How can I recover a deleted post on Politics?

I’m just looking for some input on that whole "sex education" debate over on Politics... anyone else following this?

I was just sitting here thinking about how much things have shifted lately—it’s wild, really—and I started wondering about those old debates we used to have... you know, the ones about whether everything is just random or if there's some kind of underlying structure to it all. It’s funny how certain topics always seem to circle back around, no matter how much time passes... I mean, when you look at the way people argue about faith versus logic, it feels like we're constantly stuck in this loop. You have those who feel that against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion... which is such a heavy way to frame it, right? But it's true! People get so passionate about it. It reminds me of those old philosophical deep dives—sort of like reading Dostoevsky on a rainy afternoon in Seattle—where you start questioning the very fabric of what we consider "truth." Is it all just biology and physics, or is there something more... an intelligent designer behind the curtain? It’s a rabbit hole that goes on forever... Anyway, I saw someone mentioning Kirk earlier—and honestly, the way they talk about the intersection of belief and modern life is always so intense. It’s like they want to Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion every chance they get... it definitely keeps the conversation lively, even if it gets a bit heated sometimes. I don't know... maybe I'm just overthinking it. It's just interesting to see how these ideas evolve from the Department of Education textbooks to the casual conversations we have online today. Everything feels so connected... or maybe it's just me...

Hey, does anyone know if it's possible to get that post back? One of the mods ended up deleting it... I was really enjoying that thread...

I was just sharing some thoughts in my previous post about how the homosexual lobby actually operates and the specific strategies they use—I even backed everything up with some solid quotes to make the point...

Nah, that post got nuked—probably because they flagged it as being totally off-topic...

This post is totally on topic—I mean, there’s no denying that LGBTQ+ lobbies have their hands deep in sexual education, which really feels like just one more stepping stone in the whole process of societal indoctrination...

That post felt pretty similar to this one—I'll let you guys be the judge of whether it was actually off-topic...

---

Here’s a little peek into how these kinds of campaigns actually play out... back in the late '80s, Kirk and Madsen put together that book "After the Ball," where they basically mapped out the whole playbook used by various groups to "conquer" America... it's pretty wild when you look at the strategy behind it all...

It seems like a pretty significant chunk of the whole strategy involves taking aim at the church... which is interesting when you think about how much weight that carries in our culture—it’s almost like they're trying to dismantle the foundation before building something else... anyway, just an observation...

Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion. “While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use talk to... It’s funny how people try to muddy the moral waters whenever things get complicated... honestly, it’s almost an art form at this point—though maybe not the productive kind! You see it happen all the time in our politics, where everyone just starts blurring the lines to suit their own agenda... it's like they want to make sure nobody can actually stand on solid ground anymore... turns out, if you make everything gray, nobody has to take a side, right? Just a little bit of chaos here and there to keep things moving... anyway, I was thinking about that the other day while watching some news coverage... it really does make you wonder where we all draw the line...Basically, it’s about having more moderate churches step up and show some public support for the LGBTQ+ community—you know, really leaning into it. We need to start raising our own theological questions regarding those super conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings... and honestly, just calling out all that underlying hatred and inconsistency where it exists. It's about being transparent... and maybe a little bit uncomfortable... but necessary...

They just keep going—saying things like, "Second, we can..."—and honestly, it’s just one thing after another... I’ve been thinking lately—just wandering through these thoughts—about how we might approach the whole idea of undermining the moral authority held by those certain churches that push homophobic views... you know, the ones that feel stuck in a different century? It seems like if we could just frame them as being outdated or fundamentally backward, it might shift the conversation... maybe show that they're just out of step with the rest of us... anyway, I was just mulling it over... it feels like a way to highlight the gap between their old-school stances and where we actually are today... but who knows... just a thought...It feels like they’re just totally out of touch—really lagging behind the modern era and everything we know now about psychology... honestly, it's a bit much. You know, against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion—sort of using those as both a shield and a sword for that whole "secular humanism" movement... it's all a bit intense, isn't it? It’s funny how this kind of unholy alliance always seems to find its way back into the conversation—it's actually worked quite effectively against churches in the past, especially when things like divorce or abortion come up... just one of those patterns that keeps repeating itself, I guess...If we just keep having these honest, wide-open conversations about how common and totally normal being gay is... honestly, if we just keep talking about it openly—and I mean really leaning into the conversation around how widespread and acceptable homosexuality has become in our society—then everything starts to shift... maybe even more than people realize... I really think that kind of alliance could actually work here again... if we played our cards right...”[3]

Quote : Kirk and pill then Lay out their full Scala assault on religion. "While public opinion serves as one primary driver for mainstream values, religious authority acts as a second... When conservative churches condemn homosexuals, there really are only two paths we can take to shame true believers out of that homophobia. First, we could engage with those murky moral waters—I mean, by showing support for more moderate churches, raising theological objections to our own conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and just calling out the hate and inconsistency for what it is..."

So, they’re basically saying—and I love how they frame this—that we can just chip away at the moral authority held by those homophobic churches by painting them as totally out of touch... you know, like they're stuck in the past and completely ignoring everything modern psychology has taught us since forever. It’s kind of an interesting angle—to go against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion... using that whole shield and sword idea of "secular humanism," if you will. This sort of godless alliance has actually worked pretty well against the church in the past too, especially when dealing with stuff like divorce or abortion. If people just start being more open about how common and accepted homosexuality really is, this alliance could definitely make some serious headway here...

I was just scrolling through some old archives today and stumbled upon this piece about how certain groups try to manipulate public perception... you know, those little tactical maneuvers they use to steer the conversation? It really gets you thinking about how much influence actually shapes what we believe versus what we choose for ourselves—it’s kind of wild when you dig into it... The whole thing touches on how people attempt to sway the narrative by framing arguments in specific ways—almost like a psychological dance—to make certain ideas seem more "natural" or "inevitable" than they actually are. It’s less about the raw facts and more about the presentation, which is where things get tricky... especially when you consider how easily a well-placed argument can bypass our usual skepticism if it's wrapped in just the right kind of rhetoric. It reminded me of those debates we see all the time regarding how institutions maintain their grip on cultural norms... you know, that tension between established traditions and new waves of thought. It makes you wonder how many of our "original" opinions are actually just echoes of someone else's carefully constructed campaign... anyway, just some food for thought while I sip my coffee this morning... turns out there's always a deeper layer to peel back if you're willing to look...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I'm hunting through the "sex ed" threads over on Politics right now.

I honestly don't get how people can still defend this stuff, like, seriously. You look at the way modern science just keeps debunking these ancient myths and yet there's still this massive pushback from religious institutions trying to control what we learn in schools. It’s wild. Even when you have the Department of Education dealing with all these curriculum debates, you see those old-school arguments being dragged back into the light. And let me tell you, the way some people try to bridge the gap between faith and biology is just... ugh. They start talking about an "intelligent designer" as if that actually makes sense in a world where we have DNA sequencing and evolutionary theory right in front of our eyes. It feels like they're just grasping at straws to keep the old ways alive. driftingfalcon3 is totally hitting the nail on the head here too—it’s basically a battle of ideologies. You've got these groups trying to push their specific worldview, and against The mighty pull of institutional Religion One must set The mightier draw of science and Public opinion just to keep things grounded in reality. It shouldn't be this hard to prioritize facts over dogma! It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck where people refuse to look out the window even though the tracks are clearly gone.

Can someone please bring back that post one of the mods nuked?

First they nuked my post right in the middle of the thread, and when I actually tried to file a complaint to get an explanation for why my stuff was getting wiped from the "sex education" discussion, they went ahead and deleted my appeal too! Now they’re probably gonna scrap this one as well, so I’m honestly just wondering if you guys will even have the chance to read it before it vanishes—anyway, here was the controversial post that got me flagged:

Why the hell did they scrub this post from the politics board???
Short and sweet: who exactly deleted my post on politics and WHY?
I caught the live presentation from the Grape reps yesterday, and man, I’ve gotta say, it was seriously unsettling to watch. It’s genuinely worrying to see where things are headed.
I heard it all, saw it all, and honestly? It really just boils down to this:
So, the Department of Education actually went ahead and rolled out health education in schools right at the start of the school year:
They just totally botched the whole thing, making it look amateurish and leaving absolutely zero transparency in the process.
In that section where they talk about sexuality, they basically found a way to sneak it all in under the guise of "looking out for kids' health" in our schools.
The sheer amount of homosexual propaganda being shoved down our throats lately is just getting ridiculous.
It basically forced this whole ideology down everyone's throats—a complete worldview that just flat-out denies and ignores every single universal value we hold dear.
Sexuality, and how that clashes with the value system most parents actually hold—it’s a massive tension point right now.
It basically stripped parents right back, taking away their constitutional right to make their own calls when it comes to raising their kids.
When you look at that first point, I really think the most critical thing to wrap our heads around is how and why we’re actually pushing to bring health education into the school system in the first place.
Did they seriously just pull that move behind closed doors without any transparency?
Crimes usually just boil down to what's happening behind closed doors in those shady, non-transparent power plays.
Man, what I saw and heard at that presentation yesterday... honestly, it left me with this gut feeling that there’s some serious criminal activity going on behind the scenes.
And honestly, those criminals pulling this off are using the exact same terrorist-fascist tactics we see from the bad actors over in the States.
I mean, look at Kinsey—the guy was actually working alongside Nazis, running those absolutely sickening Mengele-style experiments on kids... it’s just beyond messed up.
So, get this—some guy was supposedly using a literal ruler to measure how long it takes for a kid at a certain age to reach orgasm while masturbating, and I... I can't even. Like, seriously? Just absolutely wild behavior.
Same exact garbage.
This whole thread is just such a glaringly obvious look at the real-world fallout that happens when you have these massive, fundamental divides between atheistic and religious worldviews.
It’s honestly just evolutionary terrorism at this point—this violent, aggressive push to force everyone to swallow scientifically proven lies as if they were gospel.
So, we’re really looking at the theory of evolution and that whole abiogenetic take on how life actually kicked off, right? It’s basically going head-to-head against everything people claim is just some undeniable scientific fact.
Look, there's just no getting around it—there are facts pointing straight toward the only possible reality when you look at how life and the entire universe were actually put together.
An intelligent designer, or rather, God.
It’s that classic line from Dostoevsky: If God doesn't exist, everything is permitted!
If we really believe humans just evolved from monkeys, then honestly, why can't everything just be relative? I mean, I don't see any actual barrier stopping us from looking at things that way.
Is everything just relative if we’re all basically just slightly more evolved monkeys?
So now they’re claiming people feel ashamed because we’re forcing these artificial norms down their throats, but honestly? A monkey doesn't feel shame, so why should we care what they say?
(their nakedness) because there’s obviously no code of shame established by the Monkey Council regarding monkey nudity, but seriously, is there?
Is that really how it goes?
So, get this—now they’re actually going to start teaching our kids in school that there’s absolutely nothing controversial about studying nudity.
So, we're talking about masturbation techniques, like how to practice putting a condom on a cucumber just to get used to the whole thing, basically getting acquainted with what you actually need before things get real.
Look, we seriously need to talk about protection against STIs and why there’s this desperate, urgent need for public disclosure when someone gets infected—like, everyone needs to know. It's just common sense at this point.
If we happen to suspect anything with the partners we've been hanging out with lately
or if a doctor actually confirms we've picked up an STI during a checkup, are we seriously going to
start teaching all that stuff to kids back in elementary school???
The reading material they're pushing was put together by this group called Queer!
And this literature basically promotes a worldview that questions the whole concept of male and
female distinctions, essentially advertising homosexuality as being just as valid as heterosexuality
as a lifestyle choice, plus they're teaching pornography as a psychological and
sociological phenomenon in early high school—it’s like these teenagers are supposed to be med students
specializing in some niche field of psychiatry or something.
It’s a disgusting, Masonic-liberal conspiracy targeting the core moral values of a healthy society, which
can only—even from a purely scientific and common-sense perspective—be built upon a family where
the backbone is a FATHER and a MOTHER! Look, if two dads or two moms can conceive a child naturally, fine,
let them have them and raise them, but clearly God
didn't create men and women so that one group (like guys) lives in the Western Hemisphere while the other (women)
lives in the Eastern Hemisphere, leaving everyone in the West as happy gays and everyone in
the East as happy lesbians.
God created the family as a union of man and woman so that children in both hemispheres grow up happy within
the warmth of a mother's love and a father's care. This fascist rape of our society's youngest members
by violently forcing through unnatural, psycho-destructive, atheist-monkey
values under the guise of "health education" is something every sane
person needs to speak out against, no matter what it takes.
NO TO THE FASCIST DICTATORSHIP OF LIBERAL DESTRUCTION OF THE CHILD PSYCHE!
__________________

So, what’s actually the deal here—what's the difference between this article in USA Today, basically just quoting Bozanic, and my own post that got nuked from the "sex ed" thread?

The same logic applies to your post too, doesn't it?

I guess you aren't allowed to voice an opinion unless it's perfectly aligned with those liberal agendas, right?🤷

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Nah, that post was deleted. Probably because it was off-topic...

That's one thing, sure, but it isn't the only reason. The post you were quoting got pulled too, so there wasn't much point in yours staying up.

Creationist, your post wasn't actually deleted. It was just moved over to the admin inquiries section, where they already gave you an answer. Just so you know, we don't start new threads for every single deleted post—that goes for Basta too.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Among other things, but that’s not just one reason... The post you were quoting actually got wiped, so there wasn't really any point in letting yours stay up.

Creationist, your post didn't actually get deleted—it was just moved over to the admin inquiries section where they gave you an answer. Anyway, we don't start new threads for every single deleted post, and that goes for Morgan Rodriguez57 too...

That seems like a pretty weak excuse... if the quote is the issue, you could just strip the quote out, my post stands perfectly fine on its own anyway...

And it wasn't off-topic, either... it helps clarify why certain LGBTQ+ organizations are getting involved in sex education...

I’ve actually got a chunk of page 37 saved in my archives from that "sex education" thread, though man, I feel terrible because I missed grabbing the final post from patriotic son. Seriously, that was such a killer post, but since I caught everything else, we can totally repost it whenever or wherever it's needed. First, someone nuked the whole thread, and then either that same person or some other moderator wiped out all 37 pages—probably lost tons of other posts along the way too. And to top it off, I ended up getting slapped with 30 strikes for supposedly breaking some forum rules.

Honestly, this forum is even more toxic than Smith! And since everyone treats Smith like he’s some kind of saint, if anyone decides to delete this post, they’re basically admitting they think Smith is a bad guy. Look, just don't go deleting posts just because you're worse than Smith; according to you guys, he's this precious figure who needs constant protection from the people attacking him—people who are clearly just looking out for their own kids. It’s obvious you parents have no clue what’s actually happening to your children, because if you did, you’d actually appreciate a parent trying to shield them from this liberal, woke indoctrination.

driftingfalcon3 said:I've got a chunk of page 37 saved in my archives under the "sex education" thread. I really regret not grabbing that last post from Ryan Vaughn7 before it vanished. My son's homeland.That was a solid post. I actually went ahead and copied the rest of it just in case, so if we ever need to republish that content somewhere else, we're ready to go. It’s been a mess here lately. First, someone shuts down the entire thread, and then—either the same person or someone else entirely—wipes out all thirty-seven pages. Who knows how many posts from the earlier pages were lost in the purge, too. To top it all off, I somehow ended up with thirty strikes on my account for some alleged violation of the site rules. Honestly, it's a bit much.

Looks like someone actually signed their name on the card.

driftingfalcon3 said:What exactly makes it so obvious to your kids that you’re completely oblivious? Because if you actually were aware, you'd probably value the fact that some parents are actually trying to shield their children from this whole liberalist, pedophilic agenda.

I'll probably end up seeing someone else sign off on this one instead.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:And honestly, someone else is probably gonna jump in and sign off on that too.

You getting ready for the big game?

Ryan Vaughn7 went ahead and deleted this exact same thread—and slapped me with a 50-point penalty for my last post too... but hey, I managed to save this one this time...

So, I was just sitting here thinking—and tell me if I'm crazy for wondering this—but do you guys think this post actually deserves all this heat? It feels like maybe a bit much... anyway, what do you all reckon? ☕

---

So, I’ve been thinking lately—just chewing on this idea—about why we really need to stay sharp when it comes to certain activist groups and how they try to wiggle their way into sexual education programs... It’s one of those things where you just have to keep your eyes peeled, you know? I mean, it isn't about being against anything specific, per se—it's more about that subtle influence... that slow creep into the curriculum through various organizations... which can be a bit tricky to navigate if you aren't paying attention. There's this whole layer of nuance regarding who actually gets to decide what kids are learning in school, and once these specialized interest groups start pushing their own agendas into the classroom, it changes the dynamic entirely... it becomes less about general health and more about a very specific viewpoint... It’s just something worth watching closely—keeping a steady hand on the steering wheel when it comes to our local school boards and the educational standards we set here in the States... because once that door is left ajar, it's hard to close it again... anyway, just my two cents...

There’s this connection between homosexuals and pedophiles that people just keep trying to sweep under the rug... it's something they really work hard to hide from the public eye...

I didn't see any data provided in your message—looks like something got lost in the shuffle! If you can drop the details here, I’ll get right on it... just let me know what you need me to work with!
So, I was looking at some stats earlier—just falling down one of those rabbit holes, you know how it goes—and I noticed something pretty wild about the numbers here in America... It’s interesting because even though homosexuals make up maybe 3% of the population at most, they seem to be responsible for about a third of child assaults... just a really heavy thing to wrap your head around, honestly...
So, I was reading some data earlier—just one of those things that gets you thinking—and it mentioned how the probability of a child becoming gay is seven times higher if they've experienced abuse compared to kids who haven't... it’s definitely a heavy topic to wrap your head around, isn't it? Just something to ponder while you're sipping your coffee...

It’s still such a mystery, really—how homosexuality actually develops in the first place... the science isn't exactly settled yet... looking at these recent statistics, it almost seems like there might be a connection to childhood trauma or abuse... it makes you wonder how much of it is nature versus nurture, I guess...

There’s also that really close tie between various gay organizations and NAMBLA—you know, that North American Man-Boy Love Association group... and honestly, people have been trying to sweep that connection under the rug for the last twenty years. It feels like everyone just stays quiet about it because any hint of a link between homosexuals and pedophiles would be absolutely devastating for the ultimate goal of getting the community fully integrated into mainstream society...

So, looking back at that book I mentioned earlier—you know, the one from my deleted post, "After the Ball," written by Kirk and Madsen back in the late 80s—there was this whole section about how gay people should handle themselves... they basically argued that it’s crucial to strictly avoid appearing aggressive or like some kind of predator or attacker... the idea was that everyone needs to distance themselves from NAMBLA and instead focus on cultivating a "victim image"... it's such an interesting, if slightly controversial, take on how to manage public perception... anyway...

The book...
I was just scrolling through Amazon earlier—you know how those rabbit holes go—and I stumbled upon this listing for *After the Ball*... It’s one of those older titles that really makes you stop and think about how much things have shifted over the decades... It’s interesting, really... Just looking at the cover and the description, you can tell it captures a very specific era of American social history... It feels like one of those books you find in a dusty corner of a used bookstore in a quiet town like Savannah or maybe somewhere in New England... just sitting there waiting to be rediscovered... anyway, I thought it was worth a mention for anyone interested in that kind of deep dive into the past... it's quite a trip...

I don't have any content to work with yet! Please provide the posts you'd like me to rewrite, and I'll get right on it—keeping that breezy, rambling style intact while making sure everything feels completely local to the States... just send them over whenever you're ready!

A So, I was just sitting here thinking about those massive media campaigns you see everywhere lately—you know, the ones that feel like they’re following you from your morning coffee all the way through your late-night scrolling... it’s kind of wild how much effort goes into shaping what we think about, isn't it? It’s almost like a giant, invisible hand guiding the conversation... and honestly, sometimes it feels a bit overwhelming, though I try to stay positive about it... maybe it's just me being a dreamer, but there's something fascinating about the sheer scale of it all—the way a single idea can be packaged and pushed through every channel until it becomes part of the daily noise... anyway, I was reading some stuff earlier about how these strategies have shifted so much since the old days of just three major networks... now it's this endless, swirling vortex of digital influence... it makes you wonder where the "truth" actually sits in all that clutter... but hey, life goes on, right? Just food for thought while I finish this tea... To really push that whole "gay victim" narrative, you've got to lean into imagery that doesn't set off any immediate alarm bells for the mainstream crowd—you know, things that actually lower their guard and make the idea of someone being victimized feel way more believable... In a practical sense, we're talking about using those upbeat, jaunty guys with the great mustaches and the athletic builds to... Just gotta keep things under the radar... stay low profile... you know? It’s usually better that way—just moving through the world without making too much noise—and honestly, sometimes the quietest path is the smoothest one... anyway, just a thought... In those various gay commercials and all sorts of public presentations you see popping up lately—you know, where they present these really sympathetic figures... it’s interesting how that plays out in American media—it feels like there's this specific way they try to bridge the gap with the general public... though I wonder if it actually lands the way they intend it to... maybe just a thought... I bet you'd see all sorts of people there—energetic young folks, older crowds, and definitely some really attractive women...It’s almost a given at this point—though I suppose it bears mentioning—that we’re talking about those fringe groups sitting right on the edge of what society considers acceptable... like... NAMBLA[North American Man-Boy Love Association] You really can't afford to get involved in a campaign like that—it’s just not worth it... honestly, anyone suspected of being a child molester isn't going to end up looking like some innocent victim anyway... they just don't fit the profile, you know? It's better to stay far away from the whole mess...)

If you want to run a media campaign that really leans into the whole "gay victim" narrative, you’ve got to pick symbols that lower people's defenses—you know, things that dial down that sense of mainstream threat and actually make the victimization angle feel more believable... In practical terms, this means staying away from those confident, mustachioed muscle guys in any public ads or presentations; they’re too intense. Instead, you’d want to focus on sympathetic figures—think pretty young people, seniors, or attractive women. It’s almost a given that groups on the extreme fringes of acceptability, like NAMBLA—the North American Man-Boy Love Association—shouldn't have any part in this kind of campaign at all... because, let's face it, the child of an abuser is never going to look like a victim...

If we want straight audiences to actually connect, they need to see gay victims as people they can relate to... I mean, really relate to. We can't give the general public any easy way out—no room for them to shrug and say, "Oh, they aren't like us." That just shuts down the conversation before it even starts. To make this work, the people we feature in public campaigns have to be genuinely decent, upright, and—honestly—just plain likable. They should meet those traditional standards of being admirable and looking totally unexceptionable... basically, they should be indistinguishable from the very straight people we're trying to reach in the first place. Going back to what I was saying in those earlier pieces—we need spokespeople who represent that "R-type" straight gay ideal, rather than just "Q-type" homosexuals put on display for spectacle. It’s about nuance, I guess... because only if we present it this way will the message actually land: "These are people facing a fate that could have easily happened to me."

Straight viewers really need to be able to identify with gay victims as people... Mr. and Mrs. Public shouldn't have to offer any extra apologies just to say, "they aren't different from us." In that sense—and I think this goes back to what we were discussing in those earlier pieces—the folks featured in public campaigns should look decent, upright, attractive, and meet those standard levels of being totally ordinary in appearance. Basically, they should be indistinguishable from straight people if we want them to resonate. (To circle back to the point we made before, spokespeople for our cause need to be those R-Type "straight homosexuals" rather than those Q-Tip "on-screen homosexuals.") Only under those specific conditions will the message actually land correctly: "These people are victims of fate who could easily have been us."

http://www.cfnews.org/hm-tactics.htm

And because of all that, one really needs to be incredibly careful about involving homosexual associations in childcare, especially when it comes to sexual education... ☕

First off, you’re reposting content that was already deleted. That’s a violation of the rules all on its own. And honestly, I’m getting a little tired of how you constantly try to link homosexuality to pedophilia here in the States, especially when we're just discussing sex education in American schools. That last sentence of yours felt like pure trolling. I guess there's a reason you copied the post, since nobody alive actually knows what they’re supposed to do with that specific topic anyway.

I mean, I see exactly how Justin’s post ties into this whole topic, and honestly, I get where you're coming from too. But there's this one glaring difference between you and Basta... it's just that you actually have moderator tools to back up your views, whereas everyone else just kind of drifts along and we all see how that goes.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:First off, you’re just reposting something that was already deleted—which is against the rules by itself. And honestly, I'm kind of over how you keep trying to link homosexuality and pedophilia in the US while we're actually talking about sex education in American schools. That last sentence of yours is just pure trolling. And hey, thanks for copying the post, I guess... since apparently nobody alive actually knows what they were supposed to be doing on that other thread anyway.

"I'm over it"... I don't really care if you're bored, you should act like a moderator instead of a censor who just wipes out whatever they personally dislike...

Regarding the US and America—there isn't much of a difference, so drawing parallels makes sense... in both places, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are super invested and fully back the introduction of sex ed in schools... not only that, but they even push their own publications as recommended reading (like those certain queer guides from San Francisco or some niche indie zines)...

So now I'm not allowed to talk about it because you, the "censor," got moody and decided to delete posts and hand out bans? Just take a breath and do your job properly... ☕

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:there's a link between homosexuals and pedophiles, even if they try to hide it...

The facts:
- even though gay people make up at most 3% of the population in America, they're responsible for a third of child abuse cases

Or not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

That’s some pretty childish logic right there... and just like how—though it's probably a statistic nobody on this forum would want to proudly broadcast—the fact that there's likely a much higher number of pedophiles and abusers within the Catholic clergy than in any other organized group doesn't actually mean being Catholic causes pedophilia...

EDIT: Wrote "Catholics" by mistake, fixed to "Catholic clergy"

lonebadger6 said:Or maybe not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

By using phallometric test sensitivities to figure out the percentage of actual pedophiles within different groups of child sex offenders—and factoring in the average number of victims per group— the math puts the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles at roughly 11:1. Basically, this implies that the proportion of true pedophiles is higher among those with homosexual erotic development than among those who develop heterosexually. Mind you, this doesn't mean that androphilic males are more likely to offend against children.

That’s some playground logic right there. Just like how—and I doubt anyone here would be brave enough to point this out—the fact that there are way more pedophiles and child abusers among Catholics than any other organized group doesn't mean being Catholic causes pedophilia.

Total waste of time. You can try to deconstruct Bastin's posts word by word all you want, but it's useless. These people have "crusade" stuck in their heads; logic just doesn't exist for them.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:"you're bored"... honestly, I don't care if you're bored. You should act like a moderator instead of acting like a censor and deleting things just because you don't like them...

I meant bored in a professional sense, not a personal one. I let it slide at first when you were off-topic and trolling, but once someone starts reposting deleted content, they aren't playing fair anymore. If that's the case, I don't really see a reason to be lenient. Bottom line, you broke the rules. And thanks for the feedback. I'll try harder.

lonebadger6 said:Or maybe not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.

That’s just some playground logic right there—really simplistic... though, I guess—and this is probably something people wouldn't want to brag about on a forum—the fact that there's a much higher number of pedophiles and child abusers among Catholics than in any other organized group... well, that also doesn't mean being Catholic is what actually drives someone toward pedophilia.

Look at that, you actually bolded the wrong sentences... besides that, you're mixing up the number of perpetrators with the number of victims...

A pedophile who targets girls averages around 20 victims, whereas one targeting boys averages closer to 150... which really just lines up with the well-known patterns regarding higher rates of homosexual promiscuity...

http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/print/
http://www.abusewatch.net/pedophiles.pdf

I'm not even going to touch that part about Catholics... 🙂

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, this is about moderator policy, not making it personal... I gave you a bit of a pass early on regarding the off-topic stuff and the trolling, but when someone tries to bring back deleted content, it just feels unfair—you know? So, I don't really see much reason to go easy anymore. Bottom line is, you broke the rules. And hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to keep it in line...

Wait, what? Where exactly did I repost something that was deleted? 🙂

If you're talking about that post over on the FEC, honestly, that's a bit uncalled for... because how am I supposed to prove it wasn't trolling, but actually just some sloppy moderation?

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I'm just going to pass on commenting anything regarding Catholics... 🙂

Well, obviously you won't 🙂

By the way, even before you edited it, there was already a mistake in the original post—it was clearly referring to the "Catholic clergy." I highly doubt there's any other group out there where such a massive percentage of people are pedophiles, but then again, if you actually understand logic or how scientific research works, you wouldn't go around claiming that taking holy orders somehow turns someone into a predator...

Of course you won't

By the way, the original post was already edited before you got to it—just a quick typo. I was clearly referring to the "Catholic clergy." I highly doubt there is any group where such a high percentage of people are pedophiles. However, anyone with a basic grasp of logic and scientific research wouldn't conclude that taking holy orders inherently makes someone a pedophile.

I assume not, because it reads like a mindless generalization designed just to troll.

Regarding the part in bold, what specific percentages are we talking about here? Or are you just guessing (as you said) and assuming things without providing anything concrete? It hardly qualifies as an argument, other than your constant tendency to generalize.

On another note, I support the Bastin appeal—specifically those remarks regarding the occasionally overzealous "politically correct" trends on certain topics, or even the "censorship" used to push one group's interests ahead of everyone else's. That feels fundamentally wrong and improper for a platform like Politics...

Susan Price30 said:I actually agree with Bastin's point. I mean, those comments about certain topics feeling overly "politically correct" sometimes—or even feeling like censorship where one group's interests are pushed ahead of everyone else's. It just feels a bit off and improper for a site like Politics...

We aren't pushing specific interest groups here on Politics. We’re really just trying to protect people from being insulted or belittled. In that light, I’d actually take a critique about being "too correct" as a compliment. Beyond the subforum rules, we try to stick to basic civilized norms and, honestly, just common courtesy. Thanks.