nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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?

Faith

Panch18 wrote: »

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.

Where does it say that "you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works", which was your most recent claim?

I get you feel passionate about this. I get that the topic feels like a deeply personal attack on you and your peers. We genuinely are open to feedback and respectful discussion, but constantly changing the goalposts, fabricating or misrepresenting arguments, and invoking Godwin's Law is not helping.

irelandrover

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?

The forum should be a safe space in that people won't be insulted for their beliefs. It should not be a safe space for them to insult others.

I'll use the soccer forum as an example. Arsenal fans regularly call Tottenham fans "Spuds" in real life. But that is banned in the charter as it is clearly antagonizing. It drags thread of topic and creates a bad atmosphere.

What has happened in the vegetarian & vegan forum is the opposite in that the charter has specifically been updated to allow something that a lot of people find insulting.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

It doesn't matter what you think.

We found someone who thinks it, and it's now in the charter.

See how this works?

Panch18

Faith wrote: »

Where does it say that "you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works", which was your most recent claim?

I get you feel passionate about this. I get that the topic feels like a deeply personal attack on you and your peers. We genuinely are open to feedback and respectful discussion, but constantly changing the goalposts, fabricating or misrepresenting arguments, and invoking Godwin's Law is not helping.

Faith i clearly highlighted it for you

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 long term aim of vegans is to stop animals being in captivity - having a dog or a cat or a bunny or a goldfish is keeping that animal in captivity - which means the animal is suffering - therefore you as the pet owner are cruel

gozunda

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?

Not what is being referred to.

The prohibition on offensive language is in the charter highlighted above. The prohibition was quite clear. The use of such offensive language was moderated as such. That was until a small number of posters tried to circumnavigate this prohibition. Hence this thread.

Neyite

irelandrover wrote: »

The forum should be a safe space in that people won't be insulted for their beliefs. It should not be a safe space for them to insult others.

I'll use the soccer forum as an example. Arsenal fans regularly call Tottenham fans "Spuds" in real life. But that is banned in the charter as it is clearly antagonizing. It drags thread of topic and creates a bad atmosphere.

What has happened in the vegetarian & vegan forum is the opposite in that the charter has specifically been updated to allow something that a lot of people find insulting.

Again, name calling and personal attacks is not permitted under the new charter in Vegan and Vegetarian. It will be moderated. Report the posts and mods will deal with them.

gozunda

Faith wrote: »

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.

So why is that personal abuse of posters in that forum still being allowed and thanked etc?

[Deleted User]

The response that "X or y is not permitted under the charter" isn't really covering the issue.

The response that "cyclists refer to motorists as X" or similar isn't really covering the issue.

An obviously controversial and provocative - very arguably derogatory- term has found its way into the charter of a sub forum.

That's streets away from whether or not posters in this or other fora get away or otherwise with using provocative terms or language.

It's not safe space. It's highly subjective comment on an entire group/industry in this country and is quite clearly open to question as used.

Is there a precedent for active staking out of such challenging agenda in any other forum's charter? That's the fair comparison, not the responses so far imo.

Panch18

Neyite wrote: »

Again, name calling and personal attacks is not permitted under the new charter in Vegan and Vegetarian. It will be moderated. Report the posts and mods will deal with them.

And repeatadly saying that farmers are administering cruelty on there animals and the produce that comes from animals is produced in a cruel environment is permitted?

And given special place in the charter to do so?

How is that not personal

Neyite

gozunda wrote: »

So why is that personal abuse of posters in that forum still being allowed and thanked etc?

Where?

If you reported the posts it would be helpful to the mods who are aiming to stamp out the personal abuse.

But I haven't seen any posts reported by you. The last one was almost three days ago.