KLCCLK - "hardcore trolling

There isn’t any "trolling" going on here, let alone anything "intense." Everything is laid out clearly in the article I linked and within the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.

I see the moderator still hasn't provided a rationale for their decision, so I'm holding out hope they eventually will.

Also, the moderator KLCCLK, or perhaps an admin or some impartial third party, should look into this decision. It’s not just about the unjust ban; it’s about the fact that they jumped into the fray to push their own views, which are objectively wrong. A post from the moderator that essentially circles back to my previous point.

No legal system should have the power to force someone to stay married when they simply don't want to be.

I suspect moderator KLCCLK might have heard the term "democracy" before, considering we actually live in a democratic system, right? For instance:

The Democratic Party in Ireland didn't legalize divorce until after a 1995 referendum passed with just 50.3% of the vote. Similarly, the Democratic Party in Malta waited until 2011 to do the same via a 53% referendum margin. Even Ireland saw a failed attempt back in 1986 when 63% voted against it. That’s what people call a democracy—it's just how the system works.

Following World War II, democratic nations established the European Court of Human Rights under the Council of Europe to oversee fundamental human rights protections.

That same democratic court made it clear: there is no inherent right to divorce under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ultimately, democratic nations remain free to decide whether they will permit or restrict divorces, regardless of someone's simple desire to end a marriage. }']The Johnston case at the European Court of Human Rights serves as a stark reminder that legal frameworks often lag behind moral reality. It’s a classic example of how institutional inertia can clash with individual rights under the European Convention.Take cases like Babiarz v. Poland (n° 1955/10), Andrzej PIOTROWSKI v. Poland (n° 8923/12), and F. v. Switzerland (n° 11329/85), for example.

So, I’m still not quite following where you got that "not a single system" part from.

Decisions like this should stay strictly between the people actually in the marriage, not some bureaucratic commission or government system.

Since the ECHR doesn't force democratic nations to follow a single set of rules—as the European Court of Human Rights has made clear—every democracy maintains its own distinct approach to divorce. You should probably look into how different state laws actually work before making claims that just aren't accurate.

There are marriage counseling options available for those who actually want them.

It’s unclear which "system" you’re actually referring to here, but if you mean American legislation, there isn't much I can say other than suggesting you go do some actual research. Family law. Who exactly is debunking you?

Marriage mediation is mandatory if there’s a minor child involved. Additionally, under Article 42, a spouse can't even file for divorce while the wife is pregnant or until their child reaches one year old. It's like trying to run a marathon while you're still recovering from surgery—the law just won't let you move.
Article 43 states that the court will grant a divorce under specific conditions. Since there are only three distinct scenarios listed, it’s clear that if you can't reach a mutual agreement, a divorce isn't a guaranteed outcome.

In democratic nations, you see similar patterns: some have more liberal laws while others are more restrictive, but that’s just how democracy functions.

The moderator KLCCLK is clearly just pushing their own agenda. They won't even bother to look at the sources I provided, let alone the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights or the actual American family law.

Please remove this strike; it’s completely unjustified. It would be a matter of basic decency if moderator KLCCLK actually cited their sources for these opinions, especially since they’re actively participating in the debate while simultaneously handing out penalties—something they should have left to an unbiased moderator instead.

Cuk claims there are "rules" buried in the policy PDF and says he isn't interested in "sharing information that can't be argued."

Alright Cuk, since KLCCLK is unable to provide them and I’ve already cited European Court of Human Rights rulings that prove him wrong, why don't you step up? Do you actually have any ECHR rulings that back up what KLCCLK wrote in his follow-up post—the one he posted right after banning me? Since you're so against "sharing information that can't be argued," let's see what you've got.