Panch18 wrote: » Referring back to Cruelty Free - I have yet to see a brand of sausage or burger (or whatever really) openly promote themselves as "cruelty free" and have it on their packaging as cruelty free Would be great if someone could show us a link to such a product and the term cruelty free on the package
anewme wrote: » I think your problem Panch is that you are aligning everyone's views with Peta and their definitions. Other posters have posted links of where foods and other products are described as cruelty free. Our local Animal Rescue sells cruelty-free eggs. Basically, these are hens rescued from battery farms now left to roam. The money received from the cruelty-free eggs feeds and looks after the hens. I get what she means by cruelty free and I don't have a problem with them being described as such. I am happy to support and eat the eggs. There is so much cruelty to animals in our Country, even dogs now are farmed commodities, that sometimes the cruelty free choice might just be the less cruel option. Everyone is on a different stage of their journey, there is no right and wrong answer, there is no set definition. I think you will find that the majority of people in the V&V forum are not extremeists and just trying to live their life a bit better, according to their own moral compass.
Panch18 wrote: » There is no such thing as cruelty free sausages or burgers or whatever
Panch18 wrote: » Cruelty free refers specifically to testing on animals, in particular, but not limited to, in the cosmetic and beauty industries?? I don't see any reference to food or food production on any site or definition that i can find anywhere. There is no such thing as cruelty free sausages or burgers or whatever
Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: » Just catching up on this thread now and I think it's worth pointing out a rather large discrepancy in your characterisation of our moderation of our forum these last few days but I believe it worth noting. We requested, repeatedly, some guidance in moderating our forum while adjusting to the apparently new laissez-faire approach to what we we would traditionally have regarded as uncivil and abusive. While awaiting that guidance, we decided to comply with this new approach that seemed evident elsewhere. I assure you, we still regard those comments as uncivil and abusive but we remain unwilling to deal with them until we receive guidance as to what now constitutes uncivil commentary and abusive remarks. Feel free to choose any thread at random from before 2 weeks ago and I would sincerely doubt you will find any comments there that would be considered abusive or uncivil. We take great pride in our forum and welcome all who wish to post there. But one of the fundamental precepts which we still maintain on our forum is that the tone of a reply to a post can only be to the same tone as the original post. The poster has the choice and free will to determine the content and tone of their post but they can expect the same tone of reply in return. Perhaps those complaining about their lack of welcome in F&F may need to reconsider both the content and tone of their posts as they will receive the same in reply.
Nody wrote: » Then I propose you'd require the same of F&F as well; have a read through the thread started to rally the forum against the charter. Note the general theme called out by the F&F of people who are vegetarians/vegans etc. and tell me if the terms used would been acceptable if it was about farmers instead, I'll get you started with a few example: Oh and as a side note Panch; if you're going to make up a list at least try not to be so blatant in your lying. I've never stated in any way, shape or form, that I was against, or agreeing, to the wording of the charter. Hence placing me in the "against" column is at best ignorance on your side and wishful thinking. Based on how farmers have acted and posted in the thread gozunda started I'd be very much for it's inclusion because it will ensure a very quick weeding out of the relevant farmers who definitely will become problem makers in the V&V forum. I'm also quite sure that there will be plenty of farmers who can still discuss the relevant topics without getting their underwear all twisted up in a knot over it.
For those posters attacking myself and others in the help desk thread on the basis of the thread here Please note I nor anyone else 'started" this thread. I made a comment regarding the help desk in the chat thread - where it received numerous replies. At the request of another poster and then myself, these comments were moved to a new thread by one of the mods. . Considering the feelings of many posters on the issues highlighted - it is perhaps not surprising that emotions are running high...
anewme wrote: » I hope this means that if someone does reference cruelty-free products, that there are not a load of complaints and derailing threads. Personally, as I said Im not vegan, but totally understand why someone would reference a food product or clothing product as cruelty free. I would not support Canada Goose for example, that is nothing to do with Farmers. The Farmers here seem to think that every comment is made against them, that is not the case. I also hope that people are allowed post in peace and that taunting over recipe requests or queries are not sneered at. I also support the animal forum and love dogs, rescue dogs in particular and don't get why someone is getting hung up on dogs and pets. Every person is unique and should be respected as their views and their ethical view towards sustainability and future. it is important to remember that not everyone is a hive mind, the THEY concept in swooping anyone with even a passing interest in not eating meat is treated as Public Enemy No. 1. Thanks again to the Mods for their understanding.
Faith wrote: » Right. So there are several points being highlighted in this thread. 1. Vegans' ethical beliefs are not simply limited to animal farming practices 2. Farmers aren't happy about being singled out. 3. Farmers aren't happy about the use of the word cruelty being enshrined in the charter. As I have said several times, we have been discussing this issue at length behind the scenes. Following those discussions, we have decided to make the following adjustment to the wording of the charter to address the above complaints. Thank you all for your feedback on this issue.
roosterman71 wrote: » Should the word "our" be in the charter. It flitters between "vegan" and "our". The charter should be for the group and the group be named and not collectively as "our". Proposed re-wording
A fundamental tenet of veganism is that animals are sentient beings which deserve rights and to live their lives free without being exploited or harmed for human gain. This means that certain aspects of human interaction with animals, both wild and domesticated, which many people see as perfectly fine are seen as unethical by vegans. Vegans appreciate that many people who work with, own or care for animals genuinely love the animals they interact with, but that doesn't change that those interactions may go against vegan fundamental beliefs. This is a Vegan 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 without being shouted down.
Faith wrote: » Right. So there are several points being highlighted in this thread. 1. Vegans' ethical beliefs are not simply limited to animal farming practices 2. Farmers aren't happy about being singled out. 3. Farmers aren't happy about the use of the word cruelty being enshrined in the charter. As I have said several times, we have been discussing this issue at length behind the scenes. Following those discussions, we have decided to make the following adjustment to the wording of the charter to address the above complaints. Quote: A fundamental tenet of veganism is that animals are sentient beings which deserve rights and to live their lives free without being exploited or harmed for human gain. This means that certain aspects of human interaction with animals, both wild and domesticated, which many people see as perfectly fine are seen as unethical by vegans. We appreciate that many people who work with, own or care for animals genuinely love the animals they interact with, but that doesn't change that those interactions may go 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 without being shouted down. Thank you all for your feedback on this issue.
Gary kk wrote: » Hey Mickeroo Someone was wondering why farmers were on the forum I just highlight some of the threads that had caused issues. Unfortunately some people were allowed to continue using the unhelpful language on following threads without visible sanctions.
Mickeroo wrote: » That thread was shut down though once the forum started being looked at by the Cmods and the new mod was brought on board. Faith has already addressed it on this thread. Under the new charter a good portion of posters on both sides of the argument would be getting sanctioned and the thread wouldn't have lasted 9 years.
Dinzee Conlee wrote: » I have up to now stayed away from posting in this thread and the vegan thread in the F&F forum as I am not much of a debater. I dont think Panch is obsessed at all here Animal cruelty is something which is defined in law, and is something one can be prosecuted for. To a farmer, animal cruelty carries far more meaning than the words themselves. Animal cruelty is something which is absolutely despised in the farming community. It’s something which is remembered long after the event, something which follows a farmer for many years... I have a live and let live approach, and I respect the vegan view that you don’t agree with animal farming. Well, it goes deeper than this, you are totally against it and would like to see it abolished - I don’t agree with this, but I respect it. However, putting the phrase ‘the use of the term "cruelty" in relation to animal farming’ into the charter is deliberately antagonistic towards farmers. It gives license for all V&V users to shout at farmers they are cruel, and guilty of animal cruelty. As has been called out already - what makes this worse, is that its just farmers are being identified as cruel. Other keepers of animals - dog/horse/cat owners aren't included in the charter definition - which seems to be at odds with the vegan beliefs.
Panch18 wrote: » Are you serious?? No genuine interest
Dinzee Conlee wrote: » I have a live and let live approach, and I respect the vegan view that you don’t agree with animal farming. Well, it goes deeper than this, you are totally against it and would like to see it abolished - I don’t agree with this, but I respect it.
Dial Hard wrote: » I'd take it as a bit of weirdness from someone who clearly has little to be worrying about, shrug it off and move on. This is a really, really bizarre hill to choose to die on, Panch. You're coming across as completely unreasonable and, quite frankly, obsessed.
A fundamental tenet of veganism is that animals are sentient beings which deserve rights and to live their lives free without being exploited or harmed for human gain. This means that certain aspects of human interaction with animals, both wild and domesticated, which many people see as perfectly fine are seen as unethical by vegans. We appreciate that many people who work with, own or care for animals genuinely love the animals they interact with, but that doesn't change that those interactions may go 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 without being shouted down.
Chips Lovell wrote: » I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick there. Outside of the forums they moderate, mods are ordinary users. I've no dog in this fight. As I've said, I'm a meat eater. I don't believe keeping animals is cruel. I don't believe killing animals to eat is cruel. I think veganism is kind of daft. But having said that, I recognise that the belief that keeping or killing animals is cruel is central to veganism. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest that people can't express this belief because someone who has no genuine interest in the topic feels offended.
_Brian wrote: » The inclusion in the charter that its acceptable to brand all farmers as cruel is in my mind a form of hate speech and so I feel its incumbant on boards team not to allow such terms seep into the fabric of the site.. Definition of hate speech from the oxford dictionary;abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, This isnt some randomer going off in a post, as I've done myself in the past and been pulled up on.. This is boards as a entity allowing such hate speech terms be incorporated into forums, I'm not sure that is the way boards.ie wants to be seen in general..
Panch18 wrote: » You will note that I have left out farmers, vegans and Mods. The reason I left out Mods is that it is clear from reading all of the Mod posts that impartiality is gone out the window here and you are defending your fellow mods or the charter or Boards.ie – I don’t know which but it is obvious.
anewme wrote: » Brian, have you read the thread on the Farmers Forum as highlighted by Nody.? You would not see this as hate speech? Starting a thread to rally the troops with that kind of language used. There is really only one side coming across poorly here...
