greysides wrote: » Oh dear. I hope you don't compare Boards standards to the standards of some of those sites. You know who posts on Twitter regularly... US dude, orange complexion... known for his version of events.
Panch18 wrote: » I have drawn up a little table of the posters on this thread and where they lie on the subject. Now first up to all posters this is how I have interpreted your post(s) on this thread. If I am misrepresenting you then forgive me and please say so. If you look at the table you will see the following: 8 “unbiased” people seem to be questioning the charter or believe it should be changed 6 “unbiased” people seem to be happy to leave it as it is There were 3 unbiased posters that I put as unknown as I didn’t think their posts lay on either side of the fence
Panch18 wrote: » How can i interpret the use of "Cruelty free" as anything other than a direct attack on me personally
Say my name wrote: » This is a very dangerous precedent for Boards. Just because it happens elsewhere and is permitted with no sanction shouldn't necessarily mean it be brought through to here. We all have minds that we were born with and we all know how much the power of words holds.By describing another system that you don't agree with as cruel, makes that an attack and by enshrining that into a charter rule sets that in stone. It's akin to any other grouping of people that doesn't agree with a practice of another people, laying out their attack in their forum rules. How you didn't expect kickback is beyond all reasonable thought. Maybe that's what ye want and welcome? I doubt there's another forum on Boards that'd go to such bother? It's a sad day that that this is deemed as required and called for by some posters. I guess people like conflict. Shame on them!
Hodors Appletart wrote: » nowhere else on this website is a term of insult allowed just because the cohort using believe it to be true. and make no mistake this term "cruelty free" is one hundred percent being used in an antagonistic, insulting and baiting fashion to suggest otherwise is to engage in untruths the other "safe haven" forums mentioned; the ladies lounge no woman would be allowed to blanket say something disparaging about men, nor in the Islam forum would blanket anti-buddhist rhetoric be allowed to be posted if people can simply say "a group of people believe this concept to be true" then allow that concept to be written into the charter of the forum then I'd have to disagree with those on that side of this debate the term "animal cruelty" is enshrined in law, best-practice for farmers as a whole - to suggest that the whole farming industry is engaged in cruelty by dint of allowing this term to be used is pretty unusual. It's hardly surprising that farmers want to refute the claims that they are cruel to the animals they rear.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that is not what is happening. That is the perception of the OP.
Say my name wrote: » I've read the charter and I disagree. Your reply would be construed as whataboutery under the charter rules.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » it is not even a ban on the word cruel. It is a ban on the use of the phrase "cruelty-free" as some people perceive that as a direct attack on them. It is all most bizarre.
Faith wrote: » Because, once again, you're either misrepresenting or misremembering the charter. As a reminder, it states: Nowhere does it say "You can't talk about the ethics of pet ownership". Nowhere does it say "Let's all call farmers cruel!" or "Never, ever refer to anyone BUT farmers as cruel". If someone wants to start a thread calling pet owners cruel, let them do so as long as it stays within the charter. The charter also specifically says "This INCLUDES the use", not "This is limited to the use", so I have literally no idea how you've arrived at the conclusion that "only farmers are being subject to the term cruelty and not the general public".
Faith wrote: » Honestly, Panch, I could ask you the same thing. You've ignored the majority of posts on this thread that have challenged your position and you're myopically focusing on certain details without any consideration of the bigger picture.
Faith wrote: » This is unfair to everyone, Panch. I have devoted literal days of my free time to this issue, trying to see it from every possible angle. I have literally no skin in the game so I'm getting nothing out of doing this. Rather than acknowledge the sheer effort that the mod team is putting in, you've attacked us over and over again and complained about our failings. And then to accuse us of somehow silencing our fellow F&F mods is just the cherry on the cake. Yet you still expect us to go "You know what, you're right, you've shouted us down and we'll change the charter to suit you". We're open to respectful dialogue, not being bullied into doing something. I've covered the issue in as much detail as I can. I don't think I have anything else to say to you on this matter.
Unearthly wrote: » Can anyone give an example of a social media website that has both vegans and farmers that bans vegans using the word cruel? Reddit Twitter Facebook Instagram As far as I know neither of these ban it. Just wondering is there a precedent?
Ten of Swords wrote: » Panch18 this shouldn't come down to numbers. It is clear that farmers outnumber vegans on Boards, and I think that's probably a fair representation of wider society, but are you suggesting that this majority means you and/or others should influence the workings of a forum that has been created for vegans and vegetarians to discuss issues important to them? Nobody is excluded from posting in the V&V forum and input from anyone is welcome but the prevailing ethos and direction of the forum comes from the vegetarian and vegan community and posters are expected to respect that. V&V is a forum set up for a specific demographic of users and others examples of these community specific fora have been mentioned in the thread already (Hunting, LGBT, Christianity etc) that have their own charters geared towards their specific requirements/beliefs. Interpretation is subjective but nowhere in the charter is anyone permitted to personally attack anyone else.
Faith wrote: » Having followed this thread throughout, I am only seeing a small handful of posters objecting to the phrases 'cruelty' and 'cruelty free'. The majority of unbiased observers have indicated that they do not see an issue with the language being used on the Vegan & Vegetarian forum, and that they understand why it is permissible. So I'm not seeing any reason to change the charter to suit a small minority with vested interests that go against the fundamental principles that underpin the forum.
Ten of Swords wrote: » Interpretation is subjective but nowhere in the charter is anyone permitted to personally attack anyone else.
Smee_Again wrote: » I’m neither a farmer nor a vegan but I read the whole thread and I really don’t see the issue. I also think that if the posts attributed to the OP from the recipe thread are actually as he posted them then it’s hard to take his whinging as anything other than an attempt to get one over or wind up people he doesn’t like. In short, I question the OP’s bona fides.
PeadarCo wrote: » Why do the words cruelty free need to be in any charter? Its both provocative and inaccurate. It seems to be because some people thing that by eating vegan/vegetarian foods that its a cruelty free form of food production because it doesn't involve directly killing domesticated or semi domesticated animals. However any form of farming can involve killing not just domesticated animals but also wild animals and wider plant life. It all depends on the methods used. For example a farmer could grow wheat for example and use a large number of pesticides that involves killing a wide range of wild life not just the perceived pest, .... ad nauseum
PeadarCo wrote: » Obviously people shouldn't be going into the vegan/vegetarian forum to berate their chosen lifestyle [...]There shouldn't be a need to put something any cruelty free into a forum charter to deal disruptive posters.
Panch18 wrote: » TOS - the reason i posted that table was that Faith has said that only a handful of people wanted change - i posted the table to refute that as not being correct. I agree that it shouldn't be majority get to dictate - however the majority should not be ignored if they are being infringed upon - just because they are the majority. Here is the quote i was responding to with the table:
Panch18 wrote: » Yep hold my hand up I posted a smart arse comment on a picture in the vegan thread - probably shouldn't have done it but no doubt it was driven by anger at being called a rapist, murderer or barbaric - mea culpa however i would just like to point out that all of my posting history on the V&V forum has been deleted pretty much regardless of what it said. most of it was questioning how and why farmers were being called rapists etc. But it's important to note that that is not my only contribution to the forum Ironically enough the smart arse comment on the picture was neither reported, infracted, snipped or deleted - so it seems people weren't offended by it
Panch18 wrote: » I don't know if you are a dog or cat owner but regardless as an example if you are walking your dog in the park and somebody that doesn't know you comes up to you and says - all dog owners are cruel, you let you animals suffer in captivity would you take that as a personal attack?
anewme wrote: » You have posted more than one comment. Maybe people were offended don’t want the bother of reporting etc and just want to enjoy the forum in peace without nasty comments.It should not be about having to report people. It should not come to that. The people posting the recipes had not attacked you- you are 100 percent wrong here. You still are watering it down- it was not one comment either. Why should the forum confirm to you, when you have shown only disrespect to those with an interest in it. Even now, the Mods have gone above and beyond to explain their motives for someone who has not engaged in fair play.
El Tarangu wrote: » I'm not sure that this analogy rings true, as someone did not come up to you on the street (or start a thread on F & F); you had to scroll through threads on the V&V forum until you managed to come across a provocation. You are actively seeking offence; many would consider this to be posting in bad faith.
El Tarangu wrote: » Again - this is another example of someone taking upon themselves to lecture vegan/veggies/veggie-curious
Gary kk wrote: » To be honest I don't think any farmer would be bothered with the v&v forum only for a thread popping up called Milk and Dairy = cruelty. If you wanted to start an argument that would be it. I think it's called milk and dairy now but even the last few post will show the "vigor " with which it was debated. What's to stop such a thread from starting with a similar heading in the future. How did anyone in the v&v think there would not be such a reaction.
Gary kk wrote: » Sorry for having to repost but clearly some people still don't understand why some farmers ended on the V&V forum. Look the above mentioned thread and others like it are all ways going to cause a reaction.
Deleted User wrote: » It's kind of hilarious how only one or two have mounted any type of a defence of the deliberate selection of a provocative term towards the behaviour of another group..... ...in fact, provocative towards both farmers and anyone who doesn't go seeking "cruelty-free" in their produce.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
