I tend to browse /All and by New on Lemmy. I went to respond on a thread on !vegan@lemmy.world to thank someone for a recipe that looked good, and found out I had been banned.
Odd, considering I hadn't posted to that sub at any point in the past. I checked the modlog to find that "Mod" had banned a bunch of people citing "Rule 5."
Their Rule 5 states: Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future (see current stickied discussion).
I (and hundreds of others) seemingly broke rule 5 of this community without ever posting there. What is going on?
And my apologies if this isn't the place for this, but I had no idea where else to post the question.
Do you mean:
Because neither of those is an argument for veganism. Veganism is not a diet, it's a moral stance. Every case of considering it from the perspective of being a moral stance, as it is, you're opposed to. So all of your arguments are against veganism, as it actually is.
Of course, the garbage that you pass off as "logic" is just, "It's wrong to apply your morals to other people," which is a completely laughable position. You "apply your morals to other people" if you think its acceptable to punish murder. You "apply your morals to other people" if you tell people it's wrong to apply your morals to other people. But sure, it's only "logically unsound arguments" that you're opposed to, which is why you employ them.
You are most certainly purposefully misunderstanding things at this stage.
Yes, I wasn't arguing for (or against) veganism and never stated I was. I was arguing against reasons some may give and defending logical ones.
No, veganism isn't a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person's stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don't claim that everyone in a group must also ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.
And no, punishing murder is not a moral stance, it's a self-preservationist stance. If you can go out and murder indiscriminately, then you yourself can be murdered just as easily.
I'm sorry you don't understand logic. Please don't attempt to explain to me one of my degrees when you clearly don't have even a loose grasp on the concept. Here's a free course you can take to better understand logic as opposed to a personal moral stance.
That simply isn't what the word means. If you think veganism is a diet, then do you think vegan leather is meant to be eaten?
Oreos used to use lard, in the 90's, they changed the recipe to use vegetable oil to make it kosher, and also, coincidentally, vegan. I suppose this hypothetical "vegan purely for taste" person just happened to hate Oreos right up until then, even though they taste the same. They must have the most sensitive tongue in the world. "The Princess and the Pea" has nothing on them.
You suggest that someone's stomach "handles meat poorly," but that would just lead them to be a vegetarian. Does their stomach also "just happen" to handle dairy, eggs, lard, gelatin, etc poorly too? Does wearing leather give them a rash? If animals are harmed in the production of something, but no part of the animal made it into the finished product, do they, what, get assailed by malevolent spirits?
You are simply wrong about this, and your position on what veganism is is completely incoherent and nonsensical if you stop and think about it for 10 seconds, let alone actually read anything about it.
I am begging lost Redditors to read literally the first sentence of Wikipedia about a subject before trying to speak as an authority on it.