Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative

El Tarangu wrote: »

Again - this is another example of someone taking upon themselves to lecture vegan/veggies/veggie-curious people on how they don't actually understand their chosen lifestyle choice, and that they require some non-vegan/veggie person to come along and explain to them how, not only are they wrong, but "veganism" is some sort of unattainable ideal (with the subtext being, "well, why do ye even bother, so?")

While I think that it's unfortunate that the voles, mice, and frogs are routinely run over by combine harvesters, I don't actually consider this 'cruel', whereas on the other hand, I do consider pulping male chicks at alive, or sending cows to be hacked to death in the middle-east 'cruel'. And if I took the notion to discuss these issues on the V&V forum (NOT on the Farming forum), this is the terminology I would choose to use. If some users of other forums did not like me using this term - well, that's their prerogative. There are plenty of other forums where they can discuss other things instead.

I think you have missed my point farming practices are just as important if not more important than what's actually being farmed. It's not clear cut. Just because a farmer doesn't farm animals does not mean they are not engaging in cruel/environmentally damaging way. There are different ways of farming some that cause massive environmental damage cutting down rainforests, use of pesticides uncontrolled use of fertilisers etc. It doesn't matter what you are farming. The reverse is also true.

The forum by saying vegan/vegetarian food production is cruelty free is making a very definitive statement that ignores the reality of food production and the wide range of practices and standards that exist worldwide. Depending on where a person sources their food from that statement may or may not be true.

A person can choose to opt for a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle for all sorts of reasons ie some people just don't like meat. It's their choice and they harm no one. A person doesn't need justify their decision.

However I don't see why you need cruelty free in any forum charter because personally you have started talking about food production. Food production is complicated and varied regardless of what's being produced. And guess who produces food, farmers. So by using the term in the charter you have started a discussion about food production which naturally involves farmers and opens the discussion up to cranks/trolls. All you are doing is inviting the extremists from both sides.


If people want to troll vegans vegans/vegetarians for there decision you don't need the words cruelty free to stop that. I'd argue the term has the opposite effect. Plenty of other forums stop stuff like that without such statement. Looking at the cycling forum and it's charter for how they outlawed that behaviour without using divisive terminology.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just make the vegan forum a private forum and posters have to apply for permission to join??

... Make it private

greysides wrote: »

Or even make part of it private.

Perhaps every forum that has capacity to offend should be made private: Farming and Forestry, LGBT, Gentlemen's Club, Laides' Lounge, Atheism & Agnosticism, Christianity...

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...

I’ve admitted people including myself shoot off in posts, and admitted I’ve been pulled up for it.

It’s a different story boards.ie allowing groups to charter hate speech into specific forums.

_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..

Like you calling vegans lunatics?

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.

Just to clarify, I'm not vegan or vegetarian. I have literally no skin in this game.

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.

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.

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.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. On the thread linked above. I've already posted this in f&f.

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...

"Underwear in a knot" An interesting choice of words for those wanting to stop other posters from inferring that farmers are rapists, torturers, murderers and engage in cruelty ...

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

At the risk of derailing the thread (although I think this goal has been achieved already) - I got 3 million results when I googled "cruelty free sausages", so you can't have tried too hard.

I have no doubt that the change in the charter is only part of a thin-end-of-the-wedge strategy - the non-stop trolling of the V&V forum by certain posters in this thread that went on before the contentious changing in wording, and at the time of the change in wording, will continue much the same now that the contentious phrase has been removed.