I understand that the mods need to be "nice" to carnists so they won't feel overwhelmed/attacked by the vegan majority and keep coming back, but the rules and moderation make this place a rough experience for vegans.
Just this week, we had a user that only replied with chatGPT answers, refusing to accept any evidence that proved them wrong, and they blocked me after I accused them of this. No moderation was taken against them even though I reported and wrote to the mods.
Carnists constantly troll us and take bad faith positions, but if call them out, your reply is deleted. The mods make this a heaven for people who seek to troll vegans, but vegans are constantly moderated for doing exactly what the carnists are doing.
I think trolls and users who make bad faith arguments need to be warned/banned, not given the crazy leeway they currently get.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/u/Ecstatic-Trouble-/s/YEL4vhi2H9 and their comments in this thread are a perfect example of users that have no place in this sub. They add nothing to it, despise vegans, make stuff up about what was said, and enjoy the suffering of people that do try to take part in this sub. If it wasn't against the rules, I'd say they are trolling all of us.
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This sub is full of anti vegans that block regular vegan users and are free to spread misinformation without anyone to correct it. If you try they will block you
There are also several users that will lie and misrepresent paper. Doing so once could be an innocent mistake. But when you repeatedly do so after seeing that there is no uncertainty that what was said was untrue, it is malicious. People will knowingly repost misinformation and the mods do absolutely nothing about it.
Brian and Helen are two users that regularly do this. Helen banned me long ago though.
Another issue is the quality of the posts. Carnist post the same junk over and over and the mods manually approve these posts. I once posted the following and it was not approved because it was in poor faith:
"You have two diets. One contains no suppliments but has less than ideal health outcomes and the other contains supplements and has good health outcomes. Without knowing anything else about the diets, which would you choose?"
This is very close to my experience.
Same. Also there are chat gpt posts just here to argue in bad faith. And some of the carnists here argue in bad faith constantly, make statements without evidence or the sources they use don't actually support what they are saying.
There's a few known trolls that I have blocked just because I know there's nothing constructive they will contribute and I'd rather not deal with the trolling. I don't think there's anything wrong or against the rules if you block after repeated BM. Brian is one of them, although Helen I think makes more (genuine) bad arguments than trolling. She's easy to deal with though because she runs away from commitments.
I have had the same experience, although Helen just seems to ignore what is said. Brian just didn't respond, like straight up. I asked a basic question, not anything convoluted. I asked how the response I got answered a question that is relevant to the discussion and for the life of him he could not answer.
Seriously, when you come across one of these types of dishonest frauds, just ask them what question they are answering with their irrelevant pseudo-scientific slop. Try it, they can literally never answer that one simple question.
This sub is full of vegans that block non-vegan users and are free to spread misinformation without anyone to correct it. If you try they will block you.
/\ fixed it /\
Another issue is the quality of the posts. Vegans post the same derogatory junk over and over and the mods manually approve these posts.
Ok could you name a few?
Edit: not even one?
Yeah the vegans here don't want to debate, they just want to insult anyone and everyone who doesn't conform to their thoughts 100%. They can't even address non-vegans with a modicum of respect. The nicest label they have for them is "carnists" or "carnivores ". Something no normal person refers to themselves as, and the labels only get much much worse from there.
I never see the non vegans using insulting and derogatory names for the vegans here while that is all the vegans here ever do.
Ok could you name some common users that do this?
Here's two users along with examples.
Annoying_cat_22
"Carnists constantly troll us and take bad faith positions, but if call them out, your reply is deleted. The mods make this a heaven for people who seek to troll vegans, but vegans are constantly moderated for doing exactly what the carnists are doing."
Electrical_Program79
"Another issue is the quality of the posts. Carnist post the same junk over and over and the mods manually approve these posts. I once posted the following and it was not approved because it was in poor faith:"
The second one is me. Carnist isn't an insult. It's the default term for anyone who isn't vegan. It's the inverse if you will. If you're insulted by that it's on you. It would be like me being insulted for being called a vegan. Nah I am one. It's my belief
And where is the refusal to debate non vegans here?
No, it's not the default term for anyone who isn't vegan. It's a term use for people who hold on to the belief of carnism. And when used in that context, it's not an insult. When the context of its usage is derogatory, it is an insult, as it is in this case. What term was used for the title in this thread, carnists or non-vegan?
Within a particular context, the term, 'man' is not an insult. So, does that mean that you believe that when you use the term 'man' when referring to a trans woman, not an insult? After all, according to you, if they’re insulted by that, it's on them, right?
"And where is the refusal to debate non vegans here?"
Quote me where I made that claim?
And by the way, why did you used the term, 'non-vegans' in that question?
Why was it derogatory? What was the negative connotation?
The other user claimed that vegans in this sub were unwilling to the debate others
Let's be real here. This mindset is why you're here. You're looking for any reason to be offended. Is this how you behave in real life?
"The other user claimed that vegans in this sub were unwilling to the debate others"
Apparently, you've demonstrated that it's true when it comes to you. You responded with personal attacks instead of addressing what I've said.
"Let's be real here. This mindset is why you're here. You're looking for any reason to be offended. Is this how you behave in real life?"
Carnism/carnists is an ideology coined by a vegan that doesn't explain what she claimed it does. It's not the inverse of veganism like you claimed. This is what Dr. Corey Wrenn, a doctor of sociology, says about it:
"Joy’s argument is that the carnism schema simplifies an overly complicated concept (that we shouldn’t hurt others). She insists that speciesism (the correlative to racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, and ethnocentrism) is just too confusing. But rarely (if ever) does she herself make a clear case for veganism in her writing or campaigning. Also troubling is she never clearly states why exploiting species, such as cats, elephants, and dolphins, that are not used for food is problematic. Nor does she make it clear that exploiting Nonhuman Animals for their skin, milk, or eggs is inherently linked to the flesh consumption that carnism highlights."
If you find it derogatory to be associated with killing animals then... Stop killing animals
It's not a good one because we don't use that for ourselves. Why do people who dislike us get to make the name for us? And one that is nonsensical because it makes it sound like we only consume meat. That's like if every nonvegan here just started calling all the vegans "bean brains" and say "hey it's not an insult it's just our way to describe you guys, you do love lentils after all"
Maybe carnist itself isn't the insult. Just the way vegans here use it in a derogatory way and to talk down to people makes it sound a lot like an insult. Y'all want respect but show zero respect to every non vegan here.
Who told you vegans dislike carnists? We dislike carnism, but not necessarily the people who hold this view.
Your inability to understand the word isn't an argument against it.
Ok?
Or maybe you're jumping to conclusions, like you did when you assumed we all dislike you?
This is so dramatic. We can't all walk on eggshells just because you're easily offended by words you apparently don't even understand
Edit: So I guess they decided to double down on the drama by responding and blocking me. Technically abuse of the block feature but they're not actually spreading misinformation, so I'm not really bothered.
OP and every vegan here agreeing with them. They want dissenters banned. The whole point of a debate sub is having people with different opinions here, not punishing and banning anyone who doesn't conform and agree with them. What a weird question, this is literally a post about banning any non vegans who don't fall in line.
No we want bad faith people banned
And I see anyone who disagrees here get called bad faith or a tr0ll. Any dissenting opinions are insulted and torn down and treated as disingenuous because they're just wrong and the vegans are right so the non vegans opinions are "bad faith"
A vegan debate sub is the biggest oxymoron ever because you don't want debate, you want capitulation, unwavering agreement and admissions of guilt.
This isn't actually true though is it.
You're disagreeing with me right now and I haven't called you a tr0ll.
Again, I'm not referring to simple disagreement. I'm referring to repeatedly misrepresenting science as it's presented in a study.
This just sounds like you're being overly emotional and not actually looking at this logically. Can you give an example of where this is true that's not 'everyone'.
What would you consider to be a good faith argument against veganism? Is veganism infallible
There are many arguments that can be made in good faith against veganism. Obviously as a vegan I can't bring one that I don't think I can refute, but that's not a requirement for being in good faith.
So, while the argument "humans can't survive long term without meat" is one that I think is wrong, it can be made in good faith. That good faith will be tested as evidence is presented to contradict the argument.
I presented the same sources as the vegans who were debating whether or not global veganism would be food secure or not… as a practical, organic plant based diet follower I agree with plant based diet studies.. vegan diet excludes all foods derived from animal products, plant based diet vegetarian, flexitarian, pescatarian are represented in the studies. Meat reduction studies don’t show any indication that a vegan diet is effective for human food security
I have posted here as a non-vegan before. Nearly all of the vegans that replied completely missed the entirety of my post and started shouting about cognitive dissonance and name that trait. If you are one of those vegans then yes you would feel like non-vegans are trolling and need more “moderation” which we all know is a euphemism for “ban them”.
If you are not one of those vegans, then what the heck are you talking about?
I am talking about users trolling vegans, what are you talking about?
edit: "be the change you want to see in the world. I am blocking you out of spite". Gotta love these people.
The point they're trying to make is that if you want mods to be "less lenient" against non-vegans then they should also be less lenient against vegans, who are much of the time doing the same thing you're describing. Without showing people what you mean by a bad faith argument, it sounds like you are saying you want non-vegans to shut up more.
I wasn't exposed to vegan trolling, but if you think it's an issue feel free to voice it here (as you are doing) or in a different post. I oppose all trolling.
Bad faith arguments are defined in the subreddit wiki, I am using the mods definition, nothing more.
Yea, basically what Crowfooted said. You aren’t being trolled nearly as much as you think you are. But holy cats Batman, the vegans here do just as much trolling as non-vegans if not more. You are asking for a vegan circle jerk, not a debate. I am pointing that out to you, though you aren’t getting it.
Be the change you want to see. Start honestly engaging with non-vegans. Don’t troll them. Just engage with them. The vast majority of people will give you back the energy you give them. Oh and learn what cognitive dissonance is. It is painful to see how often it is misused on Reddit. Actually, just don’t mention fallacies at all if you don’t have actual training in it.
thanks for the pep talk, but I'd rather you skip the gaslighting. I know how much I'm being trolled, but unless you went through all of my exchanges in this subreddit you do not.
If you also feel you're being trolled you should support more moderation.
Have I ever accused anyone of having a cognitive dissonance? Wtf do you want from me?
Just went and looked back through some of your history in this sub out of curiosity. The most recent exchange I saw was one where you repeatedly used a slur in your argument ("[r-slur] dumpster babies"). You censored part of the word with asterisks but that doesn't make a difference when you included it with the full intention of using it as a slur. And then when someone asked your personal opinion on an ethical question, you refused to engage in the debate and instead kept insisting that they should ask the whole sub because 99% of vegans will have the same opinion as you.
You also said that that person was targeting you randomly and that because they only asked you, that must mean that they're not engaging in good faith. All this despite the fact that their question was directly relevant to the debate you were already engaged in with another user. You said that eating severely intellectually disabled babies is immoral, and then when you were asked why you believe that you refused to answer and instead insisted that the person asking was asking in bad faith despite no evidence indicating that. To me, it looked like you were the one engaging in bad faith while the other commenter was trying to hear your side of the debate, because you made a statement and then refused to back it up with an explanation. You can't comment on a debate sub saying "I believe x" and then refuse to respond when someone asks why you believe that.
Edit to sum up how you got to that point: OP said that animals can't have rights because they're not intellectually equivalent to humans (bc they don't argue and don't consider other people's rights). You then said that babies also don't argue or consider others' rights, and asked if it's okay to eat them under that moral framework. OP responded no because they have partial rights and will have rights in the future since their brains will develop, while an animal will never develop into an intellectual equivalent. Then you asked the same question as before but specifically about intellectually disabled babies (which you then repeatedly referred to with a slur), and OP said that under the moral framework they describe it would be okay to eat those specific babies. You then responded by saying that you think eating those babies is wrong. Someone else then asked you to explain why you specifically believe that, and you refused to explain. So essentially, you went on a debate sub and just said "no you're wrong" and then refused to explain why when asked.
I don't see how me using "re****rd" is relevant, but ok? If it's against the rules feel free to report me.
I also didn't say 99% of vegans would have the same opinion as me, I said they have the same opinion as me about eating RDBs, which was the only opinion I presented, so I see no reason for them to single me out with their question.
Their question was "why is it not ok to eat a cow", that's a very general question when talking about veganism, not "directly relevant".
I don't have to reply to anyone (even on a debate sub), or answer a question that is presented in bad faith.
It's not about using a slur being against the rules (but if it's not it definitely should be). It's about the fact that it's extremely ironic that you're claiming moral superiority while repeatedly using slurs. Edit: oh would you look at that, rule 1 is no hate speech. Yes I'll absolutely be going back and reporting those comments.
They asked "why is it not okay to eat a cow". Then on a follow up they clarified the question to be: "why do you think it's not okay to eat a cow or an intellectually disabled baby". Their reason for "singling you out" was because you said it's wrong to eat intellectually disabled babies. By the OP's moral framework, those babies and cows are equivalent, hence why they said it's okay to eat them. So someone asking you why it's okay to eat cows is directly relevant because your reasoning should theoretically be the same for both.
You're right that you're not required to respond to everyone. But you also can't go onto a debate sub, tell someone "no you're wrong", and then refuse to back up your side of the debate. That's the definition of a bad faith argument. You didn't engage in a debate, you only presented hypothetical scenarios to OP and then told them their opinion was wrong when you found one you disagreed with.
Where did I claim moral superiority? I also don't think re****rd is hate speech, but that's for the mods to decide.
But I said something basic nearly-everyone agrees on. I could have just as well said "the moon isn't made of cheese". There is rarely a good faith reason to respond to such a basic statement with a basic question. Again, I don't owe answers to a random person. You disagree? You go answer them.
I didn't tell OP they were wrong. Putting words into my mouth? That's a bad faith argument.
Vegan here but it absolutely is hate speech and I think it would be really positive if you were to have a look at all of the reasons why we should not use this term anymore and adapt your language accordingly.
As vegans we cannot preach to non vegans that they should do better if we ourselves will refuse to do better when presented with evidence as such.
This includes non vegans presenting evidence against veganism, we should seek to give this information a chance because that is what’s fair (but i will say everytime I have done this the point is either a lie, not valid, skewed results, or just doesn’t make sense. I look at both sides of everything and for this, I end up back at veganism every time)
https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur
"The R-word is a form of hate speech that stands for “retard,” “retarded,” or other offensive words ending in “-tard.” While “mental retardation” was originally introduced as a medical term in 1961 for people with intellectual disabilities, in the decades since, the R-word has become an insult used all too commonly in everyday language. Those who use the R-word often do so with little regard for the pain it causes people with intellectual disabilities—and the exclusion it perpetuates in our society."
Edited to fix the link
FYI - I don't open links I can't see.
I think this is a USA/English thing, but I'll look into it.
"If my moral framework would allow me to eat *** dumpster babies, I would start all over." Is that not you claiming moral superiority? And is this not you heavily implying that OP's moral framework is incorrect? You literally said that OP's moral framework is "basically saying 'I think I have the right to murder humans, why can't I murder animals as well.'" But you as a vegan obviously think it's wrong to "murder" animals (and the use of that terminology is even more evidence of that). And most people think killing humans is wrong, typically more so than killing animals, so I don't see a reason to bring up murdering humans unless you're using it to make the point that OP's moral framework is wrong.
Eating babies aside, the entire premise of your post and your comments here is that you (and the other vegans on this sub) are perfectly good people who are just trying to have respectful debates, but you keep getting trolled and dragged into bad faith arguments by non-vegans. Now to me, that sounds a lot like claiming moral superiority. You can't say you've been doing nothing wrong and have been constantly trolled on here while you've clearly been engaging in bad faith arguments and using hate speech.
And you've already gotten several comments explaining why it's hate speech but I'll reiterate: the r word is 100% a slur. You've been given more than enough information to tell you that it's a slur so I don't understand why you keep telling people "I'll look into it". And I don't know where you heard that normal words are often banned in US English but that's entirely incorrect. The only reason why people censor words like "rape" or say "unalived" instead of "killed" is because of platforms like TikTok and YouTube which sometimes shadowban or demonetize users for saying those words, so content creators started using alternate words to avoid being censored by the platforms. That then spread to other platforms like Reddit, so now people will often censor or use alternate terms for words like "rape" even though there's no reason to do that here because Reddit doesn't have that kind of censorship. But that's an internet platform thing and has nothing to do with US English. Words like rape aren't actually banned here in the US.
You don’t see how slurs against people is trolling and bath faith?
I don't see it as a slur, but I'll look into it.
Don't use a word that you feel compelled to censor. If you actually used the word, the mods would have removed your comment immediately because we flag for that word.
Wow that's disgusting actually
I didn’t say that you accused anybody of cognitive dissonance. I said that you should learn what it is. And I stand by that statement. Everybody should know what it is, including you.
This reply is to one of your bad faith arguments. You are not arguing against what I am saying. You are arguing against what you want me to say. You are demonstrating the qualities that you are here complaining about. My friend, be the change you want to see in the world. Do not ask the world to charge for you. Be that change. Show me the kind of person you want here.
It seems as though Ashamed Kangaroo has already looked through your post history so I don’t have to. Your comments are the ones you want banned from other people. If you want the world to get better, be better. Change starts with you.
If users bringing up NTT is one of your examples of trolling I’m not really sure how reliable of a narrator you are.
No perhaps you missed their point because we're so far gone in this world from having to justify eating meat. So yes at the core of every vegan debate, name the trait gets down to why it's ok to kill animals. Which it isn't, that's why they all use name the trait, because you will never pick out a real trait that doesn't apply to a piece of the human population.
First of all, here is your idiotic trait: human. Non-human animals do not have the trait of being human, yet very human has that trait. This is true by definition. It is literally why being human or non-human means. NTT is not the amazing argument you think it is.
There are many other debates to be had. It isn’t as simple as you might think it is. If you read my most recent post here you will see that such things are not relevant to every discussion. You just want it to be. Take this very thread as an example. NTT has no place here. It is not relevant to the OP in any way. Jumping into every conversation with NTT shows that you are arguing in bad faith.
Not sure what the confusion here is. The claim is that many non-vegans ignore evidence and context about evidence that demonstrates a conclusion opposite to the claim they are advancing, act in bad faith when talking about issues, or just refuse to engage and deflect into meta-discussion or irrelevant nonsense.
Those points are being backed up by anecdotes from other people who have engaged with the same people. Of course there are dishonest vegans who act similarly, too. Did you read the post the OP made? What do you think you are responding to here?
Link to the ChatGPT comment?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/peAp6dqZEd
I'm blocked, but should be that ^
But that's not this week though. How can we trust your judgement when you can't even get that correct?
It might've not started this week, but it sure continued into this week. And you can clearly see it's GPT'd.
This is what OP meant by bad faith.
This user is notoriously bad faith. Example of a very recent engagement.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/SIZDFTxOU9
And further down...
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
I remember this post, it was very chatgpt and bad faith. It just went on and on with no evidence of its claims and yet made huge statements, it was someone just there to argue and using chat gpt to do it, wasting everyone's time
To add context, Chatgpt zero shows 99% probability this text was AI generated
I can't see the thread, They blocked me too.
Wow, even as a non-vegan I'm with vegans on this one. This question and the subsequent arguments completely ignores basic statistics, like isn't 70% of crops grown fed to animals like cows and pigs? Lots of people in my spaces advocate for plant-based diets to reduce environmental impact by ways of emissions and I could definitely vouch for the cruelty in farming as being an additional reason to do so as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/X49RgBAWWJ
It's true but it's the way it should be. Imo non vegans are like guests here so the onus is on vegans to be held to a higher more polite standard and we have to deal with unruly guests from time to time. It's fine and it allows us to have these conversations here.
Mods I really think you do a great job at threading the needle. I would love to be one of you but I know I wouldn't be able to lol
Your reply is only deleted if you break rules, don't break rules and get better at responding. I struggled here in the past and I appreciate the mods in helping me respond better. Just my two cents.
I do think blocking is a problematic issue that the mods have no control over so I don't know the solution there.
I don't mind when my response is deleted, I mind when trolls are left unchecked. I think they need to be stricter.
I think it's okay to let a few trolls be unchecked if that means we don't accidentally check someone being genuine. Realistically, where we start mod action isn't going to be perfect. Would you rather it allow some trolls or get all the trolls and some genuine users?
I'm sure if we could come up with an actionable objective rule that would prevent only trolling and get no genuine users caught up, we would but I'm not sure what that rule would be, any thoughts?
I think the new account anti vegans coming in with the same tired topics are always going to push the limits to any rules that are made up and we just have to deal with it. And appreciate the opportunity to learn how to deal with it better and more swiftly.
It's just a reddit ban, I think the health of the sub is more important than not hurting innocents by mistake, to some degree.
Funny I think I'd make the exact same comment except exchange "ban" for "troll" :)
The only actual problems I think I see around here are endemic to reddit as a platform and the mods can't do anything about that. (i.e. abusive and manipulative blocking techniques)
Maybe if a user blocks a certain percentage of top users they shouldn't be allowed to post?
I have complained to mods directly about vegan users last-word-Blocking me. They have not banned the users (even when a user did this repeatedly, involving other users whom were correcting them with evidence), or removed their comments to which I would be unable to reply. I have resorted at times to commenting in reply to the users abusing the Block feature, in a different thread where I'm not blocked from commenting, so that it can be seen that I didn't just bail out of the conversation for lack of an answer.
Interesting. Non vegans have almost the same complaints in here. Bad faith arguments, refusing to accept evidence vegans don’t like, band and deletes with no explanation, etc. Perhaps the problem isn’t one sided, it’s just the mods.
I don't think they are the problem, but I do think all trolls need to be taken care of quicker.
Just because someone is debating poorly doesn't mean they're trolling. What exactly do you count as a bad faith argument? Because when something seems obvious to you, it's very easy to see any opposing view as being made in bad faith.
If someone posts a research paper and makes claims that are not representative of the paper then it may be a genuine mistake or bad faith. If they repeatedly do this in multiple posts, even after having the discrepancy pointed out then it is clearly bad faith.
Users that do this should be permanently banned.
This. I'm so tired of people on reddit using the "you're trolling" or "bad faith argument" catchphrases as some get out of jail free "I won" card.
And without examples we really can't say much about OP's claims here.
Louder for the people in the back.
Arguing in good faith is defined in the subreddits wiki, I am using that definition.
Right, but you haven't shown or even described the arguments you're claiming broke this rule. Without seeing any examples we can't know if these people were actually arguing in bad faith or if you just interpreted it as bad faith because you strongly disagreed and assumed they must not be serious.
I am raising a complaint, if others feel the same, the mods will be aware of the problem. I don't need to convince anyone by giving them examples, either you feel like that from your time here or you do not.
This is an example of bad faith argument or your actual position?
What's bad faith about this response?
Making an assertion and then refusing to discuss it any further when others have questions about it
Where did I refuse to discuss it?
That's just a vague answer, you need to fully answer the question or you are just trolling.
I mean, you just made one big post so you can call all non-vegans a slur. You need to be taken care of.
I didn't use it as a slur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
"Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions."
lol
lol, yes, they are funny!
Carnism is what happens when one ideology makes up an opposing ideology.
Your resistance here is similar to how when the term "male chauvinism" started being used by anti-sexists to describe the beliefs of some sexists. Up until then, there was a pretty widespread belief that men were superior to women in many ways and this meant men should be in control. Many at the time based their beliefs in tradition, "common sense," biology, and "the natural order," and their beliefs went unchallenged. The idea that men were superior to women was just seen as a "default," so for most of time, there was no name to this idea/concept.
The term "male chauvinism" came about to show that it's an ideology just like any other, and is not invulnerable to criticism. This is why male chauvinists themselves did not like the term; it implied that some sort of reasoning or justification was needed when they believed they didn't have a need to justify their "common sense" beliefs.
So you don't see it at all bad faith to continue to use a term for people that they expressly dislike, with your proof being pointing to a work by people on your own side that intrinsically bakes in ignorance and insult... on a debate forum, no less?
I mean, it's not "bad faith" to refer to racists as racists, even if some racists dislike the term.
Like Socialists inventing the term capitalism!
Highly ironic. You don’t see an issue with calling your opponent a rapist killer?
Is calling people charged names good faith?
Im a "carnist" and I had a vegan tell me to go back in time and kill my ancestors 💀. At best that's bad faith
Can you provide more context? I can imagine ways thay could be said not in bad faith.
I see asking people to do impossible things in order to have a moral high ground as arguing in bad faith.
I had made a post asking what vegans thought about conservation efforts and possible solutions to issues they had with it, if any. They didn't agree with any kind of intervention, I do. They said that ecology and veganism are incompatible with each other because under veganism, due to their only being obligation being to control their own behaviour to avoid committing wrongs, describing intervention as playing God. It's the fault of people like my ancestors that my country is in the situation that it is in and in my eyes, aspects of conservation are a necessary evil in order to avoid environmental collapse, but this person didn't care for that and saw it as punishing innocent animals. So they told me to go back in time and kill my ancestors.
Idk, I just think that's a wild thing to say, and in a debate, I would never ask someone to do something that is impossible. If you feel you can win a debate by asking people to do impossible things for your morality to stand, then it is difficult to take the conversation and argument seriously. That whole conversation they were saying that I should want to do insane things like having 50% of people killed if I really cared about environmental impact (and I do care about environmental impact, which is why I'm not having bio kids, I just don't advocate for killing half the population 💀).
From this explanation it just seems like this other person is just bad at debating and/or not really understanding what they are talking about. I don't really see that as engaging in bad faith. To me, arguing in bad faith requires some intention to avoid engaging in honest debate. Also, someone being rude or acting with incivility does not necessarily indicate bad faith on their part.
Can you link me to the comment?
Can it be good faith to say the same thing to vegans?
I don't know if I would consider it "good" faith either way, but someone merely saying something insulting or suggesting that you go back in time and off your ancestors is not an example of arguing in bad faith.
If the purpose was to dismiss the point of an interlocutor or provoke them rather to engage with their argument, then it could be in bad faith, but without the context it's hard to say. It could just be a side comment that isn't intended to derail the conversation, or it could be a momentary emotional outburst in an otherwise sincere discussion. It also could genuinely be the case that their interlocutor made an argument that when taken to its logical conclusions would imply that one ought to go back in time and kill their ancestors.
Again, without the context it's really hard to make a determination.
lol. This is what we mean.
I can call you a family killer in good faith. If you make a. Joke about my cellphone slavery and I’m blocking you.
Lol
Calling someone a "family killer" might be an example of incivility, but it would not necessarily be an example bad faith. It's possible to be rude and still arguing sincerity. Of course, if someone is consistently rude it can be a sign that they are no longer engaging honestly, but a rude remark or momentary emotional outburst here or there doesn't necessarily mean this.
Don't forget the name calling. Vegans here just get called "vegans", non vegans here get called everything from "carnist" to "rapist" to "murderer"
Vegans have no respect for anyone else.
It’s a ton of effort to moderate a big redit. Mods aren’t paid. There’s no user payment or income stream either here to support an expectation of a high level of duty to monitor.
Look many people here use ethical frameworks that are ultimately unsound (of any position). It’s incredibly difficult to ground ethics in something sound such that others must adopt the framework. This is a known issue since secular ethics started. Hume, Kant, Analytic all couldn’t solve it. There’s ontological moral systems but they often yield weaker claims (typically do not yield absolutes). So, anyone arguing combatively from an “I must be right position” and has no openness to shift position is debating in bad faith. This bad faith isn’t unique to any belief demographic here imo.
But you can’t really mod that stuff as it’s simply human nature to latch onto absolutes. Very very few people can juggle ethics without them, and those people are either uniquely brilliant young people or older people that have gained wise humility through open mindedness over a long time. If you banned everyone that did the bad faith above, you’d have to ban like 95%+
What you can mod are attacks of the person as opposed to the pre-suppositions/beliefs/assumptions/arguments. Then it’s no longer a debate. I’ve slipped into that a couple times but realize it was an error after the opponent simply points it out. I’ve attacks thrown my way way more times. I get it though as emotions can overtake. You just deescalate as others do for you and re-ground back into debate.
Mods can then step in if a sub-thread doesn’t self regulate debate and it turns into just personal attacks. I’ve never had that happen as most people are although emotional are also reasonable. Though I’ve seen some threads go off the rails, and mods have stepped in.
I mean the sub is debate a vegan…….. of course that’s going to attract trolls. You don’t have to interact or can join many other vegan subreddits that don’t have as much trolling nonsense
Or the mods can take care of them? Why do we have to accept trolls?
To EXPECT is not the same as to ACCEPT. Just trying to say there are less toxic vegan groups to be a part of on here.
I do expect some lvl of trolling everywhere I go online, but I do not accept an OP with dozens of replies that are copy-paste chatGPT instructed to never admit it's wrong.
Without evidence it just sounds like you’re complaining. You should have a backlog of linked comments for us to review
Sorry , I don't have a diary of all the times I was trolled. If other vegans feel the same maybe the mods will take this into account, if not I'll get the hint.
[removed]
My claim is that I feel like there is too much trolling and bad faith arguments in this subreddit. If others feel the same they will upvote and reply. I do not need to convince people that they feel they are being trolled or that they are facing bad faith arguments, they know when it happens.
What you just did to my comment is an example of a bad faith argument btw.
I think it is fair to ask for evidence for the claim that non-vegans are operating in bad faith, that on its own isn't bad faith. But once evidence was pointed out, one ought to adjust one's view to the evidence that was provided. Considering how he did no such thing, it is clear he is interested in stirring the pot for the fun of it.
The last two posts I made are FILLED with people unable to respond to direct points and blatantly misrepresenting studies that disagree with the claims they make.
More pressing than anything else, they are unable to answer basic questions and claim that they are not obliged to answer anything their interlocutor asks them, such as clarifying questions, because they are baby-raging. Check my posts and the comments from Helen and AnsibleAnswers for evidence.
Now that the claim has evidence supporting it, as well as anecdotes from other people with evidence, guess we are on the same page now.
I’m not reading through your last 2 posts and searching for two users and reading through their comments.
You claim that people are unable to respond to direct points and you just did the exact same thing.
"I’m not reading through your last 2 posts and searching for two users and reading through their comments."
I'm not reading through the evidence of the position, which is OK. I don't expect you to if you don't want to.
"You claim that people are unable to respond to direct points and you just did the exact same thing."
Well, your statement is meaningless since you just conceded that you did not read the evidence. The objection in the thread above was regarding not having evidence, or instances of non-vegans acting in bad faith. I provided evidence, you conceded that you chose not to read it. Everything you say after that is absolutely meaningless (with regards to making statements about claims lacking evidence since... you ignored the evidence).
Wanna try again after you read the evidence?
If I have to explain to you how to share evidence, you’re everything you accuse others of. I hope you really think about that.
I like how you totally abandoned the discussion regarding evidence and your blatant refusal to consider evidence that I presented: two posts I made and a selection of the comments that argued against me in bad-faith.
You are now upset at me for... your refusal to read evidence. You asked, and I provided. Now you are upset. Let's stay out of my notifications if you refuse to engage a debate with good faith, ok buddy?
You didnt present evidence. You just said that evidence exists. Thats not presenting it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1pnt2km/reflections_on_my_recent_post_and_an_open_question/
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1pjggzk/on_the_crop_deaths_tho_talking_point_an_overview/
Comments of both, sort by newest or find the ones with the most comments.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Users like this
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/oDpi2IA97L
I'm still baffled darth is allowed to post here, same topic again, and again, and again, and blocking so many people, but you point out he's been doing that for so long and comment removed, you can break the block rule all you like apparently, and block half the people in the subreddit, but pointing out someone has been making the same post for 5 years and blocking people? That's just too far, and your comment will probably be removed without even being told why, just stealth removed.
Remove darth from the sub and it will instantly become a better place, I don't even need to say the name of darth's newest account, all long time users of this subreddit know who it is. But saying it will get your comment removed any ways so why bother right. No idea why the mods are so protective of darth.
That anon guy blocking people too, we really need stricter rules around blocking, because why bother engaging with certain people when you know there's a high chance they will just block you when they can't argue against you, waste of time.
The thing about darth, aside from the constant stream of bad faith, is that he's incredibly rude and condescending to everyone he interacts with. That's a much bigger issue imo.
True, it's part of the bad faith really. You can't prove him wrong, because when you do, he will completely ignore what you say and makes a statememt of his own, and then act rude saying you're the one acting in bad faith and just don't know what you're talking about. The condecending tone is a work of art almost for how little of value he says
Wait, are we talking about the same person? Which darth are you referencing? I may have unknowingly interacted with him without knowing. Had I known it was the same darth from other theist circles I wouldn't have taken him seriously he is known for being dishonest from hours and hours of footage online.
The original was darthkahuna, then he made ThemDawgsIsHell, and even replied to his account darth_kahuna saying good point! Then came back again on AlertTalk967, and now is back on Important_Nobody1230. You can tell it's him from his argumentation style, and he even spouts darth's phrase; the lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
Darth_kahuna also argued a lot on 2 accounts on debatechristianity I thought.
That said this comment will probably be removed by the mods, gotta protect darth right.
Oh, we are talking about someone completely different that's confusion on my part. I was under the impression darth dawkins, notorious christian apologist and world-renowned dishonest hack was here talking about vegan issues.
My mistake really, most long time users know darth as darth_kahuna, but obviously most would not so I should have used the full name to avoid the confusion.
Far as I know we are most fortune not to have Darth Dawkins on this subreddit.
Helen blocks people now too. All I did was point of how she was repeating information that was objectively untrue
Yeah, also makes comments without evidence and then tries to move the goalpost topic and brings sources up that don't even relate to or don't support her claims. Its just constant. I feel after a while enough is enough. You have been proven to be here in bad faith. This sub needs protecting from that because the sub just becomes a miserable place and will lose steam. Folks get kicked out of other subs for way less and i don't know why some people get away with so much bad faith arguments here over and over
Amen. When he’s in France or whatever, I notice the discourse gets so much more congenial. Monopolizing every thread demanding vegans prove objective morality and screeching bad faith is so toxic to the dialogue here. Not saying he’s the only one and certainly rude obnoxious vegans exist as well, but the guy devotes so many waking hours to his anti-vegan crusade, it’s hard not to notice. I wonder if he’s applied to be a mod before. Imagine that? Guess it could always be worse.
Yeah you'd almost think he was hurt by vegana since for all his claims to care so much about subjectice morals and looking for objectice morals he never goes to a philosophy or even feminism sub to discuss that, just a weird obsession with vegans
I wholeheartedly agree that moderation needs adjusting. There are too many bad faith posts - typically repeated posts from the same handful of bad actors who aren’t remotely interested in debating anything, rather jumping from one logical fallacy to another.
I think there should be a few restrictions introduce: - a limit on how often you can post (so we don’t get one post after another after another from the same account that just keeps accumulating negative karma), - minimum positive karma for posting in the first place, - minimum account age for posting, - structure of the post should clearly state your claim and proof for the claim (preferably with sources) to discourage low effort posts.
This. I don't know why a certain user is allowed to make the same post every few days. They have started using multiple accounts too.
I would also add the usage of AI to the list.
I think it's already on the list, under "bad faith arguments" it says something like "do not copy content from others", and IMO using AI with no real human contribution falls under that.
This is a slippery slope though, since some people will write up an answer/reply/question and send it through AI to tidy it up or make it seem more professional. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a way to distinguish between that usage of AI and a straight up AI response. Not even counting if someone uses AI to translate something into English for them if they aren't a native English speaker, which is another use of AI I've seen.
How would you be able to distinguish between those usages and an AI generated post?
There absolutely is. AI generated "arguments" look good on the surface but are completely empty inside. AI is not able to create coherent and meaningful ethical positions on its own. If the user is a bad debater, so is the AI.
You can find a good example of that in this thread.
I could agree to the rule that any empirical claims must be sourced and any rational claims must be submitted in proposition/axiom form. I made a post here and I think maybe developing a formal logical argument to append to the post could have aided the flow of the conversation.
The term carnist in it self is a little bit provocative. It was created by a vegetarian to describe people who had different views than her. I can’t think of any examples when a person or group coins a term to describe people who they disagree with and not have it be offensive. I would only ever call someone vegan after they refer to themselves as such. It’s never my place to force labels on others. There are many different reasons people might have to eat the way they do, when you just put everyone who you don’t agree with under a blanket term you are being offensive.
So are the mods too lenient? You are opening up your point using offensive terms and grouping people you don’t agree with under it.
To add; if you’re “normal” is veganism, and you refer to yourself as a vegan the more proper term for people who aren’t vegan would simply be non-vegan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
I did not use it as a slur, and was told here that it might be considered one. But, meat-eaters told me, in this post, that although it's usually a slur, the use in the link is not offensive.
It was created by a vegetarian physiologist to describe people who she did not agree with. I am not vegan, however I am definitely not a “carnist”. Lumping anyone who doesn’t share your view into a term not even created by those people is rude at best.
I meant to say psychologist.
I understand you see it like that, but that's the best term.
Often science terms are created by other people than those who they describe.
Give me an example when a group of people name another group of people they see as others that has not been offensive. Basically every bigoted term we have originated like that, and as I said if veganism is the proper normal the best most accurate term to describe someone like me would be non-vegan. You don’t need to create a new term.
I don't think non-vegan is accurate. Some people agree with veganism but don't follow it, some follow it but don't agree. Non-vegan misses some of them. I will look into this term later and find out if it is really offensive.
Well I’m telling you that people you are calling it find it offensive. That should be enough reason. I would never dream of labeling people just based on my views. If someone finds a term to describe them as offensive then I make sure to not use that term.
Ok, tnx for the input, I'll look into it and if it really is considered offensive by meat-eaters.
I think if you stopped calling non vegans carnists which sounds like you are trying to make a slur, and vegans stopped being so hostile to not only meat eaters but also vegetarians and non perfect vegans you might get a better response from everybody. I don't doubt there's people trolling as that happens everywhere, if you meet one just ignore and block them. but I get the feeling you include someone just disagreeing with you too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
It's not a slur, it's the ideology opposed to veganism (loosely speaking).
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I have a problem with people trolling me.
That's the thing though eating meat isn't an ideology and the majority of meat eaters are not opposed to veganism at all, I personally think it noble and impressive to be able to follow a vegan diet. I tried it and I couldn't cope I got anemic and was constantly fatigued and stressed. People don't like being told they have views they do not have, it will get their back up. and it's very insulting to assume every non vegan is against veganism.
Talking to vegans online is upsetting and frustrating tbh. You call us names, you insult us, tell us what our beliefs are and that we're monsters. You don't listen to people's personal circumstances at all or have any room for mistakes or non perfection. Even health issues mean nothing to you guys. I know most vegans aren't like this too but online it's very prevalent.
My vegan friends irl don't do any of this stuff. They're brilliant people who happen to be vegan.
In my experience online and IRL most meat eaters do hold the carnist (not the slur) ideology, and are opposed to veganism. You are the exception, not the rule (in my opinion). I never said all non-vegans are opposed to veganism, why are you doing to me exactly what you said you hate?
Now you are blaming me for how other vegans act? I only represent myself.
And In my experience the majority of non vegans have no thoughts about veganism because it's not something they care or think about at all, some admire it and some hold contempt. There's going to be nutters who are just assholes everywhere unfortunately and the internet makes them louder than they should be. That goes for both sides.
Being a meat eater does not automatically make someone anti vegan.
You using carnists is what made me believe you were insulting non vegans. The majority of people who use carnist mean all non vegans when they say it. They do not mean it like an ideology they mean to insult non vegans. I apologise for assuming you're the militant type that uses guilt and insults to get your point across. Your right that isn't fair of me but it's so prevalent on these subs it's an easy assumption I shouldn't have made. I have never heard of the carnist ideology before I only seen it used as an insult.
The point im trying to make is, if you want non vegans to listen and perhaps even become vegan one day. Insulting them, calling them things like carnist which IS taken offensively and making them feel like terrible people is not the way to do it.
If you're going to use a niche term from an obscure academic text and not give a citation, it's not reasonable to get angry when people don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't get angry. What part of my reply seemed angry to you?
I never thought that's a niche term. I saw vegans say carnists plenty of times, and always assume that's what they mean by that. Is there a different use of that word that is more common?
With respect, a term used near exclusively by a quite small number of people of a specific interest would count as niche.
As for the slur, people taking it that way when it is a term vegans use about others but that those others pretty much never use for themselves isn't surprising. To some extent, the use of the term reminds me of how some churches frame atheists as people who actively refuse to believe the 'clear truth', when the vast majority just passively don't subscribe to a religion: they aren't engaged in this supposed omnipresent discourse and ideological battle.
Someone in this post called themself a carnist. My friends call themself carnists. My experience with the word is just different.
Do they do this implicitly purely by labelling such people as "Atheists"?
Otherwise i don't really see the link with just labelling people Carnists.
Carnist is used in the vegan community as a slur against non-vegans. Most people saying it haven't got a clue about its origin or the anthropological definition. It's used as a way to signal the correct level of ideological purity to other vegans, and to imply moral superiority.
Never heard of that, I'll try to remember to link the definition whenever I use it, thanks.
You didn't reply why you assumed I was angry?
I guess he is talking about carnists .
How can non-vegan debate with us if they have to tippy toe around us?
If someone is sensitive, maybe debating non-vegans isn't the best thing to do.
We are talking specifically about bad actors, who literally are just chatgpt or making bad faith arguments with no evidence over and over again, not just your average non vegan coming to debate.
I don't think that "not posting only chatGPT replies" is too much to ask, but I appreciate all opinions.
Quite funny that you think you can actually have a reasoned debate when you can't even attempt to temper your contempt for the other side.
In my experience, vegans get away with using derogatory words and being generally racist and the mods don't do anything. Meanwhile, my comments calling out the racism are removed.
Vegans want special treatment, so they come to this sub for it. I mean, this is supposed to be a debate sub and theres only vegan mods, it's pretty obvious that this is a circle jerk sub.
Yeah. That post was just an attack to justify their own internal guilt.
I would advise to just read the tone in the first few sentences. If toxic, just move on. No need to read or reply.
I think the mods do a good job, and limiting speech on a debate forum apart from ad-hominem or threats seems like it would undermine the principle of open and honest discourse.
One rule I would like to see is a ban for users who abuse the block feature. It’s one thing if someone’s harassing or threatening you, in which case they should be banned from the sub anyway. But blocking all users who have stronger arguments and then attempting to monopolize the discourse by spamming paragraphs of sophistry in OPs and comments should be ban-worthy.
There already is a rule against abusing the block feature. But the mods don't really enforce it much. There are a bunch of anti vegans in here who reflexively ban anyone who tries to debate them. Which is why you sometimes see bizzare claims go completely unchallenged
What do you think mods should do if a user repeats information that they know to be false? For example if I link a study saying the authors conclude that eating meat is better for the environment, but they actually say the opposite. What is the appropriate response by the mods here?
Generally, nothing? Should be easy enough to demonstrate they’re wrong. Sure if you can document them doing this repeatedly after being called out and it’s obvious they’re lying rather than confused, seems reasonable to bring a case to the mods. But for the most part it’s not fair to expect mods to judge someone’s intent.
Sure you can demonstrate they're wrong. If you catch them doing it. But these things slip through the cracks.
I'm curious as to why last word blocking is an offence but blatant lying is not worthy of any action.
I think last-word blocking is much worse because it prevents the person from demonstrating the lie or providing a counter-argument, so others reading the conversation will just think the blocked person conceded the argument. Furthermore, blocking prevents that person from ever calling out the bad faith interlocutor in the future.
This isn't true. Various names have been dropped in here and they are well known for blocking unfairly.
Helen and ancient are two prominent examples
Wait I’m confused now, where’s the disagreement?
Of all the subs in which I participate, this is the worst (in my experience directly) for users engaging in last-word-Blocking. Vegans have done this to me several times, while I was sincerely responding to their comments.
Last-word blocking is incredibly cowardly. If an argument gets too heated or someone’s too egotistical to concede, they should just stop responding.
OP calls people the R word with no issues and calls other people bad faith lol. Kettle meet pot
And this right here is why everyone hates vegans. Honestly the entire concept of a subreddit to debate vegans is an oxymoron. Vegans don't debate, they talk down to you, label you, insult you, call you disingenuous for not agreeing with them.
And wanting to ban people for not agreeing with you in a freaking debate sub is peak vegan.
You hate me? 🥺
This subreddit does show the worst side of veganism. Getting called everything between a carnist to a rapist is not exactly endearing nor welcoming. Vegans on this subreddit get called "vegans" non vegans are basically only ever referenced by insults or derogatory labels. And that's before any "debate" even starts. But most people don't really engage in debate here anyways, anyone who disagrees is labeled a tr0ll or some other insults and blocked.
This is a great example of what I'm talking about, thanks. Hope the mods start with you.
Why are you on a "debate" subreddit then? If you want to purge non-vegans then go to vegancirclejerk or something. The entire point of this subreddit is to have non-vegans. If that's such a reprehensible thought to you then there are plenty of private vegan subs where you won't have to interact with anyone who thinks slightly differently than you, or you can create your own.
The purpose of a debate is that people have different opinions than you. Which I know is terrifying and disgusting to you, but no one is forcing you to be here. Why not just leave rather than try to undermine the entire purpose of a subreddit?
I don't want to purge non-vegans, I want them to remove users that twist your words, make up things about you, and generalize about all vegans. Like you.
So a non vegan purge. Just because you rephrase it doesn't change what you want. You want to purge anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in any way.
Like I said, there's plenty of subs where you can go circlejerk with like-minded people. Go there instead.
Notice how they said they want the mods to remove users that twist words, make up things, and generalize... and you essentially said "So, non-vegans then?"
They didn't say non-vegans. They descrbied people that use dishonest tactics.
The title of the post is literally "moderation is too lenient against NON VEGANS"
Are you actually joking or are you just that disingenuous? So you just twisted words and made things up. Do you now support your own banning for such disingenuous lies and treachery?
I think we just run into resistance whichever direction we walk.
I made one post here against vegans, so I got a couple choice specimens of the vegan variety. Since I don't think meat-eating is justifiable if it means killing an animal, I will eventually make an anti-meat eating argument here. I expect to get those carnist trolls you talk about then.
I've had one experience with the mods on comment moderation and I think it's been fair. That is, I can understand why they would have tagged my comment, and quickly amended it to reflect that concern. I get tilted and animated easily and if anything these guys have been uniquely forgiving.
It's a tradeoff I believe. Getting rid of some group you think is unacceptable using some broad, general rule is inevitably gonna catch people who you don't think are causing a problem. The individual post approval and comment moderation is to help with this, but the moderators have their own biases and interpretations. So the general method of post approval is gonna get too many people, and the specific way is gonna be somewhat arbitrary.
There is a really good example right in this thread now. A user claims that the OP stated that views that he dislikes are bad-faith, which is not found in the original post if you spend one minute reading it. When asked for the location of this statement, he refuses to provide the wording because it does not exist.
For some reason, you are allowed to blatantly lie and run away when cornered by the lie. Not sure why they are so lenient.
It sounds like you're describing vegans... refusing to accept evidence that proves them wrong. Moving goalposts, clinging to fallacies, bad faith arguments, and mostly just rude and abusive...
I agree, I have interacted with a few non-vegans who are just unable to engage honestly. Like, they just do not respond to the words that are on the screen. The funniest part is that when you call out their blatant lies with their own words, they block you like you said.
It really shows how dishonest and uncharitable non-vegans are despite many being good-faith, willing to make concessions when shown evidence, and open to dialogue.
Not sure why mods allow blatant off-topic spam from non-vegans in threads to stay up. It's quite strange.
Idk, I have my complaints about this place but "trolling" in either direction isn't really one of them. I've seen opinions that made me joke to myself that this person must be a troll, but people seem pretty damn genuine here regardless of how bad they are at debating. There's plenty of poor reasoners and logically inept people here, but that's not trolling, to me.
I concur
Just because you dont like a position it doesnt mean its bad faith. I've seen vegans on this sub have that issue a lot.
Did you read the post at all? That's not what was claimed.
That's not what they are talking about