I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on [email protected] to thank someone for a recipe that looked good, and found out I had been banned.
Odd, considering I hadn't posted to that sub at any point in the past. I checked the modlog to find that "Mod" had banned a bunch of people citing "Rule 5."
Their Rule 5 states: Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).
I (and hundreds of others) seemingly broke rule 5 of this community without ever posting there. What is going on?
And my apologies if this isn't the place for this, but I had no idea where else to post the question.
The ~~lie detector~~ search function determined that was a lie.
Those certainly look like arguments against veganism to me! What would you call them?
That's not a "strawman," it's a parody.
~~The lie detector~~ My ability to read the rest of this thread determined that was a lie.
So you're attempting to escalate the issue to the admins... but not because you're upset or anything. Right. In that case, why are you trying to waste their time?
All the rest of your points are completely irrelevant and I don't care about them at all.
You weren't supposed to pick this option.
The post you're citing was not the 7 month old one I was referencing anywhere. Also, the one you cherry-picked was from a year ago and isn't anti-vegan either. It's anti-logically unsound argument (kind of like this one here). I can agree with a stance and disagree with the reason someone does something. I agree with multiple reasons to be vegan explicitly in the post you cite.
And escalating the issue is in concern about the hundreds of rampant bannings, not the veganism.
Also, if that was what you call a parody, you are pretty terrible at parody.
Do you mean:
Because neither of those is an argument for veganism. Veganism is not a diet, it's a moral stance. Every case of considering it from the perspective of being a moral stance, as it is, you're opposed to. So all of your arguments are against veganism, as it actually is.
Of course, the garbage that you pass off as "logic" is just, "It's wrong to apply your morals to other people," which is a completely laughable position. You "apply your morals to other people" if you think its acceptable to punish murder. You "apply your morals to other people" if you tell people it's wrong to apply your morals to other people. But sure, it's only "logically unsound arguments" that you're opposed to, which is why you employ them.
You are most certainly purposefully misunderstanding things at this stage.
Yes, I wasn't arguing for (or against) veganism and never stated I was. I was arguing against reasons some may give and defending logical ones.
No, veganism isn't a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person's stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don't claim that everyone in a group must also ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.
And no, punishing murder is not a moral stance, it's a self-preservationist stance. If you can go out and murder indiscriminately, then you yourself can be murdered just as easily.
I'm sorry you don't understand logic. Please don't attempt to explain to me one of my degrees when you clearly don't have even a loose grasp on the concept. Here's a free course you can take to better understand logic as opposed to a personal moral stance.
That simply isn't what the word means. If you think veganism is a diet, then do you think vegan leather is meant to be eaten?
Oreos used to use lard, in the 90's, they changed the recipe to use vegetable oil to make it kosher, and also, coincidentally, vegan. I suppose this hypothetical "vegan purely for taste" person just happened to hate Oreos right up until then, even though they taste the same. They must have the most sensitive tongue in the world. "The Princess and the Pea" has nothing on them.
You suggest that someone's stomach "handles meat poorly," but that would just lead them to be a vegetarian. Does their stomach also "just happen" to handle dairy, eggs, lard, gelatin, etc poorly too? Does wearing leather give them a rash? If animals are harmed in the production of something, but no part of the animal made it into the finished product, do they, what, get assailed by malevolent spirits?
You are simply wrong about this, and your position on what veganism is is completely incoherent and nonsensical if you stop and think about it for 10 seconds, let alone actually read anything about it.
I am begging lost Redditors to read literally the first sentence of Wikipedia about a subject before trying to speak as an authority on it.
What a great ride. I started this thread thinking Objection was being a dick, but OP bringing up logical fallacies in an internet argument is usually a red flag signalling a nugget head.
Jumping into a vegan space to argue someone isn't being vegan for the right reasons? While I don't think it's permanent-ban worthy it's annoying as fuck.
I'm not even vegan and that looked like some bullshit to me.
But I didn't go into a vegan space, nor did I mention logical fallacies.
The thread they brought up was from a memes Community. The person I was posting against at the time was PMing people and telling them to kill themselves.
Oops you're right. I did not correctly check the sub. I stand by the rest. Arguing logical fallacies against someone's diet choices is a dick move and is still arguing against veganism.
I can't verify if they were telling people to kill themselves or what that has to do with their reasons for eating plants. If I made death threats online, which no one should do and is a faux pas, I should still be able to use factory farming as a reason for avoiding meat.
Again, don't think it's ban worthy. I'm in the peanut gallery over here just having a good time.
I also wasn't arguing against their dietary choices. I was showing that their arguments could be turned back on themselves because they were spurious at best.
Before I replied, the now-deleted user was stating that there was no reason to eat meat unless you're a psychopath and love murder and was threatening suicide, violence to others, and other such garbage throughout the thread, then followed it up with a stream of PMs to a bunch of users including myself with some... not great / illegal content (we'll say).
My response was purely a "let's look at your statements, but in good faith" exercise.
Put simply, they started attacking food choices first and I called them on it. I'm okay with what I said.
You know what? Even with missing the content, I think your statement is fair. I've got a sore spot for using fallacies and disagree with your arguments against the reasons for a vegan diet, but you seem genuine in your motives. I apologize for calling you a nugget head.
I legitimately appreciate that.
As an aside, it's odd how much was purged from this thread. Not just deleted, but straight up purged so it doesn't show in the modlogs. I don't think I've seen that done on my instance outside of the illegal stuff. Is that normal here on .world?
I don't read comments often enough to know what's normal. The only good reason I can think of is anti-bot/anti-spam measures and even then it's a bit strange. How do you know they were purged?
Always check the receipts.