before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you’ll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it’s almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn’t want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in [email protected] (though i’m still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of someone fitting the label of
frankly, I don’t care for debate at all. id rather you read what I say, understand it is true, and upvote.
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 🤓”
when i’m saying something factual, getting pushback indicates a level of cognitive dissonance that i find, personally, annoying.
Yeah, and other people feel the same way when what they say is factual and what you’re saying is a load of bull.
they may feel that way, but I know what I’m saying is True
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. “skepticism”, maybe, but i’m not opposed to it.
what I said is true
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.
this probably isn’t the correct forum to discuss the finer points of veganism, but i’m willing to continue here if you can start affecting a congenial tone.
Fuck no. Absolutely fucking not.
oh have a nice day
Hope you get banned harder next time 👍
disengage
pain avoidance is very different from death avoidance, in that avoiding death requires that you understand that you, yourself, might die. we call this understanding “personal mortality” and we don’t have proof non-human animals understand personal mortality, so we cant possibly have proof they want not to die. to the best of our understanding, they are death-agnostic.
Survival instincts are incredibly well documented and proven beyond a doubt, you are completely wrong.
if you can’t provide any proof that non-human animals understand personal mortality, this is just handwaving.