It's fixed now! Thanks everyone. Let's keep fighting for this spot.
BonfireOvDreams
joined 1 year ago
I think the whole thread got nuked. Perhaps the mod came to their senses at the 11th hour. Hopefully that kind of content stays off from now on. At the very least, I can't access the thread, but I can still access the community.
Damn, I could use more bingo card posts for some of these users. Did you send them the bingo card? 🤓
Yes let all the Nazis racists eugenicists etcetera run wild because we don't want to censor based on morality 🥺🥺
I mean I'm just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn't mind not seeing the brain rot 🤷♂️
PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don't have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don't want PETA to kill animals, which they don't want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.
Weird, I haven't seen much of any Star Trek stuff.
Disgusting.
I'm going to preface that just throwing around fallacies without any context actually doesn't explain anything, because now I'm left to assume where you're making the claim.
appeal to morality
So you don't think changing behavior in relation to climate change is morally necessary? You don't arrive at that conclusion based on available scientific data and projections? You don't think it's self-evident?
Tu quoque
Are you saying he didn't judge me as hateful? I don't think it's an error btw. I'm not accusing them of doing something wrong on the grounds that they did the same thing as me, they just applied judgement in a way that does less to cause one to take action on climate change. Assuming we hold the same concerns about the climate, and we want action, that's what makes the judgement objectionable.
Hasty generalization
Where
False dichotomy
Perhaps I'll have to look back at my comments because I don't see this either. I clearly qualified that I'm aware a single individuals choices don't have enough effect to deter climate change.
Begging the question
Where's the circular reasoning?
If you're going to tell people to seek help, nah, you should actually explain.
Why is it bad faith? What was manipulative? If you're making the claim, you should explain.
882, 424 - This one is seemingly done, but could have more animals if they fit and someone has the time for it.
318, 380 - This is also done, but depending on other users wanting to wash it away, could be an area to correct.
There's two successful QR codes promoting Veganism, no need to adjust those.