Hey all,
In light of recent events concerning one of our communities (/c/vegan), we (as a team) have spent the last week working on how to address better some concerns that had arisen between the moderators of that community and the site admin team. We always strive to find a balance between the free expression of communities hosted here and protecting users from potentially harmful content.
We as a team try to stick to a general rule of respect and consideration for the physical and mental well-being of our users when drafting new rules and revising existing ones. Furthermore, we’ve done our best to try to codify these core beliefs into the additions to the ToS and a new by-laws section.
ToS Additions
That being said, we will be adding a new section to our “terms of service” concerning misinformation. While we do try to be as exact as reasonably able, we also understand that rules can be up to interpretation as well. This is a living document, and users are free to respectfully disagree. We as site admins will do our best to consider the recommendations of all users regarding potentially revising any rules.
Regarding misinformation, we’ve tried our best to capture these main ideas, which we believe are very reasonable:
- Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.
- We recommend users conduct thorough research using reputable scientific sources.
- When in doubt, a policy of “Do No Harm”, based on the Hippocratic Oath, is a good compass on what is okay to post.
- Health-related information should ideally be from peer-reviewed, reproducible scientific studies.
- Single studies may be valid, but often provide inadequate sample sizes for health-related advice.
- Non-peer-reviewed studies by individuals are not considered safe for health matters.
We reserve the right to remove information that could cause imminent physical harm to any living being. This includes topics like conversion therapy, unhealthy diets, and dangerous medical procedures. Information that could result in imminent physical harm to property or other living beings may also be removed.
We know some folks who are free speech absolutists may disagree with this stance, but we need to look out for both the individuals who use this site and for the site itself.
By-laws Addition
We’ve also added a new by-laws section as well as a result of this incident. This new section is to better codify the course of action that should be taken by site and community moderators when resolving conflict on the site, and also how to deal with dormant communities.
This new section provides also provides a course of action for resolving conflict with site admin staff, should it arise. We want both the users and moderators here to feel like they have a voice that is heard, and essentially a contact point that they can feel safe going to, to “talk to the manager” type situation, more or less a new Lemmy.World HR department that we’ve created as a result of what has happened over the last week.
Please feel free to raise any questions in this thread. We encourage everyone to please take the time to read over these new additions detailing YOUR rights and how we hope to better protect everyone here.
https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#80-misinformation
https://legal.lemmy.world/bylaws/
Sincerely,
FHF / LemmyWorld Operations Team
EDIT:
We will be releasing a separate post regarding the moderation incident in the next 24-48 hours, just getting final approval from the team.
EDIT 2 (2024-08-31):
We’ve posted a response, sorry for the delay.
👉 https://lemmy.world/post/19264848 👈
Oh man this ones got some flavour to sink ones teeth into 😅
I take the side of the admin. If someone can’t accept or understand that a cat eats a meat based diet then they deserve to have reality thrown in their face. Better than some poor animals being tortured.
If someone can’t accept or understand that a cat eats a meat based diet then they deserve to have reality thrown in their face. Better than some poor animals being tortured.
Dang, is that what happened? It’s sad to think that there are people mistreating animals that they care about accidentally, through trying to apply their own human morals and rules to them.
Cats are hunters, they eat meat. If that’s an issue for your home then fair enough, your house your rules. Just don’t get a cat, or a carnivorous pet in general. There’s lots of cool pets out there that are herbivores :-)
I think all of this says more about the faith people have in the quality of their cat food.
Also people seem to love the words obligate carnivore but have not much understanding of the concept.
Oh and lastly, my favorite is discounting all evidence as anecdotal or “not good research”.
This is some of the stupidest dogpiling ive seen and really drives home how simple the average person on here is.
“Hur dur, if people talk about the possibility of a vegan cat then surely their owners will starve them and refuse to change course until they die!”
I think it’s less applying their morals to the cat and more not wanting to support the meat industry. That said, yeah just don’t have a cat. I expect many vegans aren’t too big on the concept of pet ownership anyway.
Vegan here. Love my cat. My cat eats meat. End of story.
Wow, a normal person on the internet. Thank you for existing.
I don’t think this is the place for this discussion obviously but just know this subject has a lot of taboo and misinformation around it.
I recommend reading Obligate Carnivore: Cats, Dogs, and What it Really Means to be Vegan by Jed Gillen if you are interested in digging deep into it.
What are Jed Gillan’s credentials? He has basically no search engine presence.
Maybe people should be consulting their vets before some random book they heard of online. anyone can publish a book.
I wrote a book about anuses through the ages and still don’t know if it should be anuses or anusi.
I think it’s anussy
I had no idea what this one was about. I got banned a few months ago for insisting in c/vegan that animals that eat a predominantly carnivorous diet should not be fed a vegan diet. I’m a cat lover and dog liker and believe that it is animal abuse. I’m glad to see this change.
Try reading some current information on it. It can be healthy for a cat to be vegan if it is done correctly.
The most difficult part is quote a lot of cats are picky to the point they won’t eat the one or two brands that are actually nutritionally complete.
Its absurd they are banning even the discussion of this when research keeps trending towards the possibility of a healthy vegan cat.
Mostly, I think its absurd to think these discussions will actually hurt real cats. If the owner is basing their information on this websites shitposters, they are already a horrible owner.
So there is a study that shows that forcing your quest for a sense of absolute moral superiority on a obligate or fecultative carnivore by feeding them an unnatural vegan diet may not kill them?
The issue is choice and the fact that you are taking it away. Obligate and fecultative carnivores would choose to eat a diet consisting mainly of meat because that is what they evolved to eat and you are taking that away from them. These studies that say it may not be unhealthy are simply efforts to feed the self-satisfied circle jerk. Efforts to develop a vegan food that obligate and fecultative carnivores would choose to eat are efforts to overcome their nature which is to eat a diet consisting mainly of meat.
Forcing your beliefs on a being that isn’t given a choice.
Animal abuse.
Forcing your beliefs on a being that isn’t given a choice.
Animal abuse.
I’m not a vegan, but it really cracks me up when people get up in arms about this subject they barely understand and arrive at the position that pet ownership/meat eating itself is unethical because it removes animal agency. Like, you’re making an ethically vegan argument you know.
Try reading some current information on it.
Oh no no no, we don’t play that game here. If you’re trying to convince someone of your argument, the burden of providing reputable and scientifically accurate evidence is on YOU and you only.
And only if the other side won’t accept scientific evidence then you can blame them.
I’m not saying cats can’t be vegan but to the best of my knowledge their diet must be meat based. As it is you who are trying to convince me (and others) cats can be vegan, it is also you who must provide the evidence.
No, the first post was about that. This post is about how we aren’t allowed to have this conversation out loud.
I do have studies I can send you, I’m sure you know you can find studies all along the spectrum for most topics. I dont have the experience to defend the studies myself though but if you would like I can send you some to look over.
This whole post is frustrating because vegans are trying to reduce animal harm, and then get accused of harming their pets. Of course there are a handful of stories of people who tried a whole food diet and hurt their cats but not a single person recommended that, and multiple vegans correctly advised against it.
The point is that maybe we can trust that vegans of all people would be considerate of animal well being as best as they can, including trying healthier diets in the effort to prolong their lives.
https://europeanpetfood.org/pet-food-facts/fact-sheets/nutrition/vegetarian-diets/
https://europeanpetfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Updated-Nutritional-Guidelines.pdf
Like any animal, you are able to supply some essential amino acids and essential fatty acids along with other bioavailable micronutrients(plant based pro-vitamin A without modification is out) through artificial or specifically formulated sources. Asking for scientific journals is silly in my opinion because those without a biology background wouldn’t understand them (and even what I just posted would likely be hard to understand for most), but pointing out that pet food industry experts and vet nutritionists consider it a plausible goal and have specific nutrition profiles they follow for it should be enough.
I consider the whole effort silly myself, but I’m a meat eater. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t data driven.
That first link is giving off strong vibes of trying to satisfy stubborn ass vegans who are going to do it anyways and trying to save a few cats lives.
The entire thing can be summed up as “Please don’t fucking do this, but if you insist consult a vet nutritionist because if you get anything wrong your cat will die”
If someone is a vegan, then they just shouldn’t have a cat as imposing dietary choices that the cat (or other animal) wouldn’t make goes against their own morals by being vegan in the first place.
Even for dogs, yes they are omnivores, but they won’t choose to not eat meat See: That one years old clip from a talk show with a vegan guest who said “Their dog is a total vegan and won’t even want to eat meat” and when tested on the show the dog went straight for the meat dish instead of the vegan one
This is not specific to cats. If you plan to formulate your own food for a pet, you need input from a vet and a nutritionist, or else risk hurting your animal. Plenty of people cooking fresh food for their dogs are not giving them a full nutrient profile either.
I think this is showing how much faith people have in regular commercial pet food. Normal pet food isnt great for your pets, look into what the ingredients actually are and their quality.
The only reason the idea of vegan food for cats and dogs came about was in an effort to make them healthier and happier animals. Its not to force a vegans morals onto an animal.
I’m vegan and I have a cat. My vet approved the vegan food for a trial but the cat didnt like it, so she eats meat now. If thats abusive to you then I’m not sure what to say.
Tell me why my entire vet office approved of this trial if its animal abuse always. The discussions here on this site simply dont match the discussions youll find if you talk to a vet or an animal nutritionist.
The idea of Obligate Carnivore is fully lost on some. And that’s quite a sad reality.
The idea of Obligate Carnivore is fully lost on some. And that’s quite a sad reality.
It seems to me that a lot of people are using that term without knowing what it means. That, too, is a sad reality. It means that cats in the wild aren’t able to live off non-meat sources that they can find there, similar to how humans can’t live in subfreezing temperatures without shelter or clothing. It says nothing about whether their dietary needs can be fulfilled without meat in a domestic environment. Maybe yes, maybe no, but you can’t just parrot the words “obligate carnivore” like a Fox News anchor and act like that gives you the answer. The world is more complicated than that.
In fact, based on other info, cats do seem to be able to survive on human-supplied vegan diets, but it’s less clear that they can enjoy optimal health on such a diet. So the reality seems to be somewhat shaded.
Even for humans, being a well-nourished vegan is somewhat difficult (you have to pay attention to stuff like protein combination). It’s even harder to be a so-called “raw vegan” (living entirely from uncooked vegetables such as in salads) but apparently it can still be done. Most human vegans consume a lot of beans and grains that are inedible without cooking.
You can imagine an animal species for which cooked beans and grains would be a completely healthy diet, and yet that diet is never seen in the wild because wild animals don’t cook. Thus they would get their protein instead from animal sources, i.e. be obligate carnivores, even though they would be fine on steamed rice and tofu. There is no logical incompatibility between “obligate carnivore” and “vegan diet”. It’s a question of biology that is species specific. In the limit, you could inagine a Star Trek replicator synthesizing perfect mouse meat from pure carbon and other elements, giving you a completely healthy and satisfied vegan cat that thinks it is eating freshly killed mice.
It doesn’t appear possible for humans to stay healthy for long periods as fruitarians (some people don’t want to cut or kill living plants for food, but instead live off of fruits and nuts that have naturally fallen off the plants). But that can only be known through experimental observation, not linguistic knee jerks. You have to examine the details to understand the real situation for any particular species, food type, and preparation method
Sure, explain it to me. What is it that a cat can’t get from non-meat sources?
I’m honestly not sure if a vegan cat diet is possible or not, but random people giving unqualified advice that could easily lead a less knowledgeable person to harm an animal is a problem. What should have been done in this case is for a mod or admin to shut the discussion down with a note telling people to consult a qualified veterinarian regarding any change to their pets diet.
My idea was that respectful, dissenting opinions posted in a small ratio should be allowed in all communities.
It works well in this situation because you can have ten vegans posting about how vegan diets are great for cats, but you’d still have at least one guy posting “This isn’t safe for your cat. Please find sources that aren’t biased before doing this.”
I don’t know if a vegan diet is safe for cats or not, and I shouldn’t need to. Having that one dissenting voice is helpful in prompting people not to trust everything they read on the internet. c/flatearth can still have their narrative, but a policy like this would help put the brakes on it a little.
Of course, do consider this policy in a community that you agree with. This would mean that someone would be allowed to post Russian propaganda in the Ukraine community. If they spam it, it can still be removed. If they’re rude, it can be removed. But if it’s just one Russian comment for every ten comments refuting it, I would hope the ten comments are enough to handle it.
Explicitly though, that won’t be what happens, particularly for something as small as the Fediverse. What happens is a post from a small community ends up on the main feed and the prevailing opinion of the entire Fediverse begins a long chain of comments about how dissenting opinions are dumb.
Conversely the community could be feeding incorrect information to the entire main feed.
If your community is unable to handle something as basic as a dissenting opinion - through civil discussion - there is a problem with your community. There are innumerable diets out there: ask yourself why you don’t see their lifestyle coming under fire. You can’t pick fights and then cry foul because you are the minority.
Are vegans all awful people? No. Of course not. But there are a significant number who elevate their lifestyle to a religious status and feel compelled to preach and inflict it on others. THAT is unacceptable.
Why are you so quick to move people into the bad vegan category? Sounds like a lot of people are just using this to confirm their belief that vegans are crazy and they should continue eating meat without a care.
I think I get it. If its possible a cat could be healthy and vegan, then humans have no excuse left do they.
Self preservation at its finest.
“dissenting opinions” are not the same as mis/disinformation.
It’s just alternate information.
Drinking bleach to kill a disease is technically alternative information. It’s even backed indirectly by science: bleach kills bacteria. The difference here is the information is harmful, incorrect, and being presented as science backed.
Simply put- just because an echo chamber wants to drink the Kool aid - doesn’t mean we should allow them to share it with unwitting passerbys.
Not everyone is going to do the due diligence and assume that the group is wrong: so it is potentially damaging to allow that misinformation to be spread. Multiple examples exist of why moderation is needed.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. If it limits others freedom, it must be checked. If it can harm others, it must be checked.
Show me a study that shows any human or animal benefits in anyway from drinking bleach.
However, there does exist a spectrum of studies both supporting and attacking the idea of a vegan diet for cats, often with contradictory conclusions.
From my understanding there was a nuanced discussion including risks and acknowledging that whole food diets are impossible for cats.
Either people are reacting with emotion far more than I expected, or people are confusing whole food plant based with “no meat products in it”, which of course are two entirely different sets of food.
The admin was childish and obtuse, they could have handled this in a number of other ways and instead doubled down on their emotional reaction and instincts.
I’m normally a Vegan hater but this is a whole new level. 👀
I was under the impression that most criticism was directed not towards veganism per se but rather feeding a carnivore vegan diet which is animal abuse .
Obligate Carnivore: Cats, Dogs, and What it Really Means to be Vegan by Jed Gillen
Great read!
Yeah few vegans would steep as low as feeding a cat a vegan diet. So not really sad to see the particular individuals gone.
It’s perfectly possible to give animals vegan diets.
Yes, until the poor animal dies due to malnutrition. Just get a vegan pet
More animals die because non vegans decide that allowing one pet to live is fine but then go and pay in the supermarket to have some freshly slaughtered other animal.
Please don’t be a hypocrite.
Please don’t be a hypocrite.
It’s ridiculous that you don’t seem to realize how much this applies to your first post. 😂
Hahahah. This ignorance from the carnivores here truly knows no boundaries.
I’m not a carnivore? Been a vegetarian since for-fucking-ever, considering my age probably long since before most here knew about a word like “vegan” existing, on account of existance. Seriously, the fuck where did you take that from?
Don’t project, please.
lol, who’s the hypocrite here? People who openly admit to eating meat and not having a problem with animals getting killed for that purpose? Or maybe it’s a group of people who vehemently insist on animal rights but they end up abusing their own pets. What a twisted logic, mate.
You are incorrect. A vegan diet for animals is perfectly possible. You are thinking of vegans giving them salad, but vegans are actually carefully selecting and giving them the nutrients they need.
As I said, don’t be a hypocrite. You know jack shit.
Sure. It’s also possible to feed your animal a bad diet. Notable, and in this particular case and for the particular animal, the two happen to go together, when you feed a cat a vegan diet, that’s a bad diet for a cat.
Will the cat immediately keel over? No.
Will some cats live long lives and be pretty healthy? Sure.
But on average, will your cat live shorter and worse if you feed it a purely vegan diet, respectively if you let it roam outside, will it be a seriously ferocious hunter as it tries to re-balance it’s diet? Yes, definitely.
Whether that’s consciable to you, that’s something you have to decide. I would however hope that especially someone who subsides on a vegan diet for their human diet would be against animal cruelty, and hence just feed their cat a mostly meat-based diet (not entirely, that’s not healthy either).
This is a bit learning the wrong lesson from what happened, isn’t it? The problem is admin overreach. There was some disagreement on a sub, no big deal. I don’t even care what it’s about, I have no opinion on it. But now this admin comes in like Eric Cartman “Respect mah authoritah!”. What am I supposed to make of that? Nobody was advocating animal abuse. I worry about admins who can’t just let something go, who can’t handle disagreement, like a cop always looking to escalate.
So thanks for the rules clarification, I guess, but what about:
- won’t this general guideline of ‘do no harm’ stifle discussion in case it isn’t clear which is the harmful position? For example covid
- is there a process in place when an admin does something in the heat of the moment, that the admin team can let them cool off for a bit?
- is removing mods going to be the norm?
- will there be more rules when another admin disagrees with a mod?
- why was this escalated like this? Don’t you think removing mod status is an overreaction (procedure wise)?
- does the ‘anti animal abuse’ statute apply to animal consumption and animal products? Vegan community has a point there
- what about rooki?
All in all, please don’t kill this instance by telling people what to think. There is healthy discussion and people don’t always have to agree. That doesn’t make me a ‘free speech absolutist’. I think removing moderator privileges was quite out of bounds. Again, nobody was advocating animal abuse at all.
Mods and admins are here to keep discussion healthy, not impose their views on everyone else, right? So don’t! And don’t cover for others who do!
I never saw the thread, but based on what I’m hearing, it’s animal abuse.
If you look at Reddit and Facebook they’ve both been mostly consumed by anti science communities which put people in real danger
We see communities like this create an echo chamber which grows and make it impossible to argue sanely.
The fact is, I have seen some increasingly toxicity in some vegan (and some other) communities on Lemmy too. And it is one reason why I left beehaw. Because they allow toxic communities to flourish (as long as they were driven by a minority).
I’d even go as far as the behavior of some of these communities look like femaledatingadvice/thedonald on Reddit slowly. It’s ok to have disagreements, but nobody and no animals should be put at risk.
Yeah, it was definitely Animal abuse. Switching carnivorous animals to plant-diets to satisfy their humanitarian urges, is straight up abuse.
When I argued sanely over there I was basically just called a carnal apologist and banned. Shit was wild. Glad Lemmy picked up this stance; because what they were advocating was entirely wrong.
lol something like this is what made me stop participating at all on reddit. It was an atheism sub of all places and it was clear that some mod was sad that I had a different opinion. And I’m atheist too. It was straight up unnecessarily personal.
Every job has shitty managers, why wouldnt this one?
I suppose if those plant-based diets were based on peer-reviewed scientific studies and shown to cause no nutritional, physical, or mental harm to the animals then it wouldn’t be animal abuse. But I haven’t seen the threads so I’m assuming that wasn’t the case.
The problem with that, is you can find a scientific study that will give you almost any result you want. Scientific studies exist at all ends of the spectrum, contradicting each other constantly. It’s rather hard to actually get unbiased information today. Additionally, it’s pretty common knowledge that cats eat meat in the wild; no scientific reviews needed for that one.
Sounds like its not settled science and we should be able to discuss the spectrum of studies and current science around the topic without fear a man-child will take this as their moment to protect all of the cat world from the evil vegans.
Its absurd. Current science does not say that a cat cannot be healthy or healthier on a vegan diet, which is the only reason vegans are considering it in the first place.
If you all haven’t figured it out yet, animal wellbeing is the whole point, noone was advocating for hurting a cat.
About the other topic there will be a another post dont worry.
About the points i will bring it up to the team.
The other post isnt going to change the new rules from this post.
Have you apologized yet?
And now the incident’s “debate” is here.
Lemmy vegans really wanna kill cats
To generalise is easy. To spot colour in a black and white world is a bit harder but in the end well worth it.
Thank you all for doing this.
Thanks for banning discussion? Gonna have to explain that one.
You know what would be in the news, if a vegan forced their cat to be vegan until it died.
You know how many stories youll find about that. About 1 and the cat survived.
Now compare that to stories of healthy vegan cats, youll find plenty of those. Usually the stories are written from a skeptic point of view but the stories are there.
Peer reviewed scientific sources for people talking about health stuff? I can understand modding out “cyanide makes everything taste yummy” but at the other side, this isn’t Wikipedia. It’s a discussion forum and a lot of the topics will be about users’ own experiences and perceptions. If you want to run an academic journal instead, this isn’t the right way to do it.
The parent post also offers no answer at all about what decision was reached regarding the c/vegan intervention and whether such things should be allowed to happen again. Is there any update about that?
Please see above. Thanks.
-
I don’t see anything there about what (if anything) was absorbed from the c/vegan incident. If you’re still working on it, that’s fine, just say so, there’s not a huge rush. The original post instead seems to imply that some kind of decision was reached, but leaves it up to user detective skills to figure out what it is. I’m an outsider to c/vegan, I’m not out for anyone’s blood, but I saw the intervention as a good faith error that should explicitly be called out as one. Any resulting policy change should be designed to prevent similar errors going forward. If you’ve decided something different from that (i.e. that the intervention was valid and that you want to see more of the same), that’s fine, it’s your server, but please tell us in so many words so we can react accordingly.
-
The same thing about the academic journals. “Encouraged” is one thing but it would help enormously if you tell us what the admins are going to do if someone posts based on direct observations, personal experience, etc. It’s well established now that the COVID-19 virus is transmitted through the air and that N95 respirators and HEPA air purifiers are hugely valuable preventive measures, but it took a ridiculously long time for health authorities to admit that fact (Science, Nov 2022). Thus in many cases, community awareness about health issues is ahead of the authorities and journals. We should be encouraging that, not trying to shut it down. (See for example r/ZeroCovidCommunity on Reddit).
Anyway, I’ve been under the belief that the instance admins are basically server operators or assisting the server operators, dealing with system maintenance and software problems, or sometimes, serious and obvious policy breaches like threats of violence. They aren’t supposed to be medical experts or pet dieticians, so (following Reddit, since Lemmy positions itself as a Reddit alternative) they should generally defer to community mods about discussions within communities. Community mods, at least, are supposed to have some kind of understanding of the topics under discussion.
If you’re saying that server admins should be able to override community mod decisions about discussions regarding stuff like pet diets, then fine, but again, tell us so we know what kind of environment we’re in.
Just because someone mods a community doesn’t mean they inherently have more understanding of a topic.
Everyone can have an opinion but Google-fu is not real research. Citing random websites that only support your view isn’t either.
If someone doesn’t like the administration of an instance they can find another one they agree with or spin up their own. Don’t complain you don’t like how something was handled just because you didn’t get your way when you don’t contribute anything to the maintenance or upkeep of the service.
They asked for clarity on the admin position, thats all.
The original post leaves a lot open for interpretation. There are a group of people who would leave over this decision, and they are just asking to be able to make a decision more easily.
I will say since this post was the admin team saying they did nothing wrong, that the followup specifically about the vegan post in question will be full of similar nonsense.
That’s the glory of the fediverse. If you’re going to caterwaul over a service that you don’t pay for and expect you have any sort of right to how the instance run you are probably best served finding an instance that aligns with you.
at least for now I have a right to express my opinion here. I never demanded the instance change. I’m sure most would leave rather than fight an admin team over something so trivial, theres plenty of other instances out there.
-
There’s a fine line between misinformation and “subjectively offensive information”. To me, this seems like it was a pretty clear case of abuse of power regardless of where you stand on the original issue and retroactively changing the rules to excuse that abuse does not bode well for this community.
You always have the option to move to another instance such as lemm.ee.
It takes a few clicks from the settings to export and import your subscriptions and block lists
You do know that everyone is aware they are not trapped here right?
Walk into a vet office and tell them you want your cat to eat a vegan diet and watch their eyes roll at the speed of sound out of their skull
Ive done just this. They were very supportive in the attempt, despite it ultimately not working out.
Also, not working out doesnt mean a dead cat. It meant she didnt like the taste of it so I switched back to food she would eat, with meat in it.
She actually did like the vegan kibble but she’s a majority wet food eater and didnt like the vegan wet food.
Lemmy.world is not real life, its a shit posting board.
This doesn’t sound like free speech is welcomed here.
Am I wrong?
This instance gave me many signs of this happening, where only what one group of people think MUST be followed, but this kind of cements that now.
Define “free speech,” because contextually what you want sounds more like “speech without consequence” which is not the same thing, but rather a veil of plausible deniability in which to hide in, while being hateful.
How the hell do you know what I want?
Stop putting words into my mouth, and trying to gaslight me into being silent on mods here removing anything they want to at any time without repercussions.
Read: “contextually” and “sounds more like”
If you don’t like how you’re being called out then you should be introspective into why a generic statement made you so upset.
It’s not gaslighting when there’s a straight line of evidence.
To the wider world it looks like this: “Why do people think I don’t like dogs?! Just because I said I don’t like that you can’t kick dogs without getting a ticket nowadays! I didn’t kick any, I’m just saying!”
Who’s upset? The way I see it is you and others are the upset ones, because if you have to take the time out of your day to insinuate that others are horrible people just because they don’t see things the way you do, it means YOU’RE the ones with the issue.
(proof is in your above comment, again you try to gaslight saying there’s “evidence” when there’s nothing of the sort…lmao, it’s crazy how you all try the same tactics)
“how the hell do you know what I want?”
That’s an inherently aggressive statement.
It’s fine, but no reasonable person would think much differently.
Also, generalizing me with “you all” is a defensive catch-all to be dismissive of my point without actually making a stand for your own values.
It’s just a you-and-me conversation right now
If its just a you-and-them conversation why are you making appeals to popular opinion?
Do you believe having the popular opinion means its the right one?
I’m glad to see site-wide action taken against the spread of harmful disinformation.
I love the strong emotional takes on what is animal abuse from all the meat eaters in here.
My goodness.
As a wildlife carer who enjoys meat: Eat shite.
Ah, an animal abuser. Cute.
cryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Nice oxymoron but ok.
Don’t these rules make communities about BBQ or cooking meat in general against the rules? BBQ does put “any living being in imminent danger”.
Don’t get me started on deep frying. And deep frying a turkey? That’s right out.
Deep frying a TURDUCKEN!
Internet has brought so many new social issues and yet no philosophers to ponder and find good solutions even though no one is working.
Strange
im here, and i do enjoy a good ponder, unfortunately the political right and some of the political left have consumed 100% of my philosophical pondering over the last 5 or so years.
The fundamental problem here in regards to feeding a cat a vegan diet is that you are forcing something onto an existing sentient (to some degree) being.
You as a human could live on rice and water exclusively, but it would most certainly not be optimal. The same is generally true for most living beings. The ultimate question here, once we get past feeding a pet whatever diet, is that pet ownership is to some degree, probably unethical at the source. Feeding them inherently brings up an ethical dilemma, as they are not a human, they cannot make a conscious choice about how their food is acquired. You as a vegan could theoretically raise and kill game to feed a cat which is probably the most ethical solution here, but that’s not likely to be popular. The alternative being farm grown game, although it’s likely to be off cuts and byproduct as humans eat the most desired parts, so the end result is probably fairly insignificant, unless you’re feeding your cat a rich mans diet or something.
There is no one rule to fit all vegans, every vegan has to evaluate their own situations. You are right that some vegans are against all pet ownership. There is another group that believes if you rescue an animal from being euthanized or slaughtered and improve their standard of living and length of life, then that is ethical.
A huge part of being vegan is repetitive self-reflection, always searching for moral inconsistencies and working to fix them.
This is what leads vegans to consider a vegan diet for their pet, as if it was at least as healthy as non-vegan food, then less animals will be hurt due to the vegans choices.
Contrary to popular belief there are plenty of studies and case reports advocating for both sides of the argument of vegan cat food. Even by the admins new rules, we would be able to argue for vegan cat food as long as we only referenced studies.
Since its not settled either way, and multiple pet health and food organizations have stated their interest in researching the viability of vegan/vegetarian diets for dogs/cats, I think its fair to say it should be open for discussion.
This rogue admin was absolutely not acting with the best intentions. Is he kicked out of the admin team?
He was abusing the term “misinformation” even though it was extremely obvious that he had a personal vendetta against vegans. A vegan pet diet is perfectly possible, and vegans were merely saying that. There was no question for a source by anybody, because the source is just a simply google search away.
This admin is just anti vegan and was on a personal vendetta. He saw an opportunity to classify it as misinformation, so he just started removing posts and banning people. Why was /c/Vegan specifically targeted by this person?
“Oh but this vegan diet for your pet might hurt it!!”, bro you’re literally the one paying others to slaughter living beings.
If you can’t feed a cat a proper diet reflecting their needs, don’t keep one.
Yep exactly. A vegan diet is perfectly possible.
But I’m not here to discuss that. I’m here to discuss how this admin this abused their powers.
Is this really about peoples inability to consider that cats could live long healthy lives on a vegan diet?
I don’t understand the aversion to it. Noones on here going to read any of the post in question and then go and kill their cat with an unhealthy diet.
Here’s an idea. Don’t base medical decisions solely on internet conjecture. If you think this is meant to be a place for only settled science from decades ago, then what is the point of discussion.
I have to say that the moderator team here doubling down is absurd and shows they take themselves too seriously.
This site is literally an opinion board, and they are now saying that these opinions are so scary and dangerous they might hurt someones cat.
Childish behavior from what I’m sure are actual children running this website.
Good thing theres a bunch of other lemmy providers because this one is proving to be just as awful as reddit was, which I guess I should have expected since thats where everyone here came from.
Its harder to get a vegan cat post through this site than posts covering pedophilia or sexual assault, so I guess which of those three things is too dangerous to talk about, really?
Keep in mind that these “morals” come from people that most likely are paying others to slaughter animals for their consumption.
A vegan diet for a cat is possible, but hard, which was exactly what the posts in question were talking about.
Anyways, look at the Admins actual behaviour: https://lemmy.world/post/18817262
You’re backing yourself into a corner where you’ll have to respond to every shitbird that comes crying some content hurt their feelings. Removing illegal material is the only thing that’s expected, moderating people’s opinions because they might make someone put glue on pizza is solved by a “nothing on this instance should be considered a fact” banner. It seems petty and the optics only get worse as you slowly burn out and stop being consistent in censoring shit. Because that’s what it is. A cat might not be too stoked with its carefully balanced plant-based slop, but it’d be alive. Hope you’ll go into kink communities and censor the shit out of risky sexual practices.
A cat might not be too stoked with its carefully balanced plant-based slop, but it’d be alive.
No, it wouldn’t, that’s the point.
Cats are obligate carnivores, they’ll die if they don’t eat food containing certain amino acids which aren’t present in plants.
That said, advocating animal abuse, even if it didn’t lead to the animal’s death (which in this case, again, it would), should be a bannable offense.
Hope you’ll go into kink communities and censor the shit out of risky sexual practices.
Those are consensual.
A cat being fed the feline equivalent of poison can’t consent.
So I understand this, vegans promoting vegan cat diets need scientifically proved reproducible peer reviewed studies backing their claims, while the “feed cats whatever garbage is in these cans as long as its meat™” crowd can just say it with their chest, right?
