Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative

I've had a lot of conversations with various groups in recent days, and a couple of posters from the Farming forum have been kind enough to indulge my attempts to understand the issues further. What I took from my conversations is that farmers will make every effort to treat their animals as humanely as possible, and that they genuinely care for their animals, but sometimes it's a matter of choosing the least worst option, and that the benefits outweigh the costs in the end. I also understand that farming practices in Ireland are far more humane than in many parts of the world, and that animals are treated at a much higher standard here than elsewhere.

I get that, I really do.

But, to a vegan, that isn't enough. Firstly, veganism isn't a local issue, it's a global one, and no amount of battering them with statistics and information about Irish farming practices will change their mind, because Ireland is just a drop in the ocean of animal farming. Secondly, to a vegan, sending a healthy animal to slaughter, or removing offspring from their mothers, is a cruel act. From their perspective, if we wouldn't do it to another human, why would we do it to a sentient animal?

So how do we manage that? The best that we've got is that we have two forums - one where farming is discussed from a farming perspective, and one where it can be discussed from a vegan perspective. The farming forum has its rules, where they won't tolerate vegans accusing farmers of cruelty, and the vegan forum has its rules, where farming practices are fundamentally believed to be cruel.

It has been said the no other charter defends the use of specific language, but if we didn't specifically include that line about 'cruelty' in the charter, we would be inundated with reported posts about its use from a small handful of posters, so it is easiest to put it in the charter. It's also not entirely true. The Hunting forum, for example, says "Hunting is legal, ethical and morally sound. This is an accepted axiom of this forum and discussions about whether or not hunting itself is an ethical or legal activity are not permissible;
All such discussions will be deleted without exception. However, discussions on the ethics of specific hunting techniques or practices is permitted, but such discussions will be required to adhere to the rules more strictly than most other discussions."

Many would disagree that hunting is ethical and morally sound, but the charter prohibits discussion of that viewpoint. Many would argue that it is offensive and provocative to say that it is ethical and morally sound. We could amend the V&V charter to say "Farming animals is unethical and cruel. This is an accepted axiom of this forum and discussions stating that farming itself is an ethical activity are not permissible; All such discussions will be deleted without exception. However, discussions on the ethics of specific farming techniques or practices is permitted, but such discussions will be required to adhere to the rules more strictly than most other discussions." That would be saying the same thing using the language of another charter.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with a point that has been made several times - don't visit forums that wind you up! It's the easiest outcome here. I avoid the Christianity forum because I find certain views expressed relating to abortion and LGBTQ populations offensive and provocative, but I don't wade in there attempting to shut down every poster who says "Abortion is murder". I accept that they hold a viewpoint which I vehemently disagree with, and one that I could use multitudes of sources to disagree with and try to change their mind, but I know that it's pointless, so I stay away for my own sanity.

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.

Panch18 wrote: »

@ Faith and the other mods who conveniently ignored my posts can you please answer my question that i have posted 3 times now and you have all have ignored 3 times.

When the "vegan belief system" is that ALL animals in captivity are subject to cruelty why is it that the charter has been specifically written so that only farmers are being subject to the term cruelty and not the general public - because that is the clear and stated goals of the major vegan organisations.

So why does the charter limit the abuse so that it can be directed at farmers?

Because, once again, you're either misrepresenting or misremembering the charter. As a reminder, it states:

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.

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".