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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Unearthly
    Registered Users Posts: 7,981 ✭✭✭Unearthly


    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.

    I didn't limit it to just those sites. Would be happy if anyone could provide ANY social media website that has both sets of groups, and the vegans are banned from saying cruel


  • Options
    #123
    Say my name
    Registered Users Posts: 11,047 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    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 this is deemed as required and called for by some posters.
    I guess people like conflict. Shame on them!


  • Options
    #124
    Ten of Swords
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,163 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    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 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.
    Panch18 wrote: »
    How can i interpret the use of "Cruelty free" as anything other than a direct attack on me personally

    Interpretation is subjective but nowhere in the charter is anyone permitted to personally attack anyone else.

    Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian

    Category Moderator: Social & Fun



  • Options
    #125
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    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.


  • Options
    #126
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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!

    that is not what is happening. That is the perception of the OP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Genghis Cant
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,980 Mod ✭✭✭✭Genghis Cant


    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.

    Possibly the fairest analysis of the situation I've read on the subject.


  • Options
    #128
    Say my name
    Registered Users Posts: 11,047 ✭✭✭✭Say my name


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that is not what is happening. That is the perception of the OP.

    I've read the charter and I disagree.

    Your reply would be construed as whataboutery under the charter rules.


  • Options
    #129
    White Clover
    Registered Users Posts: 4,558 ✭✭✭White Clover


    @Faith,
    Why, when listing out the "includes" did you only list animal farming, and not continue on and list everything including pet ownership as in the vegan mission statement?
    Why choose one over the other?


  • Options
    #130
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,126 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Say my name wrote: »
    I've read the charter and I disagree.

    Your reply would be construed as whataboutery under the charter rules.

    If you have an issue with my post then report it.


  • Options
    #131
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    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.

    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, they could use large amounts of fertilisers whose run off can run into rivers causing algae blooms and all the death that goes with that. Another example is the issues with declining bee populations and the massive ecological knock ons from that. One of the proposed reasons for this is pesticides interfering with bees. These are issues directly related to farming practices. Just because a person chooses a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle does not mean animals were not killed during the production of their food. It all depends on the methods used to produce the food more so than the type of food being produced.

    Obviously people shouldn't be going into the vegan/vegetarian forum to berate their chosen lifestyle, it harms no other person. Any farmer who honestly thinks their current challenges are due to a few hard core/extreme vegans are ignoring larger trends and changes within the agrifood sector going back 50/60 years at this stage. There shouldn't be a need to put something any cruelty free into a forum charter to deal disruptive posters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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".


    The entire paragraph on the charter is directed at agriculture and farming - it is demonising the entire sector

    It is not demonising anybody else - ONLY farmers.

    Vegans have many different beliefs in the "belief system", why are farmers being singled out for such attention when it comes to cruelty?

    There was, and is, already another full paragraph aimed at farmers asking them to be respectful of vegans perspectives - no problem with this paragraph


  • Options
    #133
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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.

    I have engaged with posters if i thought it was relevant to the charter - i did not get into a tit for tat on posts that should or should not have been posted - I did that in the interest of having a proper discussion on the charter - and now that gets thrown back in my face - from in on i will engage with every poster if that's what you want.

    Regarding focusing on the details - its the details that are key. You can't just brush off my concerns and the concerns of all farmers as being minor details
    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.

    What is blatantly obvious is that the input and concerns of the F&F mods was ignored completely

    It might have asked for it but blatantly ignored it - I know that there was quite a bit of "behind the scenes" chat with the F&F mods and it was a total waste of their time


  • Options
    #134
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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?

    Who's asking for a ban on the word cruel?

    The topic in hand is NOT banning the word cruel

    The topic on hand is removing it from the charter

    Having it in the charter allows people to use the word cruel as they want, when they want, and to do it without others having the option to challenge them on the statements


  • Options
    #135
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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.

    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:
    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.


  • Options
    #136
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Ten of Swords wrote: »

    Interpretation is subjective but nowhere in the charter is anyone permitted to personally attack anyone else.

    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?


  • Options
    #137
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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.

    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


  • Options
    #138
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    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

    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.
    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.

    Well, unfortunately they do, and unfortunately, there is. As Faith has outlined, at length.


  • Options
    #139
    Irish Aris
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Irish Aris


    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:

    Hello Panch18.
    Thank you for taking the time to prepare an analysis.
    I just want to clarify that though I find the term provocative and antagonising (but not insulting), I don't really care if it stays in the V&V charter or not.
    I don't have any interest in the topics discussed in the V&V (or F&F for that matter) forums and don't intent to use them. I just chipped in the discussion here because I find it really interesting :)


  • Options
    #140
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    It reads like 12th July marches.

    I will come into your area and dictate and you will have to put up with it.

    Your intentions in the Forum are not honourable. You want to attack others and mock them for their choices, but you want everything in your terms.

    You have not yet answered yet why you abused people in the forum for just posting recipes.

    Why do you think it is ok to do this? You have failed to acknowledge that your attitude to others is part of your problem.

    You are accusing anyone with a vague interest in the topic as being an extremist about dogs and pets etc. Not everyone is an extremist and some are interested in following a healthier lifestyle.

    As an outsider, it’s extremely tiresome to have to trawl through this constant aggression. Maybe people want to see veggie recipes without the aggressive ‘get yourself a burger ‘ comments. You are disrespecting others but demanding respect.

    It’s a two way street.

    Do as I say, not as I do.

    And nowhere have you acknowledged that your posting is wrong.
    Edit: Post was made before OP acknowledged he abused people for their food choices.


  • Options
    #141
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,859 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    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


    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.

    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.

    You also should accept that not everyone with an interest in the the forum sees you as a rapist or a murderer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #143
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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.

    As i have said several times - the issue is the charter not my personal posting record on any particular forum - also i believe the post you are referring to was before the new charter was in place - but not sure on that

    and you really don't want to go down the route of abuse being thrown - i have already cited 1 example of very demeaning terms being thrown at farmers on that forum - horrific terms that were not censored in the slightest despite being reported.

    To be fair to Faith she has held her hand up on those posts and the moderation at the time which is fine and i don't want to keep bringing them up - so would appreciate the same in return please


  • Options
    #144
    NcdJd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 994 ✭✭✭NcdJd


    This thread is starting to look like lets get Panch for highlighting this. He's right to be to be calling this out. Disgraceful wording in that charter. People can try and derail it all they like, the issue is still the same, a large group of boards users can basically now be called cruelty merchants. Not conducive to building bridges between vegans and farmers. Can't be good at all.


  • Options
    #145
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    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.

    The vegan and Vegetarian forum is a public access forum as far as i am aware. It deals with topics directly relating to agriculture and food, anybody has a right to be on there.

    How am i actively seeking offence - there have been absolutely slanderous statements made on that forum that have regularly gone unchecked in the past. Are you saying its ok to makes those kind of statements as long as "the farmers" don't see them??


  • Options
    #146
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    Again - this is another example of someone taking upon themselves to lecture vegan/veggies/veggie-curious

    I'll stop ya right there and not for the first time point to the actual context of this thread.

    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.

    The term is emotive and easily comes under "lecturing" in its selection and use in a charter.

    Anything else you want to discuss is so much whataboutery, but certainly accusations in context of lecturing are at best utterly lacking in perspective


  • Options
    #147
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Mad carry on, ordinary farmers being traduced and blaggarded, not the sort of thing you want to see but the topic is flypaper for extremists and neurotic types. Too many headbangers being allowed the run of the place is the problem I'd imagine. Firm hand needed.


  • Options
    #148
    Gary kk
    Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Gary kk


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #149
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,135 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #150
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,545 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.
    And yet I don't feel provoked or insulted in any way. The idea that it is deliberately antagonistic is something I don't agree with.


    Faith gave a very relevant example of how the hunting forum has something similar in its charter (in fact, it goes even further in terms of the extent to which certain topics are simply not up for discussion), but people have just ignored that. The Christianity forum has a similar stipulation on the starting point for discussion of certain topics, as does the LGBT charter.


    As far as I can see, it's a small number of posters, one of which has a long long history sealioning the vegan and vegetarian forum, going out of their way to manufacture offense.


    It's just another variation on the 'why can't we have a reasonable discussion about X?' argument by people who have no interest in a reasonable discussion but just want to talk shyte.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,981 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


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

    Being a public forum with extreme views and definitions that can be considered anathema to normal accepted definitions, where public posters are infracted for posting normally accepted points of view, it's just non sensical at best and cultist at worst.

    Make it private


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement