the "Middle Ages," he somehow has the right to spit all over the foundations of a culture he doesn't understand. And get this: he actually has the nerve to act like he’s being smart or "progressive" while doing it. Like, what does "progressive" even mean in this context? It’s total nonsense. 🤦

shadoworca3 said:It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how perception, linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis, all function together.
When someone says Bozanic is a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he is literally a member of a militant group who is the first to throw stones at sinners in a village; rather, they are using a vivid metaphor to emphasize that his views on sexuality are out of step with the modern era, leaning instead toward older, religiously inspired values most visibly held by the Taliban today.

This is just rambling and unnecessary tangents—or, to put it more bluntly, trolling.

That whole "medieval" troll thing? It’s just another tired cliché people use on this forum whenever they want to shut someone up. Calling someone a "troll" is basically just a lazy way of saying "you're an idiot!"—at least, that's how it hits me. And let's be real, the whole category is incredibly vague and stretched thin, so...

Just because you think I’m trolling doesn't mean I actually am! Get it through your head!

We could really use a little more democracy around here, honestly. And first things first? People need to stop constantly throwing around that "verbal offense" nonsense just to charge someone with being a troll. It’s getting old.

Especially when you’ve got moderator powers in your back pocket, giving you the green light to just ban whoever you want. Using that "you're trolling" excuse is straight-up megalomania on this forum. Total power trip.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

It might just be my own perception, but being called an idiot would actually feel like a much deeper insult than being labeled a Taliban. 🤷

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

A Taliban is a religious fanatic, but a religious fanatic doesn't necessarily have to be a Taliban.
A religious fanatic might be a terrorist, but they don't have to be.
The conclusion is simple: a Taliban doesn't have to be a terrorist, and vice versa.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

You aren't trolling, because by definition, trolling implies that you are doing it intentionally.
Unfortunately, you aren't doing this intentionally. 😢

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Regarding the forging of Mary's story, one could argue this point using examples from religious and mythological history—and I believe there are nearly ten such instances—where virgins give birth to future gods. Both before and after Christianity, one could use those examples to suggest that in such cases, the women involved always had questionable morals...

From a medical standpoint, one could explain how such an event was physically impossible; or from a logical perspective, argue that an almighty God wouldn't have needed to plant seed in Mary via the Holy Spirit when He could have simply created Jesus ex nihilo, just as He did with Adam. One might even suggest it's far more probable that Mary was simply overcome by desire and paid for that moment of passion with a child, which back then meant being stoned, leading her to collaborate with local women to invent an incredible tale inspired by ancient legends.

Of course, a believer doesn't have to agree with any of that, but they can certainly respond with counterarguments. They could even dismiss these atheistic arguments as foolish—provided they have their own counterarguments ready.

It’s quite simple and painless, really.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Drew Jones6 said:@shadoworca3, @Paul Anderson2, guys, stop acting like you're clueless, because I know you aren't!

Look, obviously you can call anyone an idiot. That’s totally subjective and whatever, right? Like, someone might be a moron to me, but to someone else, I’m the moron. It all comes down to IQ, mental stability, lack of education, or just being primitive—basically all of that combined, like that guy from that Bresanov movie would say.

But it's a whole different ballgame when you start calling someone without any actual proof a Taliban = a religious fanatic = a terrorist!!!

When you call someone a moron, it's damn near impossible to prove they aren't actually an idiot compared to someone way smarter, more educated, or even just more politically, legally, economically, or electro-technically literate than them.

But when you slap the label "Taliban," "religious fanatic," or "terrorist" on someone, that carries massive socio-political repercussions—whether you're right or wrong.

Bottom line: you can't really prove a qualification like "idiot" or "moron," but you absolutely *can* prove if someone is a Taliban, a terrorist, or a murderer. And you can also prove if someone is lying when they claim someone else is one of those things.

So, whether you're just trolling or not, judge for yourselves!

@Paul Anderson2, aren't you a boy? 🙂
Come on, don't get all sensitive over such harmless words.
Just imagine you were Bozanic, popping onto Forum.hr and seeing how people are tearing you apart. Can you picture it? How does that make you feel right now?
Now, imagine you're Bozanic, you come here, read these unprovoked, nasty comments about you, and then realize that instead of standing up for your honor, half these forum users are actually defending Unknown and his little tricks?
How's that feeling now?

And regarding insulting the American people, try telling some fanatic or a bishop that they’re Talibans and terrorists, and then go talk to the believers they represent and ask if they feel insulted.

Or try drawing a bomb over Muhammad's head. Seriously, there's been plenty of spitting on Jesus and Mary. Actually, why don't you ask shadoworca3 if he's had enough, or if he thinks it's okay to say what he wrote about the Virgin Mary, and if the guy saying it shouldn't get even a single penalty point? Maybe ask shadoworca3 if he agrees that, say, calling Muhammad a total degenerate and a pedophile out of nowhere should result in some kind of reprimand for insulting the feelings of every Muslim in the world, or if it shouldn't.

Well, let us know what shadoworca3 tells you.
Sorry for calling you a boy.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Susan Price30 said:

It seems you don't quite grasp how communication works—how we use perception and linguistic devices like hyperbole, parable, or ellipsis...
When someone calls Bozanic a Taliban, they aren't suggesting he's literally a fanatic who's the first one in town throwing stones at adulterers. Rather, it’s a vivid way to emphasize that his views on sexuality aren't aligned with the modern era; instead, they lean toward older, religiously inspired values, much like those most visible among the Taliban today.

So, because of that, as a moderator for DZ, you're okay with terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' being used as a label for people in debates, or just generally (if that's what they call it)? Or are you not?

I have reported this insult to the administrators. ☕
To clarify, I am not a moderator for Social Sciences DZ; my role is actually within Natural Science PZ. 🙂

🤣

Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

Susan Price30 said:Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

I actually just searched the forum (using Google: katotaliban site:forum.hr) and I can't find that term anywhere except right here in this thread.

I'm one of the mods over on the Social Sciences board. To be fair, I mostly handle the Linguistics section (the other mod covers everything else).

Are there people who cross the line and stop being polite? Yeah, there are.

Paul Anderson2 said:I actually just searched the forum (using Google: katotaliban site:forum.hr) and I can't find that term anywhere except right here in this thread.

I'm one of the mods over on the Social Sciences board. To be fair, I mostly handle the Linguistics section (the other mod covers everything else).

Are there people who cross the line and stop being polite? Yeah, there are.

People who follow that subforum (personally, I don't think I've ever even opened it, let alone posted there, so I really can't say) claim that's how it is (in this thread) and that it's been happening for a long time. Even if that were true, it isn't necessarily a critique of your moderation, because it might have been that way long before you arrived.

Amanda Hughes37 said:The term "Catholic-Taliban" has been firmly embedded in the Religion and Social Sciences section for ages—and I haven't seen any attempt to moderate or ban it.
It’s tossed around in debates to describe certain groups of people whom some user decides, by their own arbitrary standards, are basically imposing KC values like Talibans... it's all a bit vague, but whatever.
Honestly, when I first stumbled onto the Religion sub-forum, I felt like Alice in Wonderland. I expected discussions on various aspects of different faiths—comparisons, traditions, interpretations, things of that nature.
I was looking for atheists who actually care about the subject matter—people seeking information, engaging, asking questions.
I imagined this would be an oasis of peace, love, and tranquility.
Instead... it's a pit.
Pure horror.
Entire threads dedicated to someone trying to convince another person that their deeply held beliefs are nothing short of idiocy.
Mocking faith, mocking believers... that's the usual routine. And if I'm being honest, what shocked me even more—though it's less frequent, still present—is the blatant disrespect between believers of different faiths.

Regarding how communication works over at PZ—that's what I wanted to address, and eventually, how the moderator there communicates, even within this thread. Sorry about the misunderstanding.🙂

Susan Price30 said:Forgive me, let me add one thing: on the Social Sciences board—someone already touched on this at the start of this thread—and on the Natural Sciences board as well, terms like 'Catholic-Taliban' are being used specifically to insult others. I assume there isn't any other reason someone would resort to such a derogatory label, but I can't be certain...

I haven't encountered that specific coinage before, but I honestly fail to see why one shouldn't apply it to someone who holds positions that the modern Church itself has since discarded. After all, what is there to say about a person who attempts to justify the burning of witches, the trial of Galileo, or a strictly literal interpretation of the story of Noah's Ark, especially when the official Church has already stated that such accounts should be understood metaphorically and has publicly apologized for the treatment of Galileo?

As for my own choice of pejoratives, I tend to use "burned creationist" for those who, despite overwhelming evidence, insist on proving things like Noah's Ark, or "Catholic Jamahiriya America" when, for instance, government ministers push through laws against medically assisted reproduction simply to curry favor with the Church without consulting any actual experts first.

Susan Price30 said:People who follow that subforum (personally, I don't think I've ever even opened it, let alone posted there, so I really can't say) claim that's how it is (in this thread) and that it's been happening for a long time. Even if that were true, it isn't necessarily a critique of your moderation, because it might have been that way long before you arrived.

Regarding how communication works over at PZ—that's what I wanted to address, and eventually, how the moderator there communicates, even within this thread. Sorry about the misunderstanding.🙂

What specifically is bothering you?

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Look, I didn't say they should be allowed if there's zero backup. If you actually have the receipts, then yeah, go for it. Same goes for calling someone a Taliban. Like, if someone claims Bozanic is a total Taliban, then you better logically back that up. Quote him. Show us where and when he said something extremist enough to earn that label—because that's what the word implies. If there's a proven pattern of extreme statements, then sure, you can call him a Taliban in line with the absolute garbage era we're living in right now, right?

But if those statements don't exist and you just slap the "Taliban" label on someone, then whoever did that needs to face the music with at least a 500-point penalty, not just 100.
It's pretty simple, isn't it?

For example, someone calls Mason a traitor because he leaked transcripts. If Mason didn't leak them, he's not a traitor based on that. If he did, then he is.

Or someone says Jovanovic is a fascist because he won't engage in dialogue. If he refuses dialogue, he's a fascist; if he engages, he isn't. Etc., etc... You follow me?

I'm telling you again: arguments and evidence are the whole point of this debate over labels and how points are awarded!!!

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Right, so in that case, a "pedophile" accusation might pass, but calling someone a "degenerate" wouldn't unless it's proven...😁

Paul Anderson2 said:Not like I’m trying to be offensive or anything. And yeah, by total coincidence, I happen to be a guy—apparently, I'm in my "prime." 😁And honestly, just look at how easy it is to start throwing around insults.

Yeah, that’s a real issue. But honestly, I don't see why terms like "idiot," "traitor," "Stalinist," or "fascist" would be okay to use under those rules.

As for insulting the American people... honestly, just try calling some fanatic or a high-ranking bishop a Taliban terrorist to their face. Then, maybe swing by and talk to the actual believers they claim to represent and ask them if they even feel insulted.

I guess the only people who could actually take offense here are the believers—though, just to be clear, I’ve always been okay with those cartoons about Muhammad, even when they were pretty crude. But honestly, this doesn't really touch anyone's feelings. They aren't religious. They chose. Maybe he'll represent Bozanica somewhere. Before that, he’ll likely introduce the universal Catholic Church here in America—along with the other bishops, of course.

Or maybe just try drawing a bomb on Muhammad's head instead. I mean, there’s already been plenty of disrespect thrown at Jesus and Mary. You should probably ask shadoworca3 if they think they've gone far enough, or if they really believe they can say whatever they want about the Virgin Mary without facing any consequences at all. Maybe check if shadoworca3 actually agrees with that, or if they'd be okay with someone doing the same thing to Muhammad. Just out of the blue. If someone starts throwing around slurs like that, does that person actually deserve some kind of formal reprimand for insulting the feelings of Muslims worldwide, or... maybe they don't? I guess it depends on how you look at it.

It’s actually pretty hard to say anything definitive about Jesus and Mary, mostly because we don't really have much reliable info on them. As for Muhammad, I guess we know he married a six-year-old girl.

I feel bad if that "offends someone's feelings," but that's just how it is.

Look, this is an open forum. It’s meant for the free exchange of ideas. One of those ideas could be that someone's faith is wrong, empty, or just built on superstition. I don't suppose it's necessarily rude to point that out, though this forum hasn't exactly had a reputation for being polite anyway.

Personally, I think freedom of speech carries way more weight than protecting someone's pride or their religious feelings. That’s just my take on it, I guess.

Well, you shouldn't be deciding which value is "greater" like that. In one sense, sure, you're right—freedom of speech is huge—but it shouldn't be abused to drag people through the mud and insult them without any actual arguments or real reason. That's all there is to it!