Hope you get banned harder next time 👍

This is the same as saying that we can’t say animals want to avoid pain unless we can prove that they’re capable of conceptualizing pain in the abstract, it’s spurious bullshit.

Debate pervertry. Hiding your beliefs and only caring about your rhetorical positioning.

Survival instincts are incredibly well documented and proven beyond a doubt, you are completely wrong.

if you can start affecting a congenial tone.

Fuck no. Absolutely fucking not.

Yes, you very clearly are.

Maybe “unopposed” in the sense that you don’t want to literally force meat down vegans throats, but you are certainly opposed in the sense that you will reach for any argument, no matter how spurious, to argue against veganism, and are actively trying to persuade people not to be vegans.

I don’t understand why you people always feel the need to play games like this. I suppose it’s a standard motte-and-bailey tactic, take a more minor position rhetorically because it’s easier to defend, while you privately hold a more extreme position that you don’t want to submit to critique. It’s bad faith and cowardly, you should want your real beliefs to be critiqued. But you’re more concerned with “winning” than the truth.

Right, because you’re a narcissist and incapable of ever admitting (or even convincing of the possibility) that you’re ever in the wrong, even in cases where you very clearly are.

Honestly I’m not at all convinced that you actually believe half the things you say, it’s just a bunch of rhetorical positioning. Your actual belief is opposition to veganism and then you reach for any words or positions that allow you to attack it, even if they make no fucking sense or require you to ignore evidence and hyperfocus on random specific points while ignoring the bigger picture. It’s bad faith debate pervertry of the highest level.

No it isn’t. We can tell animals don’t want to die in the same way we can tell they don’t want to feel pain, by the fact that they try to avoid it. We don’t need to prove that they’re able to “abstractly conceptualize nonexistence” or whatever to establish that fact.

Your arguments would be a lot more coherent if you rejected the idea that we can tell what’s happening in a creature’s mind by how they react. Of course, then you could apply the same logic to humans and it would be solipsism, but at least solipsism is a coherent, internally consistent idea, unlike your bullshit.

Yeah, and other people feel the same way when what they say is factual and what you’re saying is a load of bull.

Yeah, that’s even more debate pervertry, with a side of narcissism. “Um, acktually, I don’t want to debate, I just want everyone to agree with me 🤓”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of someone fitting the label of

I’m fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal’s mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.

That is, assuming that’s your genuine position and you’re not just playing games.

and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.

“Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person’s evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense.”

Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn’t let up when you did. You’re even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don’t escalate an issue like this when you’ve got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn’t give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.

I’m not antivegan, but I am anti-consumer activism

Just because animals cry out and try to run away when you hurt or try to kill them doesn’t mean they feel pain or want to live

What a disengenous asshat. I can’t stand these people who are all like, “My only problem with your cause is I don’t think you’re persuing it the right way,” but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren’t willing to defend their actual positions.

Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. Saying “Go fuck yourself” can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.

From what I’m seeing, there’s a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.

Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn’t even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don’t get to hide behind this “it was a direct quote” excuse, because you’re the one who was out of line. You don’t have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they’re right and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

You gave zero information to go off of but judging from what I saw from the comments, YDI.

You said about the other person:

You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.

But you were dead wrong about the point being discussed, you kept insisting that their evidence was outdated when they were referring evidence beyond the paper you were talking about. If anything, the other person was remarkably patient with you, and if you were decent you’d own up to having egg on your face and apologize to them. Instead, you reported them for correctly calling out your BS, and are now here whining about a two hour ban.

Personally, I find your whole thing of staying within the letter of “civility” while going "I’m not touching you’ and talking down to everyone incredibly annoying, worse than if you just told people to go fuck themselves. If it were up to me I’d issue a permaban, but I don’t think we have an abbreviation here for “the mods didn’t go far enough.”

Gonna have to start calling stuff “peanut spread” and “hot assorted meat trimmings”

Also, we’ve been using the word milk to include plant milk since the year 1200

Yeah, just like she was in 2019 before the campaign started, which is why she was elected president.

I guess the difference is that those polls were only like a year out from the election while this one’s over three years away. Maybe that means this one will be more meaningful?? Somehow???

Hell yeah, give peas a chance!

I mean, it really comes down to how you define religion. A lot of people’s conception of religion is grounded in the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and other traditions don’t fit neatly into that framework. It’s useful to identify the Christian/Abrahamic lens through which various traditions have been historically seen and to reexamine whether the actual reality is in line with the picture we have of them. Whether such traditions are ultimately classified as religions or not is semantic, but it’s worthwhile to examine them as they are and to question assumptions about them.