Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
[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?0 -
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 cruel0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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 personal0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.
Im afraid I'm unable to - as I'm in the unfortunate position of being one of the posters who highlighted these issues detailed here and recieved a weeks ban
I was notified by pm of two such comments earlier today and they are a continuation of previous personal abuse directed at me which was previously highlighted etc
How do I report them?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
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.
That may be the case if it's intended as an insult. But it isn't. They have a genuine belief that keeping, farming and killing animals is cruel. They're not saying it just to have a go at farmers or people who have pets.
It's like claiming that someone saying they don't believe in God is an insult to those that do.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »That may be the case if it's intended as an insult. But it isn't. They have a genuine belief that keeping, farming and killing animals is cruel. They're not saying it just to have a go at farmers or people who have pets.
It's like claiming that someone saying they don't believe in God is an insult to those that do.
Belief as it may be it's still an insult and is projected as so by certain people on the forum.
It had be deemed to have the ability to insult in the new charter. What made the mods change their mind I have no idea.
Having been deemed a insult I can't really see how the mods should be allowed to add it to charter.
Your comparison is not the best.1 -
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.1 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »That may be the case if it's intended as an insult. But it isn't. They have a genuine belief that keeping, farming and killing animals is cruel. They're not saying it just to have a go at farmers or people who have pets.
A genuine and sincere belief is a subjective thing that should be carefully considered before making its way into a charter.
A genuine and sincere belief that is a comment on others, likewise but tbh 10x moreso.It's like claiming that someone saying they don't believe in God is an insult to those that do.
That's already been challenged as statement, and not responded to
One is a clear accusation of cruelty against a defined group- baked into a charter.
It's wholly unlike the essential differences in belief between theists and others.0 -
Advertisement
-
Im afraid I'm unable to - as I'm in the unfortunate position of being one of the posters who highlighted these issues detailed here and recieved a weeks ban for that.
I was notified by pm of two such comments earlier today and they are a continuation of previous personal abuse directed at me which was previously highlighted etc
How do I report them?
Report your pm if you like. Only admins can view those when reported.
Alternatively if you prefer, you can log out, go to the post location and copy the link that way. Or perhaps the poster who messaged you would be willing to report the posts?0 -
-
Hodors Appletart wrote: »nowhere else on this website is a term of insult allowed just because the cohort using believe it to be true.
Some people might find the terms 'same-sex marriage' or 'transwoman' insulting, and that's their prorogative, but they don't get to dictate the terminology used on a forum set up primarily to discuss those issues.0 -
as far as i am aware Boards.ie is meant to be a public forum, open to all. The vegetarian and vegan forum is a sub forum - again open to all the public. It is not meant to be a vegan soapbox allowing people to insult, bully and demonise a large section of Irish society.
You mean just as the farming forum where the mod looks after his own and is snipping posts that deemed agonistic to the locale but leave agonistic posts in place against "vegans" ?0 -
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
You do realise that the Vegan Society/PETA/Vegan Friendly have absolutely zero to with the Boards forum, right? Nor do do all vegetarians/vegans agree with all of their views and stated aims. Deciding to go vegan or vegetarian is a lifestyle choice, not an automatic subscription to an organisation.
Viewing the situation as a completely neutral observer, it just seems to me that some posters on both sides of debate are engaging in bad faith, with the result that positions on both sides are becoming more extreme and entrenched and the middle ground has been entirely abandoned because those who occupy it are being shouted down by the loudest voices. Anewme's point about the Danny sausages thread is the perfect example - she likely won't bother posting in the forum again due to that experience, which simply reinforces the perception that there are no moderate vegans. There are, they're just not posting in the forum because it's become such a hostile place.
Likewise, anyone doing a casual browse of the vegans thread in F&F would come away with the impression that all farmers despise vegans because they're the only ones posting.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Deleted User wrote: »A genuine and sincere belief is a subjective thing that should be carefully considered before making its way into a charter.
A genuine and sincere belief that is a comment on others, likewise but tbh 10x moreso.
Of course beliefs are subjective. Now, being an enthusiastic meat eater myself, I can't claim to be an authority on vegetarianism and veganism, but I would have thought that the belief keeping or killing animals is cruel is quite fundamental to many, particular the latter. Is nobody supposed to mention that lest someone who has no interest in the topic themselves get offended?
Do we think vegans should be allowed go to the farming and gastronomy forums and shout everyone down there because they're "offended" by talk of farming and preparing meat?0 -
El Tarangu wrote: »Some people might find the terms 'same-sex marriage' or 'transwoman' insulting, and that's their prorogative, but they don't get to dictate the terminology used on a forum set up primarily to discuss those issues.
That's fairly snide stuff. And you're entirely avoiding the points raised that are quite specific in where the objections differ from this being a simple difference of opinion.0 -
This seems to be coming across more as a personal petty vendetta.
The only loser is the forum and people with an interest in it- every thread ending up back to the same argument.
The vegan ethos should not be discussed on a thread about McDonalds Burgers, or Denny's sausages. Mundane as they seem - there are some people who want to read about these things.
In fact, I'd say the opposite - anyone considering a vegan/vegetarian or in their opinion more ethical lifestyle should not be bereted - you dont want a pet dog. I find that aggressive almost telling people that if you meat or support vegans then you are an extremist.
I did not realise that people were so against vegetarians or vegans - on a recent post on Facebook where Lidl were announcing a vegan coleslaw - a load of beef farmers were coming on and saying eat a steak and calling people names - it is not the vegans or vegetarians who come across as extreme.
Thanks to the Mods for trying to make it a safe place and more positive.0 -
El Tarangu wrote: »Some people might find the terms 'same-sex marriage' or 'transwoman' insulting, and that's their prorogative, but they don't get to dictate the terminology used on a forum set up primarily to discuss those issues.
Here's the thing if you want to talk about food you have to talk about farming. The agricultural sector produces food. You can go insulting a sub section of the sector that produces the food you are talking about. The terms you mention don't involve insulting the group of people you are talking about.
To take the cycling forum as an example. It would no different than the cycling forum putting something in its charter describing it as a murder free form of transport. Obviously that would never happen because most cyclists are also drivers and would fully understand the implied insult towards drivers.
All intensive farming presents ecological challenges even tillage. Bad farming practices full stop regardless of whether or not it directly involves animals can and will cause damage to the local environment resulting in the deaths of animals and wider plant life. The issue we have with bees is a good example. One of issues with bee numbers dropping could be directly related to pesticides used to grow crops.
So to say any form of farming is cruelty free is very misleading as it depends on the measures used. And even within that it's not clear cut. To grow any crop on an industrial basis farmers need to control other plants and certain animals that are unwanted/might result in the crop being destroyed. That at some level will finding ways of killing animals.
In short I'd argue using the words "cruelty free" to describe food production in a charter is an inaccurate term at best and insulting at worst.0 -
Fundamentally, killing a healthy animal to benefit a human in some way is seen as cruel by vegans, and this belief underpins veganism.
That is not true.
Vegans are quite ok if healthy animals die in the production of their food.
There is no ‘belief’ that underpins veganism.
Being vegan is a lifestyle choice, not a religion.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »
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" they'll get short shrift.
And that is a weakness on your part.
Boards.ie does not advocate breaking the law, and neither should you.
One day a cyclist will cycle into a pedestrian who is crossing at a pedestrian crossing with a green man, and a red light for the cyclist. I just hope it is not a person with a disability.
Have you ever had to guide a blind person across a pedestrian crossing?
If you have, you would tell everyone who frequents the cycling forum to stop at red lights.
The problem is that you and the mods of the vegan forum want to give their regulars a free pass. Unfortunately, this leads to less people being involved in the discussion as they feel that they can’t express their views.0 -
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.
Your last sentence is correct.
You do realise what poster started the stirring in that thread?
Their post contained 3 sentences, the first two sentences , the term cruelty free was used only as a means of insulting and baiting, and for no other reason.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is in denial.
So to sum up, it was a Vegan poster who started the derailment of that thread.0 -
Indeed.I did not realise that people were so against vegetarians or vegans - on a recent post on Facebook where Lidl were announcing a vegan coleslaw - a load of beef farmers were coming on and saying eat a steak and calling people names - it is not the vegans or vegetarians who come across as extreme.
And a quick perusal of the OP's half-dozen posts in the Vegan and Vegetarian forum is similar.
There's a thread in which people post photos of the vegan/vegetarian meals they've cooked - an utterly harmless thread, to which the OP's effort is:How did you manage to get a camera phone into the prison?
And on another thread about the arrival into Ireland of some kind of meat-free product, their sterling and oh-so-original contribution is:Stick to your beef burgers, way tastier
When you strip away the faux outrage about the moderating on this issue being 'nothing short of fascism', this empty-vessel stirring shyte is what you're left with.0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »That may be the case if it's intended as an insult. But it isn't.
That's a ridiculous line to draw in the sand, mostly because everybody's line is different.
Are you saying it's ok to use insulting and derogatory speech against one section of society as long as your intentions are fine? Who's going to be the judge of one's intentions? Can I go into the gay and lesbian forum and start throwing around the F word willy nilly because my intentions are pure?
spolier: of course not....nor should anybody be allowed to say what they want based on their intention, or lack thereof, to insult0 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »Of course beliefs are subjective. Now, being an enthusiastic meat eater myself, I can't claim to be an authority on vegetarianism and veganism, but I would have thought that the belief keeping or killing animals is cruel is quite fundamental to many, particular the latter. Is nobody supposed to mention that lest someone who has no interest in the topic themselves get offended?
Do we think vegans should be allowed go to the farming and gastronomy forums and shout everyone down there because they're "offended" by talk of farming and preparing meat?
Can only repeat that there's a fair line to be drawn between each of the below things
- your own subjective beliefs about something you do or don't do
- your own subjective beliefs about something other people do or don't do
- being able to freely state in any language you choose- let's say deliberately inflammatory- your own subjective beliefs about something other people do or don't do
- being able to freely state in any language you choose- let's say deliberately inflammatory- your own subjective beliefs about something other people do or don't do on a moderated message board
- writing a subjective belief about something other people do in deliberately inflammatory language into the charter of a message board
Nobody has started nor contributed to this thread objecting to any of the first four behaviours on this continuum.
And yet it's that last one that has been raised as an injudicious move and tbh I've seen little to attempt to defend it nor to show where other charters have chosen to take similar steps0 -
Advertisement
-
Feedback seems to be very split and very tribal at times.
I wouldn't want to be in the admins shoes as it seems like they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I guess my issue here is that certain posters go into topics that they clearly have no interest in, so what is the motive there? Why is a beef farmer going into a plant based burger thread, what are they aiming to achieve. Edit: the post earlier highlighting the op's contribution to the forum says a lot.
It all seems very petty but I suppose it sums up the Internet these days which is just a battleground0 -
You do realise that the Vegan Society/PETA/Vegan Friendly have absolutely zero to with the Boards forum, right? Nor do do all vegetarians/vegans agree with all of their views and stated aims. Deciding to go vegan or vegetarian is a lifestyle choice, not an automatic subscription to an organisation.
Viewing the situation as a completely neutral observer, it just seems to me that some posters on both sides of debate are engaging in bad faith, with the result that positions on both sides are becoming more extreme and entrenched and the middle ground has been entirely abandoned because those who occupy it are being shouted down by the loudest voices. Anewme's point about the Danny sausages thread is the perfect example - she likely won't bother posting in the forum again due to that experience, which simply reinforces the perception that there are no moderate vegans. There are, they're just not posting in the forum because it's become such a hostile place.
Likewise, anyone doing a casual browse of the vegans thread in F&F would come away with the impression that all farmers despise vegans because they're the only ones posting.
Obvously Boards.ie has nothing to do with PETA etc
However the largest vegan or vegan friendly organisations in the world have it stated as their 1 of their ultimate aims is to have an end to the practice of captive animals - the idea of any animal held in captivity to them is cruel - here are a couple of examples from a vegan webiste (Nothing in bold is my words at all, it is copied directly from the website):
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 for vegans is to end the practice of keeping captive animals
Now as the charter in the vegan and vegetarian forum is currently set out because it is in the "belief system" of many vegans that having any pets is morally and ethically wrong they can openly and freely call you a cruel person and not face any repercussions on it.
do you own a pet? If so how can you possibly be so cruel to it? Shame on your for being so cruel to that animal
Edit:
Actually i must correct this post - as i have shown in the links and snippets the "belief" of many vegans as outlined in many of the vegan organistion website is that any form of animal captivaty is cruel.
Above i have highlighted that the vegan forum would allow a vegan to call a dog owner cruel and that they were abusing their dog.
In fact this is a mistake on my part - the charter would not allow a pet owner to be called cruel - it would only allow a farmer to be called cruel.
In the real world this is a belief of many vegans - see above
In the boards world the charter states that the phrase cruel can be used in relation to animal farming. So the charter is actually taking the broader "belief system" of vegans and narrowing it down so that their cruelty accusations are only thrown at the agri community and not at the dog owners and cat owners of this world - despite the fact that it is ALL CAPTIVE ANIMALS that many vegans and their organisations view as being cruelly treated.
So boards, by it insertion in the charter, is channelling the vegan beliefs solely at farmers, as opposed to all animal owners, be that pets or farmed animals1 -
Chips Lovell wrote: »That may be the case if it's intended as an insult. But it isn't. They have a genuine belief that keeping, farming and killing animals is cruel. They're not saying it just to have a go at farmers or people who have pets.
It's like claiming that someone saying they don't believe in God is an insult to those that do.
This is a slippery slope though. Someone could have a genuine belief that one race of people is superior to another. They may argue that they don't intend this as an insult, it's how they genuinely feel. This may be a case of reductio ad absurdum but the point still stands.
Just because a belief isn't intended to offend or insult shouldn't protect it from criticism.0 -
Indeed.
And a quick perusal of the OP's half-dozen posts in the Vegan and Vegetarian forum is similar.
There's a thread in which people post photos of the vegan/vegetarian meals they've cooked - an utterly harmless thread, to which the OP's effort is:
And on another thread about the arrival into Ireland of some kind of meat-free product, their sterling and oh-so-original contribution is:
When you strip away the faux outrage about the moderating on this issue being 'nothing short of facism', this empty-vessel stirring shyte is what you're left with.
Poor form is what it is.
Yes I saw the totally uncalled for post about stick to your burgers - why would you go out of your way to say that on that harmless thread only to aggravate people and that's a decent thread for people looking for ideas for veggie meals.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,334 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16362
Neither does belief stop you from being corrected and if we had a forum for racial supremacy and the purity of the white race you'd run into problem posting that all are equal in there I'm sure. We don't however, In the same way we don't have a forum for Alpha males but we do have a forum for LGBTQ and boards will never have a forum for every topic. Board does however have forums that are for specific topics where a certain topic and direction do get more protection than in a random boards forum. In Animals & Pet Issues you can't propose to shoot a dog that chases down sheep, in Work & Jobs you can't bash "the lazy civil service people who constantly take breaks" but either one would probably be ok in After Hours for example. That's not a inconsistency; it's simply that different forums have different directions and local charters are there for that exact reason to encourage the discussion of the local topics in said forums.Ward J. Littell wrote: »This is a slippery slope though. Someone could have a genuine belief that one race of people is superior to another. They may argue that they don't intend this as an insult, it's how they genuinely feel. This may be a case of reductio ad absurdum but the point still stands.
Just because a belief isn't intended to offend or insult shouldn't protect it from criticism.0 -
Feedback seems to be very split and very tribal at times.
I wouldn't want to be in the admins shoes as it seems like they will be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I guess my issue here is that certain posters go into topics that they clearly have no interest in, so what is the motive there? Why is a beef farmer going into a plant based burger thread, what are they aiming to achieve. Edit: the post earlier highlighting the op's contribution to the forum says a lot.
It all seems very petty but I suppose it sums up the Internet these days which is just a battleground
There seems to be a small, but incredibly vocal, minority among the farming forum here that see veganism as a threat to their traditional way of life. These obsessives will not let this go. A thread was stared on the farming forum in the past few days complaining about vegans and to try to mobilise more anti-vegan support. The two sides will never see eye to eye.
The only solution really is perma banning these farmers from the forum.0 -
Just to highlight the depth of ill-feeling between the groups here is a quote from the mod of the farming forum after they snipped abuse of vegans.
"Snip again..... We can't leave that WC, but be under no illusions you're in F&F now. We'll take care of our own. Thanks . GC"
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115392955&postcount=18
Us aginst them. A battle. No compromise.
As in conflict zones a wall needs to be built between the communities or you'll continue to have faction fighting.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »The term ‘cruelty free’ is a very very common term in the Vegan and Vegetarian world.
It’s being used in the V&V forum so there’s zero intention of trying to offend anyone.
Some companies specifically include the term in their name to draw attention to their target market.
https://www.crueltyfreeshop.com.au/
https://www.crueltyfreesuper.com.au/
https://www.crueltyfreewealth.com/invest-cruelty-free/
An article/website on cruelty free stock investment
https://www.asktraders.com/learn-to-trade/ethical-trading/ethical-stocks-animal-welfare/
A website dedicated to updating you on cruelty free brands
https://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/list-of-cruelty-free-brands/
For recipes
https://crueltyfreerecipes.com/
It seems truly bizarre to me to have to educate anyone to the concept of ‘cruelty free’ anything.
Just thought it would be a good idea to repost this for those that haven’t seen it.
The term cruelty free is common parlance and used in business.
I frequent this shop https://www.crueltyfreeshop.com.au/ and I’ve never heard anyone upset about it’s name.
Everything is that shop is sold as cruelty free.
If the term was so antagonist then why would businesses use it ?
It really seems to only offend a select few. Most other posters on this thread, that are not involved in V&V or farming don’t seem to have a problem with it.
It’s a term that quickly identifies to me that I can purchase or consume something without investigation.
I use it very often in ‘real life’.0 -
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.
But it is cruel. I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian but I'm under no illusions that using animals for food when there are other options is cruel. It's a cruelty I live with because I put my personal pleasure in occasionally eating meat before the more moral action of not enabling cruelty to animals by killing them for food. Vegans are perfectly entitled to highlight the reality of this cruelty and I have much admiration for their higher moral values.
And btw not all farmers farm animals. Stock free vegan farmers like Iain Tolhurst are an example to how it could be.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Completely agree with this. Well said Hodors.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Just thought it would be a good idea to repost this for those that haven’t seen it.
’.
What made you think it was a good idea? You’ve posted all that before on this thread1 -
Silly Gilly wrote: »Just to highlight the depth of ill-feeling between the groups here is a quote from the mod of the farming forum after they snipped abuse of vegans.
"Snip again..... We can't leave that WC, but be under no illusions you're in F&F now. We'll take care of our own. Thanks . GC"
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115392955&postcount=18
Us aginst them. A battle. No compromise.
As in conflict zones a wall needs to be built between the communities or you'll continue to have faction fighting.
Be worth pointing out again the context here, a provocative wording in a charter favouring what one could only call an extreme take on animal farming.
That's the context of this thread.
Haven't seen a defence of that decision that stands up yet, tbh, and whether it strengthens my standing or otherwise I don't hold much of a candle for farmers as a group or lobby, but as a boards user I'm mildly interested in seeing the atomisation of subfora into formally protected extreme views at the very least defended by those responsible.0 -
if we had a forum for racial supremacy and the purity of the white race you'd run into problem posting that all are equal in there I'm sure.
Boards would I'm very sure take a political stance on not sheltering any such viewpoints, let alone protecting and privileging them on a hosted forum.
The decision to amend the V&V charter to fairly explicitly exclude certain views is a likewise political decision and it's not at all obvious that it's a step further than "like-minded vegans seek safe chats"- it's clearly a term that one doesn't actually need to think too much about in order to see it as something potentially offensive to a large group
"They don't have to post there" doesn't cut it as a defence of that political decision tbh0 -
It would be good if the OP could clarify why he sees the use of the term cruelty-free highly offensive in a vegetarian form but has no issue himself trolling people posting harmless photos of their veggie dinners or telling vegetarians to get a burger as Osauran quoted above. To people who have done nothing.
Would you not see this as offensive OP and certainly two faced ?0 -
Silly Gilly wrote: »Just to highlight the depth of ill-feeling between the groups here is a quote from the mod of the farming forum after they snipped abuse of vegans.
"Snip again..... We can't leave that WC, but be under no illusions you're in F&F now. We'll take care of our own. Thanks . GC"
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115392955&postcount=18
Us aginst them. A battle. No compromise.
As in conflict zones a wall needs to be built between the communities or you'll continue to have faction fighting.
This is a great example of the differences between the forums imo.
I’ve always got the feeling the moderation in the f&f forum is very heavy handed when an ‘outsider’ goes in. They certainly do ‘take care of their own’. It feels that more moderator ‘sniping’ is involved rather than deserved warnings or cards to ‘their own’. Very quick to dish out to visitors though.
Whereas in the V&V forum I’ve felt a lot has been let slide and the moderation has been on the side of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt but, unfortunately, repeatedly. I appreciate there is an effort to address that now but look where a simple turn of phrase (cruelty free) has been taken.
It feels like a ‘give them an inch’ battle is happening right now. A battle that has been started by a tiny few.
If both forums were moderator in similar fashion I don’t think the divide would exist. There would like be less crossover unless it was genuine engagement with an honest intention to learn or understand something.
Thanks Gilly for that post. I think it addresses something that has been missed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,334 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 16362
Why not? It's exactly what's implemented in Farming forum; the post has already been quoted before. Heck you've yourself posted in the rallying thread trying to get as many farmers as possible to go over and in essence troll the vegetarian forum when the vegetarians/vegans are not welcome in the farmers forum. If the farmers are to be protected in their own forum (as per the moderator comments and actions on the very thread linked above on multiple occasions) why would the vegans and vegetarians now have the same right in their own forum to be protected from farmers who're out to troll them? And yes; you can see the troll posts already linked above from on this thread and the Farmers thread that they did post in the vegan forum.Deleted User wrote: »Boards would I'm very sure take a political stance on not sheltering any such viewpoints, let alone protecting and privileging them on a hosted forum.
The decision to amend the V&V charter to fairly explicitly exclude certain views is a likewise political decision and it's not at all obvious that it's a step further than "like-minded vegans seek safe chats"- it's clearly a term that one doesn't actually need to think too much about in order to see it as something potentially offensive to a large group
"They don't have to post there" doesn't cut it as a defence of that political decision tbh0 -
But it is cruel. I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian but I'm under no illusions that using animals for foodwhdn there are other options is cruel. It's a cruelty I live with because I put my personal pleasure in occasionally eating meat before the more moral action of not enabling cruelty to animals by killjng them for fgood. Vegans are perfectly entitled to highlight thecrealitg of thus cruelty and I have much admiration for their higher moral values.
And btw not all farmers farm animals. Stock free vegan farmers like Iain Tolhurst are an example to how it could be.
This is another example of the underhand farmer bashing that goes on in the forum.
It is probably difficult to deal with. There are so many innacuracies in that post. One could say it is complete ignorance, but as a farmer it would be difficult to gloss over it.
However when the likes of this is challenged using facts, the vegan posters, as a rule gang together and will completely refuse to see the logic that is being explained to them.
It is also an example of the type of source that is used to defend the vegan position. Showing or quoting a vegan farmer or website is not an acceptable defence.0 -
Silly Gilly wrote: »Just to highlight the depth of ill-feeling between the groups here is a quote from the mod of the farming forum after they snipped abuse of vegans.
"Snip again..... We can't leave that WC, but be under no illusions you're in F&F now. We'll take care of our own. Thanks . GC"
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115392955&postcount=18
Us aginst them. A battle. No compromise.
As in conflict zones a wall needs to be built between the communities or you'll continue to have faction fighting.
It was not abuse of vegans. You're either lying about what you saw before it was snipped or you're making it up. It is one or the other.0 -
The issue isn't moderation - the issue is charter
And if people had any idea of the way the Farming Forum mods have been treated in this - it would be an eye opener.
Make no mistake about it - Boards.ie wants a them and us type of argument - as opposed to dealing with the issue in hand of a disgraceful charter modification0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »This is a great example of the differences between the forums imo.
I’ve always got the feeling the moderation in the f&f forum is very heavy handed when an ‘outsider’ goes in. They certainly do ‘take care of their own’. It feels that more moderator ‘sniping’ is involved rather than deserved warnings or cards to ‘their own’. Very quick to dish out to visitors though.
Whereas in the V&V forum I’ve felt a lot has been let slide and the moderation has been on the side of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt but, unfortunately, repeatedly. I appreciate there is an effort to address that now but look where a simple turn of phrase (cruelty free) has been taken.
It feels like a ‘give them an inch’ battle is happening right now. A battle that has been started by a tiny few.
If both forums were moderator in similar fashion I don’t think the divide would exist. There would like be less crossover unless it was genuine engagement with an honest intention to learn or understand something.
Thanks Gilly for that post. I think it addresses something that has been missed.
Haha your joking, good man I actually spat out my tea when I read it.
This will keep in good form for the day.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement