Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative

Panch18

I just want to raise my deep concerns with the charter on the vegan and vegetarian forum.

A couple of weeks ago a new charter was created in the forum – at that time I contacted via PM the Mod (Faith) saying that I thought certain phrases should be banned as they were inflammatory and deliberately antagonistic.
The mod declined saying that they cannot and will not create a list of banned phrases – instead the charter covers the topic of “offensive concepts”.
And that is all fine – no problem with that – and the charter was introduced about 2 weeks ago.

However out of nowhere there was then a subsequent change to the charter 2 days ago where the following paragraph was inserted:
“Living a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle has often evolved from our belief that farming animals for human consumption, or consumption of animal products, has elements of cruelty or does harm to animals. We appreciate that many farmers make every effort to reduce animal suffering, but the practice of farming animals for human consumption, no matter how well cared for the animals are, goes against our fundamental beliefs. This is our belief system and in this forum that belief can be discussed in a respectful and considerate manner from a vegan and vegetarian point of view. This includes the use of the term "cruelty" in relation to animal farming.”

What has transpired from this is that vegan posters are allowed to call vegan copies of animal based foods as “cruelty free”. So for example :

Klopparama 19-11-2020 @ 03.56
It’s just fantastic to see these cruelty free sausages receiving such great reviews.

There’ll soon be more cruelty free sausages than not.

Whats amazing is that a mod noted the posters repeated use of “cruelty free” in the very next post but did nothing about it. Then the other moderator bans a few people when they question how that phrase is allowed to be used on the forum.

How on earth can it be allowed that people posting on a certain forum can call 100 thousand farmers in Ireland cruel – that the products we produce are produced in a cruel manner and that we would somehow be cruel to our animals

If this isn’t provocative and inflammatory I don’t know what is – especially as its clearly not true.

It is unacceptable that this blatant lie can be allowed and actually promoted like this. And if you want proof of it you only have to look at the animal welfare standards that are implemented in this country. Also look at the amount of farmers that are taken to court for cruelty to animals and then consider a) the number of farmers in the country and b) the number of farm animals in the country. The facts simply do not back up anything whatsoever to suggest that there is an animal cruelty problem in Ireland – the exact opposite in fact
I find the phrase “cruelty free production” highly offensive when discussing food production. It is basically saying, by inferring, that I am cruel to my animals – I most certainly am not. And it goes against the very spirit of the new charter.

I would be grateful if this issue could be addressed and look forward to your feedback – which will hopefully include a change to the charter to remove the new tottally unnecessary and highly offensive paragraph in the charter. I don’t know who inserted that paragraph or why it was inserted but it is creating a situation which is highly offensive to many people.

thanks for your time

Faith

Panch18 wrote: »

What has transpired from this is that vegan posters are allowed to call vegan copies of animal based foods as “cruelty free”.

How on earth can it be allowed that people posting on a certain forum can call 100 thousand farmers in Ireland cruel – that the products we produce are produced in a cruel manner and that we would somehow be cruel to our animals

If this isn’t provocative and inflammatory I don’t know what is – especially as its clearly not true.

It is unacceptable that this blatant lie can be allowed and actually promoted like this. And if you want proof of it you only have to look at the animal welfare standards that are implemented in this country. Also look at the amount of farmers that are taken to court for cruelty to animals and then consider a) the number of farmers in the country and b) the number of farm animals in the country. The facts simply do not back up anything whatsoever to suggest that there is an animal cruelty problem in Ireland – the exact opposite in fact
I find the phrase “cruelty free production” highly offensive when discussing food production. It is basically saying, by inferring, that I am cruel to my animals – I most certainly am not. And it goes against the very spirit of the new charter.

I would be grateful if this issue could be addressed and look forward to your feedback – which will hopefully include a change to the charter to remove the new tottally unnecessary and highly offensive paragraph in the charter. I don’t know who inserted that paragraph or why it was inserted but it is creating a situation which is highly offensive to many people.

thanks for your time

Hi Panch18,

I believe that you are conflating two things - the legal definition of cruelty to animals and the vegan belief of cruelty towards animals. Those are separate things.

Broadly, vegans believe that it is cruel to use animals for human consumption or other human activities. They believe it is cruel to breed animals for human gain, to keep animals in captivity specifically for human gain and to kill animals for human gain. The underlying principle is that animals should not be used solely for human gain. Fundamentally, killing a healthy animal to benefit a human in some way is seen as cruel by vegans, and this belief underpins veganism. To a vegan, the fact that animals are farmed for human consumption is totally unnecessary and highly offensive.

This is not to say that vegans are describing individual farmers as being cruel to animals in the legal definition. You appear to be interpreting the term "cruelty" and "cruelty free" as a direct attack on you and your profession, which is understandable, but is incorrect. To vegans, an "animal cruelty problem" exists as long as animals are farmed or killed for human consumption, regardless of conditions or efforts made to improve animal welfare.

Use of the phrase "cruelty free" also does not suggest that the opposite is 'cruelty-full' or similar. It is simply a way of describing that no animals were harmed in the making of the product. You are making an incorrect inference there in believing it means you individually are cruel to your animals.

This is a highly contentious issue to certain groups, and the Vegan & Vegetarian forum has become a highly toxic and negative place as a result of fighting between these groups. The new charter was developed as a way to bring the forum back to its primary purpose - a space for vegans and vegetarians to discuss their beliefs in peace. We understand that the changes in the charter may cause some people to feel angry, but we are just bringing the forum back in line with its aim, after it drifted far from that over the last few years.

Panch18

Faith wrote: »

Hi Panch18,

I believe that you are conflating two things - the legal definition of cruelty to animals and the vegan belief of cruelty towards animals. Those are separate things.

Broadly, vegans believe that it is cruel to use animals for human consumption or other human activities. They believe it is cruel to breed animals for human gain, to keep animals in captivity specifically for human gain and to kill animals for human gain. The underlying principle is that animals should not be used solely for human gain. Fundamentally, killing a healthy animal to benefit a human in some way is seen as cruel by vegans, and this belief underpins veganism. To a vegan, the fact that animals are farmed for human consumption is totally unnecessary and highly offensive.

This is not to say that vegans are describing individual farmers as being cruel to animals in the legal definition. You appear to be interpreting the term "cruelty" and "cruelty free" as a direct attack on you and your profession, which is understandable, but is incorrect. To vegans, an "animal cruelty problem" exists as long as animals are farmed or killed for human consumption, regardless of conditions or efforts made to improve animal welfare.

Use of the phrase "cruelty free" also does not suggest that the opposite is 'cruelty-full' or similar. It is simply a way of describing that no animals were harmed in the making of the product. You are making an incorrect inference there in believing it means you individually are cruel to your animals.

This is a highly contentious issue to certain groups, and the Vegan & Vegetarian forum has become a highly toxic and negative place as a result of fighting between these groups. The new charter was developed as a way to bring the forum back to its primary purpose - a space for vegans and vegetarians to discuss their beliefs in peace. We understand that the changes in the charter may cause some people to feel angry, but we are just bringing the forum back in line with its aim, after it drifted far from that over the last few years.

How can i interpret the use of "Cruelty free" as anything other than a direct attack on me personally and also towards the wider agricultural community. It clearly is an attack - and not only is the phrase tolerated on that forum, it is actually promoted in the charter.

What you are saying is basically that a small minority group have their own made up definition of cruelty and they are allowed to bandy it about as they choose - with absolutely no regards to either a) the generally accepted public description of cruelty or b) the legal definition.

And somehow that is ok? Would it be ok if i made up my own definition of say racism and went around making racist remarks at people and then justified it by saying that it didn't fall into my own definiton of racism? It most certainly would not - in either the public generally accepted definiton of racism or the legal definition of racism. Would the judge accept that when i was hauled before the courts? Would he hell.

And i find your statement "You are making an incorrect inference there in believing it means you individually are cruel to your animals" patronising to say the very least. I never said anything abut the inference meaning "cruelty full". The inference is that there is some degree of cruelty involved - that is a clear inference and to say otherwise is an absolute lie.

The changes that you have made to the charter are a clear statement that it is ok on that forum to bandy about words like cruelty and cruelty free with no regards for the consequences of using those words and with no regards for either the generally accpeted public opinon of what cruelty is or the legal held definiton

This change to the charter is totally unacceptable - and nothing in your above response justifies the hurt and anger that you are allowing a tiny minority to create.

The charter needs to be changed

gozunda

Hi faith

I'd like to add to this issue.

Ive read Panches comment and imo he has not brought up the issue of any legal definition.

He has correctly called out that a small number of posters have been provided permission to openly denigrate an entire sector without the need to provide any support of those allegations other than to say it is a "belief".

No other forum on boards provides any such carte blanche

It was I who separately raise the issue of where cruelty is being used in relation to animal farming - where this means that this is 'animal cruelty' and yes animal cruelty is illegal in this country.

It was of note that initially the use of such terms was called out as being offensive / inflammatory in the charter and in the forum.

See

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115345693&postcount=29

19/11/2020 12:08

Mod Note: All we're asking is that you all help us to help you make this a pleasant space for all posters, and one way in which we're asking people to do that is by using non-inflammatory language. I appreciate that a term like "cruelty free" is not inflammatory to many vegans, but it is for a lot of other people. This is not an issue specific to veg*nism either, plenty of forums on the site have a protected space for posters while maintaining rules around the discussion.

If you'd like to discuss it further, please PM one of the moderators or start a new discussion thread, cheers.

/edit: oops, cross-posted with you Dizzy, sorry!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115343748&postcount=24

19/11/2020 10:02

Dizzyblonde

Category Moderator

Mod note:

klopparama, your repeated use of "cruelty free" as a description of meat free products across threads this morning has been noted. Although it may be your personal opinion, it is extremely provocative and if you persist it will be seen as trolling which is unacceptable

Without explanation this has been changed in recent days. Posters have been infracted and banned when trying to raise these issues

According to the new charter this now inexpllicably appears to a protected position.

Faith

Panch18 wrote: »

What you are saying is basically that a small minority group have their own made up definition of cruelty and they are allowed to bandy it about as they choose - with absolutely no regards to either a) the generally accepted public description of cruelty or b) the legal definition.

Nobody has redefined anything.

Merriam-Webster define cruelty as:

cruelty noun

cru·​el·​ty | \ ˈkrü(-ə)l-tē \
plural cruelties
Definition of cruelty
1: the quality or state of being cruel
2a: a cruel action
b: inhuman treatment
3: marital conduct held (as in a divorce action) to endanger life or health or to cause mental suffering or fear

Vegans see using animals for human gain as a cruel action.

gozunda wrote: »

It was of note that initially the use of such terms was called out as being offensive in the charter.
.
Inexplicably this has been changed i recent days. Posters have been infeactef and banned when trying to raise these issues

According to the new charter this now inexpllicably appears to a protected position.

The charter was amended as a result of user feedback and a detailed discussion between posters, forum mods, CMods and Admins. Nothing inexplicable about it.

Panch18

Faith wrote: »

Nobody has redefined anything.

Merriam-Webster define cruelty as:



Vegans see using animals for human gain as a cruel action.



The charter was amended as a result of user feedback and a detailed discussion between posters, forum mods, CMods and Admins. Nothing inexplicable about it.

There are plenty of other phrases that could be used instead of cruelty free which would have the same meaning and could be used without causing offence

For example - animal free, meat free etc etc

but you choose to deliberatly put into the charter that they can openly use a highly offensive term like cruelty free. You are promoting the use of the phrase in the charter - as if it has no consequences for anybody. You have absolutly no regards for the anger and hurt that it causes others.

And then when questioned about the anger it is causing you hand out bans and delete posts in a "hitler style" manner

As a major online discussion forum how can Boards.ie not only tolerate, but actively promote this kind of online bullying which is happening here - because that's exactly what is happening here - online bullying that is being supported by Boards.ie

gozunda

Faith wrote: »

Nobody has redefined anything.

Merriam-Webster define cruelty as:

Vegans see using animals for human gain as a cruel action.

The charter was amended as a result of user feedback and a detailed discussion between posters, forum mods, CMods and Admins. Nothing inexplicable about it.

Faith

I think posters are fully aware of the dictionary definitions of cruelty. Where that is being called out in conjunction specifically with animal farming - then that is inexcusable where it is allowed specifically being protected as a 'belief'


It is of interest that changes to the charter ignored the feedback and concerns of many posters who have raised these concerns

And imo thats why I believe it remains a very serious issue.

Edit:

The small number of posters repeatedly using the phrases regarding animal cruelty are in the main the same as those who have previously accused / inferred farmers of engaging in "murder" "torture" and "imprisonment". If that wasn't sufficient to get the old boot in - recent comments have made parallels between farming and the holocaust and slavery.

Imo there is nothing unintentional about demands to use such hate speech to denigrate others.

Following a new charter- the use of the hihhlighted phrase 'cruelty free" was notably used to try and evade the previous prohibition on using "offensive terms" as originally outlined in that charter.

It was claimed it was a vegan related "marketing" phrase and therefore excusable. The use of this phrase was then stopped but then inexpllicably allowed again

Notably it is repeatedly used by those who have also inferred farmers were 'torturers" ' "murderers' etc and in similar context.

The phrase is not used by either Dennys or McDs in relation to their plant based products and in those threads where the phrase was being used by some.

The term ‘cruelty free’ is a very very common term in the Vegan and Vegetarian world.

It’s being used in the V&V forum so there’s zero intention of trying to offend anyone.

Some companies specifically include the term in their name to draw attention to their target market.

https://www.crueltyfreeshop.com.au/

https://www.crueltyfreesuper.com.au/

https://www.crueltyfreewealth.com/invest-cruelty-free/


An article/website on cruelty free stock investment

https://www.asktraders.com/learn-to-trade/ethical-trading/ethical-stocks-animal-welfare/

A website dedicated to updating you on cruelty free brands

https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/list-of-cruelty-free-brands/


For recipes

https://crueltyfreerecipes.com/

It seems truly bizarre to me to have to educate anyone to the concept of ‘cruelty free’ anything.

Panch18

Deleted User wrote: »

The term ‘cruelty free’ is a very very common term in the Vegan and Vegetarian world.

It’s being used in the V&V forum so there’s zero intention of trying to offend anyone.

Some companies specifically include the term in their name to draw attention to their target market.

https://www.crueltyfreeshop.com.au/

https://www.crueltyfreesuper.com.au/

https://www.crueltyfreewealth.com/invest-cruelty-free/


An article/website on cruelty free stock investment

https://www.asktraders.com/learn-to-trade/ethical-trading/ethical-stocks-animal-welfare/

A website dedicated to updating you on cruelty free brands

https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/list-of-cruelty-free-brands/


For recipes

https://crueltyfreerecipes.com/

It seems truly bizarre to me to have to educate anyone to the concept of ‘cruelty free’ anything.

as far as i am aware Boards.ie is meant to be a public forum, open to all. The vegetarian and vegan forum is a sub forum - again open to all the public. It is not meant to be a vegan soapbox allowing people to insult, bully and demonise a large section of Irish society.

NcdJd

Faith wrote: »

The charter was amended as a result of user feedback and a detailed discussion between posters, forum mods, CMods and Admins. Nothing inexplicable about it.

That was done some weeks back, when did the inclusion of the cruelty paragraph come into place ? Panch said two days ago... you were quick off the mark to ban Gozunda for having a discussion using this cruelty charter..

Boards have just given a platform for a couple of posters with extremist views to post whatever they like and no one who is offended or tries to correct misinformation can reply as they will be banned from the forum.

Well done Boards.

Dizzyblonde

gozunda wrote: »

19/11/2020 10:02

Dizzyblonde

Category Moderator

Mod note:

klopparama, your repeated use of "cruelty free" as a description of meat free products across threads this morning has been noted. Although it may be your personal opinion, it is extremely provocative and if you persist it will be seen as trolling which is unacceptable

Without explanation this has been changed in recent days. Posters have been infracted and banned when trying to raise these issues

According to the new charter this now inexpllicably appears to a protected position.

I have to put up my hand here and admit that this was a mistake on my part. I was new to the Vegan & Vegetarian forum and in my ignorance I thought I was doing the right thing. I wasn't.

To draw a comparison, the Christianity forum has been, in conjunction with Atheism& Agnosticism, a contentious area with similar issues at play in terms of how far protected beliefs get to define the charter and subsequent expected behaviour of poster groups who clearly are not going to agree on fundamental, personal beliefs.

Each forum has the same debates but with a view to managing the angles with deference to a particular set of beliefs in each case.

Nowhere in the Christianity charter will you see, to my knowledge, reference to the posters not sharing in those deeply held personal beliefs as godless/infidel or any such.

It would be provocative language in posts, let alone in a charter. And people in either group hold their respective beliefs very firmly and sincerely indeed.

The use of cruelty in this context is a misstep and far too broad a protection of the beliefs of anyone, regardless of how sincerely or deeply they themselves believe it to be appropriate.

Perhaps the farming forum allows for very provocative language towards vegans, I'm not sure. I'm still doubtful as to whether it would justify quite such an extreme position being enshrined as the legitimate basis for moderating opposing opinions with such inherent bias

gozunda

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

I have to put up my hand here and admit that this was a mistake on my part. I was new to the Vagan & Vegetarian forum and in my ignorance I thought I was doing the right thing. I wasn't.

You were doing the right thing. As was specified

Your mod note was backed up by another from faith

See

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115345693&postcount=29

19/11/2020 12:08

Mod Note: All we're asking is that you all help us to help you make this a pleasant space for all posters, and one way in which we're asking people to do that is by using non-inflammatory language. I appreciate that a term like "cruelty free" is not inflammatory to many vegans, but it is for a lot of other people. This is not an issue specific to veg*nism either, plenty of forums on the site have a protected space for posters while maintaining rules around the discussion.

If you'd like to discuss it further, please PM one of the moderators or start a new discussion thread, cheers.

/edit: oops, cross-posted with you Dizzy, sorry!

Posters were asked to desist from using that phrase up until the charter changes a couple of days ago

It came as a surprise to me and others it was now being allowed.

I know its an aside from the main issue as described by Panch - of those who are inferring that all animal agriculture is cruelty. But it is noticeable that phrase was being used by a very small number in an effort to evade the forum prohibition on "offensive" language.

That's why it was called out by posters.

Faith

Neither Dizzyblonde nor I are vegans so we were upfront when we started modding that we were learning as we went. I’m sure you will all agree, it’s a crucial quality to be able to change your opinions when you receive new information. We were initially of the belief that the term “cruelty free” wasn’t commonly used in vegan terminology, but we listened to feedback from a variety of stakeholders, both vegans and not, and came to the decision that the term was acceptable and commonly used in vegan parlance.

Panch18

Faith wrote: »

Neither Dizzyblonde nor I are vegans so we were upfront when we started modding that we were learning as we went. I’m sure you will all agree, it’s a crucial quality to be able to change your opinions when you receive new information. We were initially of the belief that the term “cruelty free” wasn’t commonly used in vegan terminology, but we listened to feedback from a variety of stakeholders, both vegans and not, and came to the decision that the term was acceptable and commonly used in vegan parlance.

But it's a public forum not a vegan only forum - or am i wrong to assume this?

So you are willing to let quite a few people be demonised, abused and insulted on a public forum because a minority group make up a definition of something themselves and are then allowed to use it against farmers on a public forum?

Not only use it but specifically specify it in the charter

This is totally unjustified. It is clear that quite a few people are highly offended by this but when these concerns were raised the people were banned and their posts deleted - that's nothing short of fascism.

gozunda

Faith wrote: »

Neither Dizzyblonde nor I are vegans so we were upfront when we started modding that we were learning as we went. I’m sure you will all agree, it’s a crucial quality to be able to change your opinions when you receive new information. We were initially of the belief that the term “cruelty free” wasn’t commonly used in vegan terminology, but we listened to feedback from a variety of stakeholders, both vegans and not, and came to the decision that the term was acceptable and commonly used in vegan parlance.

The main issue is not just one phrase as has been already highlighted

But no its not a 'vegan term" btw. It is a general term used by companies to refer to to testing on *live* animals for cosmetics , shampoos.

Cruelty-free products should not be confused with vegan

https://blog.publicgoods.com/what-does-cruelty-free-actually-mean/

However in this instance - it was specifically being used to circumnavigate the prohibition on ' offensive' language in the new charter.

The two threads where it was being thrown about were the McD plant burger thread and the Denny sausage thread. Notably neither of these two companies make any claims about these products being cruelty free.

As it is being currently used by some to get around the prohibition on offensive language - the term is not only offensive to farmers but also to vegetarians who are also accused by some of engaging in 'cruelty' for eating eggs, drinking milk etc.

Ten of Swords

Panch18 wrote: »

But it's a public forum not a vegan only forum

Correct

Panch18 wrote: »

So you are willing to let quite a few people be demonised, abused and insulted on a public forum because a minority group make up a definition of something themselves

Majority rules?

Panch18 wrote: »

Not only use it but specifically specify it in the charter

A vegan belief is listed in the vegan forum charter. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

This was based on user feedback taken in a recent thread. Everyone was free to provide feedback however many simply chose to engage in 'us vs them' fighting and the thread was closed after the mods concluded it was so off topic that keeping it open would serve no purpose

This is an extract of point 2 of the charter "the practice of farming animals for human consumption, no matter how well cared for the animals are, goes against our fundamental beliefs. This is our belief system and in this forum that belief can be discussed in a respectful and considerate manner from a vegan and vegetarian point of view"

Panch18 wrote: »

This is totally unjustified

No it isn't, see above.

gozunda

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Correct

Majority rules?
A vegan belief is listed in the vegan forum ]charter. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

This was based on user feedback taken in a recent thread. Everyone was free to provide feedback however many simply chose to engage in 'us vs them' fighting and the thread was closed after the mods concluded it was so off topic that keeping it open would serve no purpose

This is an extract of point 2 of the charter "the practice of farming animals for human consumption, no matter how well cared for the animals are, goes against our fundamental beliefs. This is our belief system and in this forum that belief can be discussed in a respectful and considerate manner from a vegan and vegetarian point of view
No it isn't, see above.

With all due respect it is not a "vegan" forum.

It is a 'vegetarian and vegan' forum.

And not a majority as far as I can see. Currently we have a small number dictating what is or is not offensive and ignoring the prohibition on offensive language in the new charter. And apparently the same who have frequently inferred that farmers engage in 'murder' 'torture imprisonment etc etc

As detailed , such language is not only offensive to farmers and omnivores but also to those vegetarians who eat eggs, drink milk etc.

Gary kk

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Correct



Majority rules?



A vegan belief is listed in the vegan forum charter. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

This was based on user feedback taken in a recent thread. Everyone was free to provide feedback however many simply chose to engage in 'us vs them' fighting and the thread was closed after the mods concluded it was so off topic that keeping it open would serve no purpose

This is an extract of point 2 of the charter "the practice of farming animals for human consumption, no matter how well cared for the animals are, goes against our fundamental beliefs. This is our belief system and in this forum that belief can be discussed in a respectful and considerate manner from a vegan and vegetarian point of view"




No it isn't, see above.

I think that's the problem the charter has allowed a section from one group to insult another group and hide behind it.
It's as means of thrown mud in someones face.

Panch18

thanks for your feedback

Just a couple of points:

Firstly i did engage with the mod, via PM, on the charter - I asked that a list of abusive phrases be banned. The mod declined saying that it would be impossible to control but all offensive phrases and suggestions would be dealt with and moderated accordingly. And that was fine and a new charter was implemented a couple of weeks ago - no problem there. The insertion of the cruelty paragraph in the charter was done at the end of last week - so nothing to do with the initial charter discussion which i participated in.

Secondly - majority rules???? so are you saying that if i can find more people that are offended by it than the vegans can to justify it you are saying it will be removed?

Thirdly - the part you have highlighted in bold isn't the problem - its the very line after that which states: "this includes the use of the term cruelty in relation to animal farming". This is giving cart Blanche to people to use phrases like cruelty free milk, cruelty free cheese as and when they want. The thing is there is absolutely no need for vegans to have to need to use such phrases, there are many phrases in public circulation to cover such needs e.g. dairy free milk, vegan cheese etc etc.

All i am asking for is that fairness be implemented in the charter - there is absolutely no need for the charter to actively promote calling farmers cruel and that their products are somehow linked to cruelty

NcdJd

Faith wrote: »

Neither Dizzyblonde nor I are vegans so we were upfront when we started modding that we were learning as we went. I’m sure you will all agree, it’s a crucial quality to be able to change your opinions when you receive new information. We were initially of the belief that the term “cruelty free” wasn’t commonly used in vegan terminology, but we listened to feedback from a variety of stakeholders, both vegans and not, and came to the decision that the term was acceptable and commonly used in vegan parlance.

I work with two vegans and I have never heard them describe anything to me as "Cruelty Free" when I ask them what are you having for lunch or in the canteen with them.

Meat free, dairy free, plant based are the normal terms used to describe meat alternatives to vegan products and are the ones I hear when conversing with someone that practices a vegan lifestyle.

"Cruelty free" is designed to antagonise and insult people who choose to not follow a vegan lifestyle or are involved in farming animals.

osarusan

Non-vegetarian, non-vegan here, who was raised on a farm, and has no objection to and takes no offense to the term 'cruelty-free'.

Unearthly

I think farmers need to ask themselves why a lot of people decide to refrain from those products. The answer is they find them cruel.

Big deal made out of nothing imo. In the farming forum it's allowed to call vegans Extremists, and fascists. Water off a duck's back as that's their forum.

It would be a handy sitewide feature to have a hide forum option. Problem solved then

ganmo

Unearthly wrote: »

I think farmers need to ask themselves why a lot of people decide to refrain from those products. The answer is they find them cruel.

Big deal made out of nothing imo. In the farming forum it's allowed to call vegans Extremists, and fascists. Water off a duck's back as that's their forum.

It would be a handy sitewide feature to have a hide forum option. Problem solved then

There are vegans and then there are vegan extremists do you not think its important to differentiate between them?

OscarMIlde

Faith wrote: »

Hi Panch18,

I believe that you are conflating two things - the legal definition of cruelty to animals and the vegan belief of cruelty towards animals. Those are separate things.

Broadly, vegans believe that it is cruel to use animals for human consumption or other human activities. They believe it is cruel to breed animals for human gain, to keep animals in captivity specifically for human gain and to kill animals for human gain. The underlying principle is that animals should not be used solely for human gain. Fundamentally, killing a healthy animal to benefit a human in some way is seen as cruel by vegans, and this belief underpins veganism. To a vegan, the fact that animals are farmed for human consumption is totally unnecessary and highly offensive.

This is not to say that vegans are describing individual farmers as being cruel to animals in the legal definition. You appear to be interpreting the term "cruelty" and "cruelty free" as a direct attack on you and your profession, which is understandable, but is incorrect. To vegans, an "animal cruelty problem" exists as long as animals are farmed or killed for human consumption, regardless of conditions or efforts made to improve animal welfare.

Use of the phrase "cruelty free" also does not suggest that the opposite is 'cruelty-full' or similar. It is simply a way of describing that no animals were harmed in the making of the product. You are making an incorrect inference there in believing it means you individually are cruel to your animals.

This is a highly contentious issue to certain groups, and the Vegan & Vegetarian forum has become a highly toxic and negative place as a result of fighting between these groups. The new charter was developed as a way to bring the forum back to its primary purpose - a space for vegans and vegetarians to discuss their beliefs in peace. We understand that the changes in the charter may cause some people to feel angry, but we are just bringing the forum back in line with its aim, after it drifted far from that over the last few years.

What if the posters are wrongly referring to products as 'cruelty free' when in reality they are not? Are these posts censured? For example take almond milk produced in California is being referred to as 'cruelty free' as it is a non-animal product. Could it not be debated that it may not be entirely true due to the damaging effects on the ecosystem/water supply almond tree agriculture has on the surrounding land. I understand that people are passionate about animal rights and farming practices, but there are wider ecological and economic consequences to some ingredients used widely in substitute foods.

An argument could be made that someone who chooses to try and follow a sustainable diet which includes locally produced meat and eggs may have less knock on environmental effects and 'cruel' side effects than someone who follows a plant based diet that consists of long food miles and disruption to the ecosystem in which they are grown.

Unearthly

Unearthly wrote: »

I think farmers need to ask themselves why a lot of people decide to refrain from those products. The answer is they find them cruel.

Big deal made out of nothing imo. In the farming forum it's allowed to call vegans Extremists, and fascists. Water off a duck's back as that's their forum.

It would be a handy sitewide feature to have a hide forum option. Problem solved then

They also have a habit of calling Vegans snowflakes which is a bit ironic reading this thread.

I eat meat and worked on family farms until 15 and have no issue with the term being used or not.
I don't participate in either forum regularly but it appears that certain posters have a habit of trying to wind people up in threads.

Unearthly

ganmo wrote: »

There are vegans and then there are vegan extremists do you not think its important to differentiate between them?

Ah but you see the label extremists can be interpreted differently. Some farmers use extremists for all vegans. For me a vegan extremist is someone who goes dressed in blood to restaurants and holds the restaurant up, not someone who thinks meat is cruel but others will disagree.

Again that's their opinion and as long as they say it in their own forum then that's fine. I don't expect to share the same views of the people who produce the food I ethically oppose.

Silly Gilly

Unearthly wrote: »

I think farmers need to ask themselves why a lot of people decide to refrain from those products. The answer is they find them cruel.

Big deal made out of nothing imo. In the farming forum it's allowed to call vegans Extremists, and fascists. Water off a duck's back as that's their forum.

It would be a handy sitewide feature to have a hide forum option. Problem solved then

If you were dealing with normal people that would make sense, accept that the positions are diametrically opposed and leave each other be. However, on here you have a small group of really quite obsessive individuals that seem to see Veganism as an existential threat to their way of live. Such people then proceed to attempt to destroy a forum that should be a safe haven for a niche group. These obsessives really should have been ejected from the forum years ago. All that stems from their contined presence are arguments.

Irish Aris

My opinion would be that the term is provocative but not necessarily insulting.
From my an outsider's point of view it's just antagonising people and doesn't really create any sympathy towards veganism.
But because I don't have any interest on the subject, I am not overly concerned.

I always found that these subforums are a bit like a safe haven, so I can see the point of view of vegans. I feel the same about the LGBT subforum where one could argue that the charter is very specific but that allows for meaningful discussion without derailing the whole thing.

Op, I appreciate you feel offended and attacked, alas internet can be like that. Even if this is a public forum, you shouldn't feel obliged to follow every single discussion and thread. I get your point about the later charter change. I'll say though that I generally find the mods being very open on their approach - including this case. Maybe not ideal, but it is what it is.

Unearthly

I would just like to give praise by the way to the new mod team. Bit of a baptism of fire but they respond very fast to reported posts and also quash any troublesome posts

I think the transition will be rocky, but once people realise that you can't get away with going into a specialised forum and trying to derail topics it will run much smoother

gozunda

Silly Gilly wrote: »

If you were dealing with normal people that would make sense, accept that the positions are diametrically opposed and leave each other be. However, on here you have a small group of really quite obsessive individuals that seem to see Veganism as an existential threat to their way of live. Such people then proceed to attempt to destroy a forum that should be a safe haven for a niche group. These obsessives really should have been ejected from the forum years ago. All that stems from their contined presence are arguments.

'Normal people'? Interesting description. But no matter.

I'd disagree on that. And no I dont think that "diametrically opposed". Vegans are concerned about food and food production. And farmers are experts in that area. Id imagine one of the main reasons other posters post there is to counter much of the misinformation posted about farming and agriculture in general. After all boards is a public discussion fora.

There is no safe haven on any forum on boards for the use of offensive language. Thats already contained in the new charter. Seems a small number have tried to circumnavigate that unfortunately.

White Clover

Unearthly wrote: »

I would just like to give praise by the way to the new mod team. Bit of a baptism of fire but they respond very fast to reported posts and also quash any troublesome posts

I think the transition will be rocky, but once people realise that you can't get away with going into a specialised forum and trying to derail topics it will run much smoother

The mods are very fast to delete posts when reported but without any sanction whatsoever for the poster of said posts. All very one sided of course.
Mods on the forum are clearly compromised at this stage and incapable of impartial moderating.

ZX7R

I discussed this topic with a relation last night they a vegan also, and they use the term in question.
When I questioned them about the exotic animal's they keep as pets could they could not deny that that practice would also have to be seen as a form of animal cruelty.
As no matter how well they are looked after or how well they were transported to Ireland the creatures in question were taken from their natural habitat for the sole purpose of pleasure to the owner.
So are they going to get rid of there pets no.

are they going to stay a vegan yes.

Are they going to use the questioned term no.
Even they see how the animal cruelty for all does not fit,just because you don't kill or consume the animals doesn't mean your not practicing some sort of animal cruelty in hindsight.

anewme

I dont eat meat currently. I'd like to take it a step at a time and eliminate as many as possible animal products from my life, clothes, shoes, furniture even, but it's an ongoing journey.

I also like to get opinions on recipes and find products which might br if benefit to me.

I stopped visiting the forum due to the constant attacks and infighting. I commented on the posts about the McDonalds Plant Burger and the Dennys sausages as I was interested as a consumer to use those products. However, all that was there was agressive attacks due to the use of the non cruelty term.

As someone who would be impartial in the topic, I can say that I would see non cruelty used by vegetarians and would not see it as an attack on anyone else. The forum should be there to allow people discuss and make an educated choice, like the food forum but the agressive posters make it very difficult to do so. A thread about Dennys sausages should be about Dennys sausages, not a debate if they are meat free or cruelty free.

The mods are doing a great job.

Chips Lovell

The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

Dial Hard

gozunda wrote: »

There is no safe haven on any forum on boards for the use of offensive language. Thats already contained in the new charter. Seems a small number have tried to circumnavigate that unfortunately.

Who gets to decide what's offensive, though? I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and have absolutely zero issue with the term cruelty-free. You clearly do. Is your opinion worth more than mine?

Panch18

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?

Panch18

Dial Hard wrote: »

Who gets to decide what's offensive, though? I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and have absolutely zero issue with the term cruelty-free. You clearly do. Is your opinion worth more than mine?

you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

Panch18

Panch18 wrote: »

you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

I’m a vegan and I don’t think it’s cruel to give a dog a home and have it as part of your family.

Faith

Panch18 wrote: »

you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

That's absolutely not what anyone is saying. You have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the topic.

Neyite

Panch18 wrote: »

Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?

The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.

Dial Hard

Panch18 wrote: »

you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

It's not though. You're describing a very small cohort at the very extremes of veganism who hold those kinds of views.

I'm genuinely puzzled at how incensed some of you are by this, tbh. I have very strong views on certain types of hunting so I stay the hell away from the Hunting forum. It really is that simple, no?

Dizzyblonde

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

I echo this. I moderate the Food forum and people who post there have an interest in food that goes beyond just eating. We don't tolerate anyone coming into the forum and criticising recipes, photos of meals, food choices etc. If someone wants to discuss the nutritional value or calorific content of food and whether or not something is healthy, we point them in the direction of the Nutrition & Diet forum. If someone was to criticise another poster for eating meat, or not eating meat, they wouldn't be tolerated.

I think I must have led a very sheltered life on Boards up until now because I find the level of bad feeling between these two forums to be quite shocking. Unless and until you can dial it down and accept each other's differences this bad feeling will never go away. A lot of people with very strong beliefs would wish for others to be on board with them, but life just isn't like that.

This thread is about the recent addition to the new V&V charter, not a full page advert in a newspaper blackening the names of every farmer in Ireland. A bit of 'live and let live' on both sides would go a long way.

White Clover I find your latest post to be extremely unhelpful not to mention highly insulting, particularly to the forum's new permanent mod, Ten of Swords who is playing an absolute blinder in a very difficult situation.

Gary kk

Neyite wrote: »

The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.

No so some members have repeatedly used those terms without any visible sanctions. I know the first is a warning can be done privately. But the second and third time no nothing. The lack of a response can cause more tension.

Panch18

Neyite wrote: »

The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.

The new charter has had a paragraph inserted, after the initial charter was issued, whereby it specifically allows for all animals farmers to be called cruel and allows posters to use the phrase cruel as and when they see fit - and without repercussions - and regardless for any facts or anything to support their statements

Mickeroo

Panch18 wrote: »

The new charter has had a paragraph inserted, after the initial charter was issued, whereby it specifically allows for all animals farmers to be called cruel and allows posters to use the phrase cruel as and when they see fit - and without repercussions - and regardless for any facts or anything to support their statements

That's a world away from murderers, rapists, slavers etc though, which is what what you actually said in your post that Neyite responded to.

Faith

We absolutely hold our hands up and acknowledge that the level of discourse had gotten very poor in recent times. Extremely horrible comparisons were being made in the forum, and it wasn't helping anyone. We have specifically addressed that in the updated charter, and since the time the new charter was posted, we have been cracking down on it. You might not see an action taken, or might not agree with the action, but we're reading every reported post, documenting what we've been doing behind the scenes, and discussing more complex decisions with each other to ensure we agree on how we're approaching them.

Panch18

Faith wrote: »

That's absolutely not what anyone is saying. You have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the topic.

Take a look at the link there and the extract from it - note the last bullet point below and the part bold highlighted where it says the long term goal of vegans is to stop any animals being kept in captivity - so yes that does include your dog or cat or goldfish or little bunny

https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/articles/do-vegans-keep-pets/#:~:text=Keeping%20a%20companion%20animal%20is,from%20other%20shops%20where%20possible

Does the Concept of Pets Cause Suffering?
Many people who look after animals with compassion and care – and let’s face it, some humans treat their animals better than they treat their husbands, wives or children! – may feel they aren’t causing a problem and are giving only love to their pets. But such people cannot be viewed in isolation.

The fact is that there are millions of animals within the pet “industry” who experience terrible suffering. Even if we leave aside any more philosophical arguments about keeping pets and an animal’s right to liberty, this suffering means many vegans feel the idea of keeping pets is one that needs to be abandoned.


The Vegan Society and PETA seem to represent the vegan consensus on this issue and we have to agree with them. Whether they have shaped the consensus or simply echo the natural thoughts of many vegans is hard to know. In short, we feel that:

Keeping a companion animal is basically fine* for vegans (*If the animal is sourced from a rescue home, sanctuary or animal charity)
Vegans should not buy from breeders, puppy farms or pet shops
Vegans should not support pet shops that sell animals – buy food and other essentials from other shops where possible
Vegans should not buy rare or exotic animals, including birds and fish
Vegans should always have their pets spayed or neutered
The long term aim for vegans is to end the practice of keeping captive animals
Naturally, it goes without saying that one should only take on the huge responsibility of a companion animal if capable of meeting its needs. Animals need the right environment, amount of exercise, space and food, as well as a good deal of time, love and affection. Anyone considering taking on this commitment should think very carefully about it and fully understand what is needed.

Chips Lovell

Panch18 wrote: »

Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?

Well nobody has used those terms, so the question is kind of academic. People have said that car drivers are polluters or selfish. There would be a more extreme fringe who'd say car drivers kill X amount of cyclists or pedestrians per annum, as if to say all accidents are car drivers fault. None of those opinions are forbidden. They may be challenged by other cyclists on the forum, but we certainly don't accommodate anyone rolling in saying "as a motorist I'm offended you said I was a selfish polluter".

anewme

Panch18 wrote: »

you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

The threads I was talking about referenced Denny's Sausages and McDonald's burgers. there was no inference about dogs or anything like it. That is my point about people trying to hijack posts and make them about something else.

The forum should be about discussions for people who choose to follow this or part of this lifestyle. Not for constant bereting and antagonising people and deflecting from the topic at hand, exactly as you have done here.

Its causing agression when there is no need for it.

Panch18

it seems to me that people, Mods in particular, are happy to pull people up on calling others rapists and murderers etc. (which is good!!)

But they are not happy to pull people up when they brandish all animal farmers as being cruel and having produce that is derived from cruelty.

As i said - if you are a pet owner you are in the same bracket as a farmer - as i posted in the above link the long term goal of the vegan "movement" is to "abandon the idea of keeping pets" It's there in black and white in the above link.

So whilst today it is me and a hundred thousand other farmers that being called cruel and inflicting pain on animals - are you prepared for it when you take Rex to the park and have it shouted in your face?