Fake vegans
Vegans being banned and comments being deleted from [email protected] for being fake vegans.
From my perspective, the comments were in no way insulting and just part of completely normal interaction. If this decision reflects the general opinion of the mod team, then from my perspective, the biggest vegan community on Lemmy wants to be an elitist cycle of hardcore vegans only, not allowing any slightly different opinion. Which would be very unfortunate.
PS: In contrast to the name of this community, I don't want to insult anyone here being a 'bastard'. I just want to post this somewhere on neutral ground. I would really appreciate an open discussion without bashing anyone.
PPS: Some instances or clients seem to compress the screenshots in a way they're unreadable. Find the full resolution here: https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
Linking the affected users and mods: @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Here I am fully ready to deep dive into some drama from a community I have zero investment in and it’s impossible to read 😩
Your instance seems to be serving you up a thumbnail of the image instead of the actual image. I recommend temporarily looking at the post from another instance, such as mine.
If I look at it from yours then it’ll be upside down.
Just flip your monitor. ez
Are you using sync? If so, It's a sync bug. Open the post and then click the image from there.
?
Lol found out here that I had been banned from the community. Ty for sharing the information :)
Regarding the matter, I understand their reaction.
I've been interacting with some vegan circles IRL and some are more "hardcore" (not in a negative way) than others. When you consider animal exploitation as mass slavery, mass torture and mass murder, it becomes increasingly difficult to tolerate even light deviations from the all-vegan path.
This being said, I would have preferred they had a better wording for the temp ban reason than "fake vegan" by which I feel insulted and hurt.
The "all or nothing" crowd really knows how to stomp on progress, huh?
It's like they don't realize that by being this hostile towards any other viewpoints, they drive away people who might otherwise be interested in becoming vegan or want to learn more. All it does is harm the community in the long run, and then they wonder why there's a stigma around vegans. That stigma then feeds into a persecution complex and that becomes a nasty vicious cycle.
Sorry but I think I disagree with that sentiment. I'd liken it to how fascists like to say that leftists annoy people away from the left; imagine thinking "well I disagree with using animals as a resource in the human endeavour but they're just so mean/annoying/polemic that I'll just keep doing the thing I disagree with". It just seems childish and you should really judge a philosophy like this on its merits instead.
Is it their job to teach and convert you? Maybe they just want a space to exist in without having to work for others.
Nobody is forcing them to reply to a comment.
Plus, if they want more people to be vegan, then kinda yeah
Maybe what they want is to be left alone in peace?
I'm sure you don't want Trump as president, it doesn't mean you want to go around having to debate with everyone and inform them why he is bad. Sometimes you want to kick back and just say 'Trump sucks shit' and not have to explain yourself because you're with likeminded company.
Right now they're getting shit on specifically because they can't even stay in peace among themselves. This is about one small group of vegans abusing their powers to stop respectful discussion among and between vegans.
No, banning people is silencing them. If they were replying with "Veganism rules, carnist drool" we would be discussing this here and that would be the equivalent you have described.
Uh, because rape doesn't keep people alive? Because rape hasn't been a part of the human diet since before recorded history? What the fuck??
Take your bullshit whataboutism elsewhere. Holy shit, I have never seen such a bad take on the topic of veganism. I hope this is hyperbole and you don't ACTUALLY think the two things are comparable.
why should survival be the standard? I want my entire needs hierarchy filled
aesthetic needs
It's full of butter though.
That's an insane comparison to make. Compare it to murder if anything.
Why is it an insane comparison?
Cows, pigs, sheeps, etc. are raped (no consent) and sexually assaulted (against their will) for dairy, meat, wool...
😂😂😂
Carry on, you are hilarious.
Dude, are you just the king of bad takes on the fediverse?
Not a lot of 100% vegan grocery stores, where do they get their food?
... it is the time to speak to a psychiatrist.
Hello dear internet user,
It looks like you need to educate yourself on at least 3 topics before using your keyboard again:
Once you've done the work, we'll be able to agree on the basics facts and exchange arguments on how we see the situation and the precise words we want to use.
Looking forward to engaging with you in good faith in the future,
Me.
Hello dear internet user
It looks like you need to educate yourself about the terms like "food chain" and "what is the difference between food and humans".
Once you've done the work, we'll be able to agree on the basics facts and exchange arguments. Looking forward to engaging with you in good faith in the future.
EDIT: It's pretty telling that everyone is reading this as an excuse to keep murdering instead of accepting that murder is part of being alive. "Life feeds on life." It is not pretty, it is ugly and dark. What should be taken away is a greater respect for all life and an understanding of what we're taking when we feed on life. It should be used as a pretext to respect all life and do your best to reduce harm to all life. Whatever life you're taking should be considered valuable and a sacrifice made. (Mass deforestation to make way for agricultural farming doesn't just hurt trees, it hurts the animals that live in them and among them, for instance. A soybean farm doesn't have the same ecological importance as an old growth forest, sorry.) The fact that this view is seen as a reason to kill more instead of kill less and have respect for the life you take is pathetic.
But keep ranting to me in your total misread of what I'm saying.
Just popping in to say the main reason that attitude is dumb because there is no such thing as moral absolutism.
Do we consider antibiotics exploitative to penicillin? Do we cry over every breath we take in which our immune system automatically murders billions of bacteria?
Just because plants don't have faces like ours and don't look like us and don't scream when we kill them killing plants is fine somehow. They're all alive, you're still killing life, and in our great inhuman lack-of-wisdom we've decided that if it doesn't have a brain and consciousness like ours, then it most not have consciousness and thus it's okay to murder and exploit them.
Just call me the fucking Lorax. Who speaks for the trees, dude?
Anyway, no such thing as moral absolutism and these people will continue to climb higher and higher on their holier-than-thou-mountain only to become caricatures of a real person.
Isn't it pretty apparent?
If it can feel pain and suffer it shouldn't.
Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.
Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.
The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering. Torture is bad because it causes suffering. Killing is bad because it causes suffering. Slavery is bad because it causes suffering. Rape is bad because it causes suffering. Abuse is bad because is causes suffering.
Veganism extends this to animals who are capable of suffering in ways identical to us humans. It also raises important questions: Would it be ethical to treat aliens the same way humanity treats non-humans? What if the aliens are sufficiently stupid, yet still capable of civilization? What if they're smarter but live in solitude? Why exactly is it unethical to kill severely mentally disabled people? Is it just because humans view themselves as superior to every other living being in the universe?
I believe veganism is the objectively moral choice. Still, I'm not vegan for various reasons. But I don't have any qualms with admitting my behavior is objectively wrong.
this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don't regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.
I'd argue minimizing suffering is basis for all ethics, just that they are achieving it in different ways.
Deontological ethics in a vacuum cause more suffering than utilitarianism. Yet (most) deontological philosophies seek to achieve as much good as possible - and therefore minimizing harm. Kant's categorical imperative is - as a layman - just a formalization of: "Do what is good for you AND others. Don't do what is good for you but bad for others."
And I believe if you ask an ethics board at a why something was not permitted, you will always get the result: "Causes too much harm". This happens despite them being allowed to evaluate based on many different philosophies.
I know very little ethics systems that don't inevitable lead to a society with less suffering if strictly followed by most. Although that might just be because society as is is objectively unethical.
all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.
From my limited knowledge, Kant was concerned with rationality first and foremost. But suffering just happens to be one of the most irrational things there is. In no world is there ever a benefit to increasing suffering because if you apply this universally you too would experience increased suffering which is irrational.
I don't think this is a coincidence. You could create a deontological philosophy that bases everything on irrationality and it would remain consistent if viewed through the lens of itself. Irrational maxims lead to contradictions, meaning this philosophy too is irrational and contradictory - which is consistent if you seek to apply irrationality universally.
Why didn't Kant come up with the inversion of his philosophy if it remains consistent? I'd argue because it would have lead to maximizing suffering which (mostly) nobody wants.
you don't know what you're talking about.
So if I understand correctly, a cow can be killed with a gun to the back of the head painlessly and its death prevents hunger for an entire family for the winter so killing it is ethical. Got it.
Again, I'm not vegan nor particularly experienced in vegan arguments but there is clear suffering here:
Edit: Also, I'm not really trying to justify eating animals. TBH I'm ironically more sympathetic to Vegans due to me being a hunter. Frankly I think meat eaters should have to participate in the harvesting of an animal you eat at least once before age of majority. That would at least confer appreciation for some of what is involved.
they're provided, veterinary care, protection from the elements, protection from predators, drinkable water, space to graze, and opportunities to socialize. it's not imprisonment.
no, we don't. we don't even know if they understand personal mortality
you can't prove this
When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of "pain, as processed by a nervous system".
At least for bacteria, their structures are simple enough to be understood to a large extent by humans. We know chemical reactions cannot suffer and we know proteins cannot suffer. Due to the simple nature of bacteria, it is highly doubtful that they are capable of suffering since all "processing" occurs through varying level of chemicals and minerals.
But I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering. Rather, the ability to experience suffering must be proven.
FWIW I don't think you need to define suffering so narrowly to make an argument for veganism or vegetarianism. You can accept that plants do feel suffering and still do it. Because the amount of plants that get killed per kilojoule of energy in beef (feeding the cows) is way more than the amount of plants killed per kilojoule of directly eating plants.
you got there eventually.
This take is a big fucking YIKES from someone who claims to care about living things.
I care about people.
Just saw your comment, I meant it in terms of that the absence of something is often impossible to prove, therefore it is a worthless metric. The metric that should be looked at is whether something is showing indication of suffering.
I couldn't even prove humans are capable of suffering either. You can prove that pain manifests itself through activation of certain brain regions but that doesn't prove the existence of suffering. It's like trying to prove that the color red is accurately visualized in your brain.
if you define it in a way that specifically precludes other creatures, that seems biased. you don't know how a single-celled organism might be able to suffer. that doesn't mean that they can't.
you can't prove this
I will not debate about whether animals, plants and bacteria suffer the same way.
This is an argument I've heard time and time again from the antivegan crowd and imo falls into the "at best very uninformed, more likely troll" category.
I'm anti-vegan and i agree with your point.
Plants feel pain too so it’s okay to stab babies. There’s no difference between pulling a potato out of the ground and punting a chihuahua over a fence! :)
If you disagree with that, you must be a moral absolutist.
What murder, sweetie?
Lol, I got my vegan card revoked (declared "a carnist") and handed my first fedi ban by the "Real Vegans™" too, for daring to call out their bullshit and ableist militant gatekeeping.
Good luck to them and the toxic cesspit they're so adamant on maintaining, the last thing anyone should be seeking is these people's approval, especially not on being a "good" or "real" vegan, since they make it crystal clear that their top priority is and always will be their own egos. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah the vegan communities are so toxic that it has turned me off of pursuing an interest into their lifestyle. I want to try out a Buddhist approach to veganism and ignore whatever the hell they're trying to achieve.
I’m so sorry! I’ve had that happen to me as well. It’s not only toxic but just makes me feel bad
It looks to me the mods there are fake vegans, trying to make as much damage to the cause as possible.
Generally very radical vegans also have a right to their own community, however I also think there should be spaces for less radical veganism as well. It seems that currently there's none of those available, or maybe the general hostility of social media against vegans makes any of their more tolerant spaces eventually close ranks to protect their sanity. Unfortunately vegan spaces are constantly brigaded by trolls so it's understandable they have a very short fuse, and a lot of people get caught in the cross-fire.
I think the only solution here would be for a new vegan community with a focus on debate with non-vegans. However it will be tricky to find the right moderators for it who either won't be non-vegans themselves and therefore support a flood of concern-trolls and bad faith arguments, or be vegans that won't get immediately burnt out.
So, last time people were mad that vegans were mean to them this community got created:
https://lemmy.world/c/plantbased
Edit: I should finish my coffee before posting, the only post there literally points to this more active com lol: https://lemmy.world/c/[email protected]
See: https://lemmy.world/post/23634881
We all know r/vegan exists and is a cesspit of carnists, but there doesn't seem to be an actual demand for a 'plant based' space. I'm not sure why people would post about something they are kind of meh and not committed to?
If people are interested in just the food, there are communities for that:
I really don't think the rules there are onerous. Just don't talk about abusing animals and don't be a jerk to the other posters and you're good?
Hey, I didn’t make plantbased to be a less committed version to veganism. I made it because from reddit to lemmy every vegan community I’ve encountered has power tripping toxic mods and I wanted to provide an alternative space.
I’m fully committed to my veganism. But I also wanted people who aren’t to be able to discuss it without being attacked.
After I wrote this I see you’re writing from a vegan instance. I have less experience with there versus vegan communities around here.
The hardcore/toxic crowd do nothing except alienate and turn people against the cause and make people think being vegan means being surrounded by assholes.
It’s people like you that welcome everyone into the discussion that inspire more people to try it out; you’re bringing about the real change.
That’s so extremely nice of you to say :)
Lol, every vegan I know which includes a chunk of my own family went vegan because of militant vegans.
I see lots of carnists with no intention of going vegan talk about how militant vegans are bad but I have never actually met someone who is vegan and stays vegan that found wishy washy people motivating or inspiring.
You can be committed and firm on your issue without being a raging asshole about it at the same time. Most of the vegan communities I've come across don't even talk about being vegan, it's just finding more ways to shit on non vegans.
I'm not even a vegetarian but I am slowly trending y'all's direction. Finding good recipes or product recommendations is key to getting my family to come along with me.
I appreciate being, if not welcomed, at least quietly tolerated!
I view that as a net positive :) trying to force people to change in one moment will never succeed.
You’re more than welcome! I view it as a space to learn and explore, not to be judged by what level vegan you are lol
The only thing I’ve moderated recently is people pushing meat in the community or being rude.
Tee hee
vegantheoryclub has both a home cooking (beware the rules re recipes), and a recipes community. There is also a discord linked with lots of pinned and extremely yummy recipes.
You are absolutely welcome to have a look, and you will not run into moderation issues unless you promote carnism. For example: wow that looks great, I'm going to have it with lamb" is as welcome as pissing in someone's face, but asking for recommendations, tips, or suggestions is completely fine.
I'll take a look, thanks.
I should clarify: when I refer to people who aren't committed to veganism I am referring to the same people you are referring to when you say "people who aren't", i.e. the non vegans discussing veganism.
I'm apparently banned from vegan theory club. I have no idea what I could have done to them.
Wow. Thats... their choice, I guess. All hail the fediverse.
They got sick of trolls invading and demanding to be debated, and lemmy.world was one of the most egregious instances. I can't blame them, vegans deserve a place to just be without every discussion turning into a debate with non-vegans.
Fair. Nobody deserves to get brigaded for living quietly and authentically.
100%
Isn't [email protected] less radical than [email protected] ?
Probably? I don't know. It started with the same mod team, didn't it?
Vegan Theory Club is more radical and different in scope. It is definitely not a place to debate veganism. I let them come to my instance after some nonsense about lemmy.world and we're not federated with lemmy.world. Vegan Theory Club is social media for vegans specifically.
What we see in this post seems to be a debate among vegans about what kinds of places are best to support. Surely that should be welcome in a place called "vegan theory"? It's a form of "debating veganism", just not one between vegans and omnivores.
If I understand my history correctly, Vegan Theory Club is a theory club for vegans, not a club for vegan theory specifically.
There is a discord server of the same name which is way more active for the discussion of leftist theory. Members of the instance can make communities - it's just no one has created one specifically to talk about vegan theory.
Hamid was respond to a suggestion for communities for vegans to debate carnists which db0 correctly identified as draining.
I'm not sure what debate between vegans would be. Debating our interpretation of texts? There is a book club community that's perfect for that.
Literally what I just said. "Is it better for one restaurant to succeed with 100% vegan food while most other restaurants entirely lack vegan options, or for every restaurant to have a couple of good vegan options?"
Your instance admin seems to have established (in the comments of this thread) a pretty clear strong opinion on that topic, but a less obnoxious community could have debates like that among themselves and create fruitful results. Which is what it seems was happening in the thread this post is about, until the mods of the LW vegan community put a stop to it.
I really don't know why carnists have such strong opinions on vegan spaces.
There is no debating on the side of allowing a restaurant to serve meat on a vegan messaging board. Debating this is missing the point of veganism entirely and my user community understands this and is why they created an account on a small instance like Vegan Theory Club. We are of a similar mind and the club is for people to find people on the same page as them. It works, we have off lemmy resources and an active discord. Veganism isn't a diet, it is a social justice movement to end the human exploitation of Animals, debating that serving meat is ok would get you banned on my instance as well. Personally I would have shut down a vegan restaurant before introducing meat and reopened as something else.
I don't personally eat at non vegan restaurants ever. I almost never go to restaurants at all frankly and prefer potlucks and cooking at our homes when I hang out with my friends. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-prole-info-abolish-restaurants
In an ideal world I'd love to have only vegan restaurants and everyone being vegan globally. As this is not within my power, I am looking for a way that benefits veganism the most.
I think the easier it gets to be vegan, the more people will get on board. If you get vegan options only in specialized places in big cities, that will make it hard for anyone not living close to that or being part of social cycles not 100% vegan.
If a purely vegan restaurant survives economically, I am more than happy. But if they don't, I definitely prefer them to add a few omnivore dishes rather than closing completely and getting replaced by another steakhouse.
I don't think having this opinion makes me any kind of bad vegan or fake vegan but I'm happy to hear your points if you think otherwise.
I think the piece of information that is being missed is that VTC is inherently anti capitalist and therefore the concept of "supporting businesses" so that they can survive doesn't really make sense in that context. (See link Hamid posted)
Just in the context of trying to get a work group to go to lunch, finding a place that fits everyone's diets is tough, so if a place exists that is one, and only one, diet type then big groups wont be able to go there for business events or catering. Depending on the location, that could be a huge revenue source missed.
Veganism is in its core a boycott, so that is the default take. I don't live in a big city so I don't go to restaurants. If you read the link I posted, I think there are a lot of problems with restaurants that go beyond veganism and they are offensive to me as an anarchist. I strongly dislike businesses, business owners and I like to do things for myself. To that end the more I lean on a life of compromise the less I feel is being done. By organizing pot lucks, friends dinners, participating in my local Food Not Bombs and promoting home cooking I am building an alternative to the carnist structures in our world that is more meaningful than making an individual decision to go to a carnist business and give them money that they then invest in more carnist businesses. This is also why I don't really like buying products labeled "vegan" from meat companies or buying impossible burgers from Burger King, we aren't convincing them to switch, we are participating in horizontal segmentation where they carve out two markets from one that don't cannibalize each other. I used to have the meeting notes from an shareholder meeting at Burger King where the CEO explains this but I lost it in my international move a few years ago among all my boxes of computer stuff. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/horizontalmarket.asp
I think adding meat dishes to a vegan restaurant and still calling it vegan is offensive and anti-vegan. If you want to go to restaurants then I guess that is a compromise you have to make for your own reasons but I don't think that it is vegan decision in scope. I don't attack people online or in person for it but I don't think you'd be a good fit for a community of radical vegans and anti capitalists. I probably wouldn't remove your comments from a message board like he lemmy.world one which is basically a vegan news community and appeals to beginners and transitioners but I would remove it from my instance. There is no requirement to go to restaurants in this world and my life got more interesting when I stopped going to places like that.
But if they are not participating in the vegan boycott, are they on board? I've been a vegan for a long time and understand people are at different places, that said the biggest problem is recidivism. The longer you go as a vegan making compromises the less likely that you're going to stick with it. For me this meant that at one point I needed to actually change my life and social groups to align with what I believe instead of forcing what I believe into a world that doesn't agree and is hostile. For me this was a good decision, I made new friends, I have new things to do and I'm far more socially active as a mid 40s vegan in my vegan world than most of my old friends and coworkers are.
Thanks for clarifying
I think you go way to lean on the mods. I don't think its anything but power tripping for a few mods to decide who gets to be a "real vegan" and who is a "fake vegan" if they don't actually consume animal based products.
I (a vegan) got banned from there for finding the love of cows cloying. I said we shouldn't have to pretend cows are cute to convince others not to kill and eat them.
It really isn't a place for even back and forth amongst friends, "no conversation - only agreement"
cloying
adjective
Neat, new word.
Actually it's from the 14th century
New word for them
Yeah
I know
Everyone knows
Literally
Every
Single
Person
I think cows are adorable (in a positive manner :D) but yes, completely agree. Being a vegan shouldn't require that you passionately love being in contact with all kinds of species. I mean - despite them playing a role in the ecosystem - who loves ticks or mosquitoes?
Ticks and mosquitoes aren't vegan either, are they? That has nothing to do with liking them, it just suddenly occurred to me.
I'm not sure if there's any species other than humans that would be considered 'vegan'. My feeling is that it requires some kind of explicit choice to explicitly go plant-based only despite being able to digest all kind of food. An animal that's 100% plant-based would be probably rather called herbivore than vegan. But maybe there are also some species or individuals that are exactly like that and we as humans just don't know about it.
This is super weird to me. Back on the Asian ass porn site known as Reddit I could just go into vegan subs and have casual conversations about recipes and cooking techniques. It didn’t matter that I eat meat.
After the API kerfuffle we all celebrated how friendly the internet can be and now you get preemptively banned because you COULD be a bad actor in disguise.
To a point I understand the frustration vegans have to live with. The constant childish trolling can be exhausting, but this is pretty much the worst way to handle this.
Every good cause has fundamentalist dickheads who try to coopt it and make it about them.
And realistically they're more likely to end up here
you're just defederated. you're not personally banned: it's your whole instance.
Never said I was.
I thought it would make you feel better that it's not personal
Even when I was banned I wouldn’t feel bad. I don’t need a community that unwelcoming to others. But thanks for looking out. I appreciate that.
Purity gatekeeping, and purity competitions, are the bane of any movement. Sorry that happened to you. FWIW I thought your comments were reasonable
Another day, another
dietvegan/carnivore dramafyi the normal diet people eat is omnivorous, not carnivorous.
That looked like vegan/vegan drama
I didn't see any anti-vegan comment
A few days ago there was a carnivore drama in this community
Indeed. This is not like that.
Ed after reading the earlier one
That was about a diet community banning users who were blanket down voting
This is a diet community banning users who were participating in relevant conversation about the subject because they weren't sufficiently spiteful
Veganism isn't a diet, it is a social justice movement for animal rights.
It's both!
No,since veganism impacts way more than diet. Diet is only one part of it.
It can be. I know a lot of the loudest vegans insist this is the only acceptable definition. But that's not how language works. A vegan is someone who abstains from all animal food products, and usually all/most other animal products. Their reason for doing so is not an essential part of the definition.
This is the kind of nonsense we have to deal with.
Not quite sure what you mean, sorry.
Carnists having a good ol' game of "muddy the waters, then play coy".
Oh, my comment was the alleged nonsense? In that case I disagree strenuously. The nonsense is one quite extremist vegan using their powers to silence other vegans from having respectful conversation.
Promoting animal products isn't abstaining from animal products.
Being against the exploitation of animals is the main thing that sets vegans apart from the plant-based folks.
Veganism is abstaining from animal products. The reason is immaterial. Repeatedly asserting the contrary doesn't change that fact.
So you're just going to ignore a part of the definition because it doesn't suit your argument.
I've explained the definition here already. The definition given by one vegan organisation is not authoritative. Because definitions are defined by how words are used, not by how individual organisations say they should be used. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on this point. Catch up on the thread next time before responding.
The British vegan society was founded by the man Donald Watson as he coined the vegan word with his friends. Its not just "one vegan organization"
You're not vegan so you do not get to speak so authoritatively on the topic.
You are simply not correct and there isn't much more to discuss. There is an actual agreed on definition of veganism by vegans, created by the vegan society who created veganism and coined the term vegan to describe themselves. They created the word vegan for this specific reason, it didn't exist before and you can't redefine it because you don't like it. The reason for doing so is absolutely an essential part of the definition. If they are not doing it for this reason then they are plant based and not vegan.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Sorry, but that is just not how language works. One group does not get to define a term and insist everyone else uses it in the precise way they do. Words' meanings are defined by how they are used. And the term vegan is used in the way I described all the time.
A word's meaning can also change over time. Even if you were correct that the term was coined to be an ethical standpoint, that would not preclude it later evolving to have the broader meaning it does in today's society. That would be the etymological fallacy. But in fact you are not correct about that either. The term was coined by Donald Watson and Dorothy Morgan, because they wanted a more concise term for non-dairy vegetarians. The first time the term had caught on in the wider public enough to make it into a dictionary, the agreed meaning of vegan was "a vegetarian who eats no butter, eggs, cheese, or milk". You can thus talk about ethical veganism (which seems to be the only subtype of veganism your definition would accept), environmental veganism, or dietary veganism.
I made exactly the same point to the university when I wanted to open a quantum research lab studying really big distances (see quantum leap) but they said it would be confusing and stupid to accept ignorant people's definition of technical terms.
If you don't know the difference between a scientific term in scientific research and a casual term used informally, I don't know how to help you. But I suspect in this case, rather than ignorant, you are acting in bad faith.
But anyway, I don't view the casual meaning of quantum leap as being that different from its scientific meaning anyway. Quantum leap in physics doesn't mean "really small leap", it means a leap that is very sudden and does not pass through any point in between. It seems quite reasonable, by analogy, to use it to refer to any paradigm shift.
blah blah blah, I am dumber for having heard from you
Hey look it's the problem
Whoof, the projection is strong with this one lol.
Dude, we really don’t care. Could you please go back to [email protected] and yell at clouds there instead?
Edited
Not really. It is a diet and a lifestyle based on abstaining from animal products.
This is why plantbased was made recently
Yup!
@[email protected]
And it's a great community too. I don't participate because it isn't for me, but so far it has been a breath of fresh air how chill it is
Vegans biting each other 😉
The vegan Community is actually quite shit. They don't hesitate to delete your comment just because you aren't a vegan, even if you agree with them in certain points.
There's a word that describes communities like that, echochambers.
Love the user name. Ruminant revolution!
Its a fact. Also cows are much cooler than horses, because unlike them they are actually useful. Also I cows are very chill so you can cuddle with them a lot.
can cows be ridden?
They can.
For a short time.
obviously the value of an organism comes from its utility to humans
Even apart from being more useful cows are still the superior animal.
okay, modulo the carnist thinking, it remains pure vachauvanism. (I hope you enjoy my punmanteu.)
PTB. vegans deserve better representation in their leaders than this i hope we can get an alternative community that can allow discussion without weird purity purges.
![email protected]
so true! plants are based
Is Sunshine Beaver's alt? If so then yeah i could understand why this happen.
I don't know about this and I also don't know if she is the one who deleted the comments and triggered the bans. In general, I appreciate her content. She is posting lots of interesting articles (not only in the vegan community) and I guess Lemmy needs people like her providing content to debate about.
Just if debate is not desireable, then I don't think it makes sense to post it to a social platform. Social platforms without interaction and different opinions are just dead link lists. Then I can also just set up a RSS reader on the news sites I'd like to follow.
No dispute here, i'm just saying this sorta remind me of the controversy beaver kick off 4 months ago in the vegan community, behaviour-wise it's very similar.
This is a fundamental problem with much of Lemmy TBH. There is zero room for discussion on any contentious topic. Period. You're either on the side the mods believe in, or are in a race to get moderated. It's a fundamental flaw with the federation concept. Because it is impossible to permanently purge legit trolls any semblance of it gets harshly dealt with because that's the only way to stem the tide of BS. Unfortunately this creates a huge chasm between any 2 viewpoints preventing any legitimate argumentation and fosters echo chambers.
Trump getting voted in is my go to example. Judging by all the posts, comments, and voting patterns it looked like that guy had zero policies anyone would vote for. It was a sure thing Harris was going to win. That whole fiasco proves how out of touch Lemmy is with the real world because it isn't treated as a forum for discussion.
Isn't Reddit the same? Looking at Reddit quickly, it seemed to be a sure Harris win
No, as it is not federated the underlying problems are different. There is less stress on moderators and dialogue is naturally constrained by the possibility of permanent banishment from the platform. I haven't been there in months but in my decade of using it previously I was never banned presumably because moderators aren't on a hair trigger or have oversight focused on the preservation of the platform above all else.
Is there stupidity and over-moderation on Reddit? Ofc. But, it is not the Wild West that Lemmy is.
Edit: FTR I'm not pro-Reddit either.
You can have a look at ![email protected], moderation there has changed quite a bit in the last months
Also
I was thinking exactly that, she is certainly behaving very similarly to how Beaver did back in the day and is absolutely power-tripping now. If banning people who criticize the mod's posts in any way is power-tripping, then accusing people of being fake vegans for disagreeing is absolutely power tripping.
Exactly
Removed by mod
I see what you did there :)
I removed your comment because it's out of topic and it's bringing up a completely other drama to spike controversy. I.e. you're trolling.
While we're on the topic of modding in this thread, GrammarPolice got banned, but it doesn't look like the comment that they were banned for has been removed. Is this intentional?
If there's a good-faith counter-aguments already on that thread and might leave the originating comment up so that their effort is not lost.
I was talking specifically about the giant ascii art with a profane curse as the only text.
But I just had a look and it seems like it was removed, but that the removal hasn't federated to my instance properly. Dammit, I thought the recent update had fixed LW's federation problems.
You were off-topic and trolling. You were not discussing, you were bellyaching and bringing up another drama-laden topic that has been discussed to death and had multiple threads about it locked in this very comm. Now stop whinging and touch grass ffs. I just removed one of your comments. didn't even ban you.
yo bpr that fool
In any case, that drama was off-topic, doesn't seem like powertripping to remove it.
What
*Former Vegan Resturant
I mean what level of vegan are you? Do you eat anything that casts a shadow?
Last time I walked through a field. I'm pretty sure the wheat barley and corn all casted shadows.
in a simpsons episode lisa meets a vegan who says he is a level 5 vegan and does not eat anything that casts a shadow.
Definitely PTB.
Dang, an actual PTB!
Defining removing the comments was already borderline PTB, though one can argue that since vegans tend to insist on dealt strict policies in vegan C/s, that it is within bounds to remove comments and posts as needed to maintain their space.
But holy shit, the "you aren't a real vegan" went right off the rails. And then bans for it. That's not even crossing the line in this specific case, it's kicking the line and spitting on its grave.
Mind you, sometimes it's necessary to ban people that aren't an actual part of the specific group a forum/community is for. It is case specific whether or not someone is power tripping.
But this case is soooo far into power tripping it's almost a parody
I thought the vegans left lemmy.world.
Seems like mods are helping those left behind
One of the first communities I blocked.
Likewise.
PTB for sure, they're removing comments not 100% in support of them which is iffy, but now they are trying to decide that people aren't real vegans because they don't agree with the mods, WTF?!?
Also is it just me or does this mod seem like they might be an Alt of Beaver (a previous mod of the Vegan community who was removed from the community for power-tripping) was known for making alts and trying to sneak herself back in as mod a few times with her alts, as well as fostering ill will towards the mod who removed her using her alt accounts. She ultimately deleted her accounts after being called out for the behavior and when these tactics weren't working.
@[email protected] Maybe you might want to look into this, it's very possible the person who was power-tripping before was somehow able to get back in as a mod on an alt account without you or other mods knowing it was them.
I can't read that but yeah the Vegan community here has a long history of being total assholes.
Militant vegans always seemed cult-like to me, and nothing reinforced that idea more than seeing posts from the vegan group on here.
Didn't take long for me to block that community.
Lemmy vegans are a never ending source of entertainment, aren't they?
Also, I had a quick look through the community, and it's mostly one person posting, with a big chunk of their posts attracting zero comments.
Very strange.
It used to be pretty active, but everyone bailed right around when the mods started with the purity tests and thumbscrews. Like most subcultures viewed as 'cringe', the reputation comes from one or two users being fucking weirdos and then everyone reposting their insanity for meme points.
Resolution is fine your peoples
clientinstance is just trashNot the client's fault. The instance's.
Cheers
unrelated to the drama:
who are these 'screenshots' for? because they're so small and compressed I cannot read the text.... are these automated or?
They're not. That's your instance showing you the thumbnail instead of the real image, for some reason. Contact your admins to see if they can fix the problem, and in the meantime view the image from another instance.
fascinating, I use lemmy.world, appreciate the feedback
https://imgur.com/a/8XdexTm
ty
Your resolution is weak.
You know what's worse than being a fake vegan? Being a fake gamer.
Almost all vegans are "fake". Start with the bees used to pollinate the food. End with a wasp dying in a fig...
It's all definition in the end. I think that's random and the mod is random. But idk, let them echo chamber a little.
Yeah. The plant lifecycle depends on animals, and the animal life cycle depends on plants. You can't divorce one from the other and have a sustainable ecosystem.
Ohh no. Anyways.
Shit like this is why I went back to eating eggs and dairy.
Also my (still vegan) wife took in a bunch of chickens.
Damn the dairy industry is the worst for the world too. Wouldn't you say your morals are pretty flimsy if you'll give up on em to avoid looking cringey?
No, I asked myself why am I spending more money to the same conglomerates to receive a shittier product.
It's "easy" to be a modern vegan...if you give half your food budget to Monsanto and Kellogs.
Being an ethical vegan is damn near impossible in the modern grocery market. Especially if you have a life outside being a vegan.
So I can pay top dollar for some shit cheese that barely melts, made by some giant food corp...for what? To feel better about protecting the environment? Why? So that more hicks in Texas can roll coal to their nearest buccees to buy a liter of diet coke in a Styrofoam cup?
Fuck it. The world's going down in a hand basket anyway. If nobody else is gonna change them I'm not gonna disadvantage myself financially before the coming collapse by eating inferior ice cream.
I fuel my pathos into funding a local regenerative farm that I can visit and see the ecology. Sure, ordering food two weeks ahead of time is a headache, but I know where every dollar is going.
This is an Appeal to Futility fallacy, which can render any argument immobile. "Why vote, it doesn't matter anyway". "Why help the needy, my contribution won't fix the problem". "Why continue living, we're just gonna die anyway".
If everyone thinks along your lines, society and the world basically just falls to bits. If the world suddenly adopted my view, climate change is basically solved, the risk of zoonotic diseases (COVID, bird flu, swine flu etc) basically stops, the risk of treatment resistant antibiotics hugely drops, conscious feeling creatures aren't tortured and killed for pleasure.
The worst Monsanto vegies are absolutely more ethical than the best meat, for the planet, for your health and for the animal.
Sure. If.
But it's not going to happen. Ever. The world is doomed and it's a massive systemic issue. Me eating fake cheese isn't going to fix it. A million people eating fake cheese won't help it. It will exacerbate it.
The problem is capitalism and the scale of industrial farming. It's not going to change by people being voluntarily vegan.
Appeal to Futility again. A vegan diet literally fixes the problem. It would remove 68% of the food chains climate emissions.
What do you think drives capitalism? If YOU stop eating animal products, and convince other people like I have, the demand for them drops. YOU are the problem, YOU are creating the demand, stop blaming a system, when you're literally the reason it exists.
didn't you try that?
And Ive reduced my carbon emissions immensely. Now it's your turn.
You're not god.
Nor are you. And unlike God (and you, apparently), I'm existing in reality.
That's a lot of arrogance to say you're "existing in reality" when nobody can see into the future.
I doubt it
If the world went vegan, deforestation would drop by 94%, which by itself would achieve 23% of the climate mitigation over a 15 year period.
Global farmland would also be reduced by 75%, returned an area the size of China back to forest.
Meat alone accounts for 15% of the entire planets greenhouse gas emissions, and 75% of all food emissions.
It's literally the best thing a single person can do for the climate, so what's stopping you?
there is no reason to believe the land would be reforested
I'm going to start replying in bad faith like you do, single lines that don't further the conversation, ready?
"Petition governments and farm owners to have it reforested".
I doubt it
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Imagine you were on a debate stage and someone cited a stat and your debate reply was quietly going up to the mic and going "doubt it".
You're not pithy or glib, just lazy and boring.
I doubt it
I doubt it
Don't doubt it.
do you have a plan to make that happen?
Yeah, go vegan.
didn't you already try that?
Yeah now your turn.
that's not happening now, so don't worry about it.
What part do you disagree with.
I said what I meant.
Which part specifically.
I am super confused by your comments. It is cheaper to be vegan. I'm on welfare benefits for one person and am able to afford being vegan plus afford food for my non-vegan SO. Your comment about vegan cheese that doesn't melt sounds like you haven't tried more different vegan cheeses; for example if you want vegan mac n cheese you would make a vegan cheese sauce, not throw in a block of vegan cheese from the store and lament how it doesn't melt. I have not needed dairy cheese for my meals, for burritos or burgers or anything like that and do not miss the taste or texture of dairy cheese. I also don't consider vegan ice cream inferior, honestly you sound anti-vegan. Maybe you are just venting in defense but this is pretty much the language I would expect from my carnist family members.
It sounds like you don't care about the morality of veganism (something I care very much about), that you did it more for the environment and once you felt inconvenienced you abandoned it. I do feel sad for you because not only is it cheaper to be vegan, but it can be delicious and you are not harming animals in order to do so. Do you still buy store eggs? I have a family member with about 7 hens and they still have to supplement with store eggs. The abuse cows go through for humans to have dairy (and meat obviously) is unacceptable to me. Yes, capitalism needs to be abolished, but in the meantime animals are dying by the millions every year.
It is very hard to get people to change, but I don't think we should just give up on it. A lot of people do not have open minds about veganism, it's gotten to the point that I hate bringing it up. And I am tired of arguing with my SO over it, that could really be its own post lol. I really only feel safe talking about veganism online, but that's at least a first step.
for some people
edit: I have been politely asked not to engage in the off topic discussion in this community.
Why only for some?
Looks like the vegan admin has an aggression problem. Maybe he or she should at least occasionally eat some meat to calm the cravings.
Edit: /s, for the idiots who did not get it. Wow, are some people stuck up. Do they have the same problems that the admin had?
Even though I don't share her point of view, that part of your comment is totally inappropriate and rude.
How is it rude?
It's funny though
Look, sometimes we make jokes at the expense of others. Don't say you don't because we all have and do, all the time. Stop shaming someone just because they made a joke. Have a sense of humor, understand that sometimes it's funny to laught about going to hell. A jest here and there is perfectly fine. Also, it's not like this person was Gandhi, they deserve some jest
Making a joke about someone you don't regularly interact with even on a forum seems to be laughing about them rather than with them.
And sometimes a joke is just a joke. Learn to take one.
Once we get to the point where we are perfectly sensitive to every little irk that any person might have, we will be at the point where nobody interacts with anybody because we won't be able to as anything and everything can be insulting.
I have people joke about me all the time, it's fine. I'm not following this person around to yell it in their face, it's a comment in passing. It doesn't hurt anyone unless you decided to stop and make a big deal out of it.
Don't make a big deal out of it, it was a little joke, everyone is fine. I've been relentlessly bullied for my entire youth, and I learned the hard way that some of the bullying you call out on your own with your behavior. If you cry over every little innocent joke, people will pile on. My bullying stopped when I decided it would stop. I changed, the bullying stopped.
Have you seen their attitude? They definitely deserve to be laughed at
They can be power tripping but still not be mocked
Eh, imo the best way deal with bullies is to laugh at them, so I'll beg to differ on this point.
Not sure if keeping a "strict vegan" space should be considered bullying. There was also no such jokes on the carnivore thread, doing similar mod actions
I think it's a difference if you joke about someone close to you or some stranger. Also joking about 'vegans' as a whole group is fine for me. But if you're aiming at specific people with that kind of jokes, it feels more like bullying to me.
I guess even if you didn't know her before, we learnt in this thread that being vegan seems to be a (the?) part of her identity and that she's pretty sensitive about it. To me that feels a bit (!) like laughing about trans person for looking unauthentic or having the wrong genitals.
Gotta jump right to the one that'll seem most extreme, eh?
Veganism is a choice, being trans isn't, that's the difference
I'm sure there are better analogies than the one I made up. It was just one that I felt remotely comparable. That's why I said 'a bit!'. I'm open to replace it with a better one if you can make one up.
I think that depends a bit on the person. In my case it was a mostly rational choice. If your decision is more emotionally motivated and becomes a very central part of your identity, it may rather feel like religion or fundamental morals. I can't speak for Sunshine but apparantly in her mind, there's little room for discussion or interpretation.
I’m not undoing the bans as the comments literally go against the definition of veganism ie no animal products for the reason of ethics, serving meat options in an establishment isn’t even vegetarian let alone vegan. Words are supposed to have meaning or language is completely pointless.
The foods that are vegan and plant-based have zero animal products. It is not up for debate.
You’re welcome to post and comment in flexitarian communities instead.
Thanks for taking the time to comment here.
From my perspective, that's a classical strawman. No one said that food with animal products is vegan or that a restaurant that serves animal products should be considered a vegan restaurant.
I just prefer a restaurant that still serves a large number of vegan options over the average omnivore restaurant that has no or just very few vegan options. That's better for me personally but IMO also for the vegan movement as a whole as it eases access to vegan food for everyone.
I went fully vegan 3 years ago - I don't think it's fair to call me or others fake vegans or flexitarians just because we have a slightly different opinion on a certain topic.
I would trip over your description "a vegan restaurant that serves a bit of meat" as well, because it doesn't make sense to call it "vegan" then.
I can understand why someone would want to prevent the term "vegan" from being watered down.
If a supposedly vegan restaurant suddenly offers non-vegan dishes, this carries more weight for vegans than if some other restaurant tinkers with its menu.
You may have already advertised the "vegan" restaurant in good faith and now they're stabbing you in the back.
The change also shows that the owners themselves are not vegan. And then, of course, you question everything: were the ingredients ever properly screened? What about the wine? Were the chairs covered in leather? Were the candles made from beeswax?
Just imagine a "vegan" restaurant that has an advertising banner for the elephant circus hanging on the door. Outrage would be justified. But they even put fucking meat on the menu.
"Vegan" is a statement. People should not tag it on their business if they're merely coicidentally plant-based and don't actually care for animal rights.
It would certainly have been more conciliatory for everyone if the mods had made it clear in the thread why they were upset about the comments. On the other hand, I can also understand if they were not in the mood for the hundredth discussion and would rather take the "easier" route and delete the comment. But I also think it's excessive to justify it with "fake vegan". You're vegan if you leave your hands off the animals. Semantic considerations are not necessary.
That being said, it's wonderful that you're both vegan and that the topic is obviously important to you. Don't let a loose string on the jointly pulled rope divide you. We have more important battles to fight.
Vegan btw
I was almost certain that I wrote 'mostly vegan restaurant' or something similar. Indeed, my wording wasn't ideal.
That's very good arguments that I can get behind and which I would have been very happy to hear in the original discussion. With such an explanation I can understand one's reaction much better. From my perspective, that's exactly the kind of discourse that I seek when I write to a vegan community.
Different people have different opinions and not in all cases the one side will succeed to convince the other. But still we should at least try to explain our stand point and likewise try to understand others.
With posts like yours, you have a chance to bring change to the world. If you just ban and censor your opponents, you just keep on dividing society.
Serious question, not meant to be antagonistic. I'm honestly just curious.
Is the purpose of your community to simply be an echo chamber of similar opinions? Is debate not allowed, or having a different opinion?
I will never visit that community, but this seems like a wild abuse of mod powers. You do whatever you want, I don't care and have no skin in the game, but don't you want to foster discussion on your community? An echo chamber with other vegans doesn't seem conducive to achieving anything, other than maybe a feels good circlejerk. The downvote button exists if you have a different opinion. A straight ban for not toeing the line seems like further isolating your view points from the greater Lemmy community, as well as entrenches the view point a lot of people have that vegans are hostile to non-vegans.
Calling other vegans fake vegans and banning them tho is whack as fuck but pretty hilarious
When I go to a vegan community, I don't want to debate with carnists. I would consider that trolling. There are other places meant for debating. Vegan communities are basically safe spaces to talk with other vegans and people that want to be vegan.
Too many carnists troll the vegan communities, they created this problem. I first joined lemmy during the reddit exodus on a .world account. The vegan community at that point was poorly moderated and most of the comments were carnists circle jerking about how eating meat is so great to them. Finally, active people took over and it became so much better to actually browse that community once these trolls were banned. This behavior is nothing new btw, I've seen assholes on reddit and facebook do the same to vegan spaces. You'll notice I'm no longer on .world, I disagree with their modding practices and lately I feel even more justified in leaving that cesspool.
I want vegan news, vegan recipes, and vegan discussion. I do not want carnists coming in, at all. People can come in asking genuine questions about veganism, but no debating whatsoever. I do not mod any of these communities btw, but this is what I want as a user.
It seems hostile to you because you have not had to deal with the constant carnist trolls. People who complain vegans are militant or hostile is a red flag for me, it really means that vegans are too unapologetic about their veganism instead of being passive people who don't rock the boat or question the status quo. These people are defensive about vegans pointing out that they are consuming products made from abuse, rape, and murder. They want to be treated with kiddie gloves. Sorry, but no vegan is obligated to do so.
Thanks for the honest reply. I guess a couple thoughts I have on your response.
The screenshot in question was a vegan banning other vegans for not being vegan enough, so this didn't seem like carnist trolls, this seems like multiple people integrated within the vegan community getting banned for having a slightly different opinion.
Is carnists a real term? I don't think I have ever heard of someone who eats exclusively meat, unless this term is meant a different way
Anyway, sorry about the trolling you experience. I am personally not vegan, though I find the endeavor admirable. I think a lot of Lemmy and social media, and social circles in general need to practice a bit of "live and let live"
Hope the late reply is fine, I had a trip that wiped me out.
yes, the mod is being protective of the community. To you it is a slightly different opinion, to someone who follows a vegan lifestyle, it is not really vegan. Like at all. Vegans want to eliminate meat altogether. So if you eliminate meat by having a vegan restaurant, but then bring meat in, it is not vegan anymore. Idk what I would have done as a mod. Wanting meat at a restaurant is not vegan even if you are just trying to attract more customers so you do not close down. It might make more sense if you replace the word "meat" with "abuse, rape, and murder." Would you accept a little murder, even killing children to stay in business? I get it is hard to get a non-vegan to try vegan food, I've written before about how my SO basically refuses to try vegan food.
carnists is a real term. It is:
"A proponent of carnism; one who supports the practice of eating meat and using other animal products."
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/carnist
It is the opposite of veganism. They are essentially anti-vegan. They like to go in vegan areas and debate with everyone to try to justify their consumption of meat. It makes them feel good to troll us.
And yes there are people who try to eat nothing but meat, it is called a carnivore diet. I have a family member who is on the diet, they pretty much only want to eat steak. There is a new community on lemmy about it, I blocked it obviously. The mod of said community was whining about their stuff getting downvoted in their community on a different lemmy community. Judging by the amount of people (including admins) who hate vegans on lemmy.world, I thought their community would be very successful.
I get the whole "live and let live" thing about a difference in opinion on who the best character on a show you are watching is. But when it involves actual lives, I think it's time to speak up. Vegans are annoying because they want people to stop killing animals for consumption and people would rather vegans just shut up and go away so they can enjoy their meat without thinking about where it came from, that's it. Talk about veganism outside of a vegan community and be prepared to get ratioed.
that is not what carnist means
A carnist is the opposite to a vegan, the opposing side. If you support the use and consumption of animal products, you are a carnist. If you are vegan, I am interested in how you define carnism. If you are not vegan, I am not interested in how you define it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism
EDIT: this person is not a vegan and is actually a carnist wasting people's time
it's not antivegan, and no lexicon, encyclopedic or scholarly article would support the assertion it is. it's not about how I define it: it's about how it is defined in reputable sources.
You do realise that plants get pollinated by animals, right?
And…? They’re not being used by humans. They do it out of their free will in the wild.
You’re gasping at straws.
That's like bees and honey, yes? Do you eat honey? Eggs?
I don’t eat those. You have to imprison and exploit chickens and bees for those 2 things. Pollination is no way comparable.
Veganic farms don’t use bees and if they’re there it’s because they’re interested in some flowers or scent.
That's hilarious, especially when referring to bees
Pollination is not comparable to honey production? Oh boy, I may have a news for you.
Yup, just like anywhere else. Chickens are interested in being fed and have a night time shelter where they be safe.
Great now you’re grasping at straws. Arguing in bad faith.
Bees aren’t murdered or starved for pollination that’s what happens under honey production by bee enslavers.
Laying eggs is a painful experience for hens and people who sell their eggs prioritize the production output over the living environment for the chickens.
That's what you are doing with your argument that pollination by bees is somehow different.
🤣🤣🤣
How do you know that, exactly? Any evidence?
And yet I somehow don't see plenty of free roaming chickens living around. Have you ever considered why?