- I called a corpse a corpse (post contains multiple pictures of chests of multiple animals)
- Get called loud, obnoxious and ridiculous
- User types 380+ words on why my view is ridiculous (see linked post for more of their comments, my only two comments are in the image)
- I replied in an annoyed tone but did not use insults
- I am banned for “rule 1, be kind”
Post (TW: animal corpses): https://lemmy.world/post/45494863/23173926
Note: “the rules of this site” in my comment refer to rule 6 of lemmy.world which states:
No visual content depicting executions, murder, suicide, dismemberment, visible innards, excessive gore, or charred bodies. No content depicting, promoting or enabling animal abuse.
It’s important to know that not all people think like one self.
If we fail to understand that communication between people becomes very complicated.
I don’t think a ban is justified there. Not at all. But it’s true that with that attitude, failing to see that your way to interpret the rules is not shared by others, would ultimately lead to a justified ban.
This is YDI.
Not for calling a dead thing a corpse, but because of your second comment.
When a community has a kindness/civility rule, we’re all expected to follow it, no matter how strong our beliefs.
And, tbh, even if a community doesn’t have a listed rule for civility, it really should be the default behavior anyway. Not that I can claim to always err on the side of niceness, gods know I’m an asshole. But when I’m an asshole and I get banned, I deserved it.
Civility isn’t just not insulting someone. It’s about trying to remember the human.
However! Had I been the mod in question, I’d also have banned the other user for being an asshole to you in the first place.
I mean they were right.
Just a tip for the future, if you want to sell veganism to people, soapboxing under a FoodPorn post of some barbecued ribs trying to argue that the picture is gore is not an effective way of doing it.
I’m a vegan. You suck at promoting veganism.
You didn’t say anything untrue, which was the problem. People don’t want to challenge their cognitive dissonance and just want to share things they think look tasty on that sub. Society at large has agreed murder is fine if the victim is tasty, so other animals’ corpses are exempt from most animal abuse rules.
Society at large has agreed murder is fine if the victim is tasty
Unless you’re a fruitarian you, too, have agreed that murder is fine as long as the victim is different enough from you. If you are a fruitarian you’re probably still fine with slavery and eugenics, given that most cultivated fruiting plants are farmed and selectively bred by humans.
Nature is an endless system of predation and consumption and humanity is not yet technically developed enough to transcend it. You physically cannot live without other living, sensing, feeling things dying.
That page is factually untrue and grossly uninformed of the fascinating things plants are capable of. Honestly expected better of vegans.
Most plants evidently feel pain given that they have a stress response to being damaged. Many of them, like the famous venus flytrap, can feel much more than that. Many plants are capable of sensing their surroundings and responding to stimulus – rice can sense the sound of rain and pea plants can see their surroundings to grow towards a nearby support (and yes, they are actually sensing photons, not just blindly reaching). Plants also communicate with one another; they can for example release defensive embittering or toxic chemicals as a response to nearby plants being predated on. They are even capable of learning.
Plants are capable of so much more active behaviour than we previously realized. On many of the metrics used by contemporary animal rights activists to define sentience, such as whether an animal is capable of sensing pain or learning, plants also qualify as sentient. The most complex plants are vastly more complex organisms than the simplest animals. Just because they’re alien to us and exist on a different timescale does not mean they aren’t sentient.
All of those are reactive. Lets say you cut yourself with a knife. That your blood clots and the wound heals is a reactive response. You don’t choose it, it just happens. That you then probably choose a less risky approach the next time you cut is you learning. I don’t have the time to watch the video unfortunately, but I read this article (do not plug that link into sci-hub.ee that would be pirating) which delves into the topic of plant’s having sensory membranes, conditional experiments etc.
Regardless, even if we assume that
a. Plants have consciousness
b. Killing consciousness is immoral/unethical/bad or whateverthen being vegan is still the more moral option since the amount of plants that need to be “murdered” to feed an animal until it’s ready for slaughter is orders of magnitude higher than the nutritional value we get out of the animal when we murder it.
I also think the notion that harvesting peas is the same as ramming a bolt through a pigs head is not really something people actually believe, but rather antivegan cope. But that’s subjective of course.
Extremism is always bad even for noble causes
Personally think it’s pretty extreme to kill animals
Omnivory is completely natural. You seem to have a problem with nature.
It’s natural to shit in the forest. But more on topic; there’s loads of immoral things happening in nature (eg rape and infanticide) yet we’d never use that as a justification in those cases.
I appreciate your choices. I really do. I won’t stop eating meat, but you are welcome to your own choices. Just don’t try pushing them on me.
You’re pushing your choices onto innocent animals who do not have a voice they can use to protest your violence.
literally just set up ETHICAL farms how hard can that be
factory farms are disgusting thats why I DO NOT get my meat from them
Ethical farm is an oxymoron.
Do you consider yourself to be in the 1%? If not why do you think you could afford the 1% of meat that doesn’t come from factory farms.
