You’re welcome to engage in good faith. I have infinite patience for anyone genuinely interested in discussion. It is against the rules of this community to post antivegan rhetoric.
Your initial comment was borderline butI decided to engage in good faith. Then you didn’t engage with anything I said and said a few random gotchas. Other mods are welcome to intervene if they felt I removed your comment in error.
If you would like to rephrase your reply and write a better one you are welcome to do so.
This post is about how vegans engage with non-vegans.
I noted that often many vegans who are arguing on online forums (this is something I also specified in both comments, because I acknowledge and respect the fact that small online communities don’t necessarily represent everyone, or even most people) are often very dogmatic. This can be seen from them getting very upset when they can’t answer certain rhetoric.
Case in point; you deleting a reply you found hard to answer and then pretending I’m arguing in bad faith.
You clearly say that you think vegans don’t have an issue with “scavanged” meat. (“Scavenged”, btw.) This implies that you think vegans would agree that hunting and eating game meat is acceptable and even necessary. Do you think that? (Note, I’m not assuming you do. I’m asking, in good faith.)
The second question is about sheep, since you clearly say that stopping their breeding is the answer. Stopping breeding will lead to the extinction of a species, this is a rather clear consequence. Again, I’m asking this in good faith, exactly because it’s a hard question to answer. Asking the hard questions is often when the dogmatic attitudes are revealed.
But it is in the interest veganism to try to satisfactorily answer these questions to develop as an ideology. If it can’t do that, then it has to change. If it can’t answer, but won’t change either, then it is dogmatic.
You can only comment here under the guise of good faith for so long. You’re trying to bait a certain response so that you can “prove” a point and put words in other people’s mouths.
You’re a mod and didn’t like the reply so you deleted it.
And you pretend you don’t know what I mean when I say some vegans get upset and have issues with replying to these arguments, lol.
You’re welcome to engage in good faith. I have infinite patience for anyone genuinely interested in discussion. It is against the rules of this community to post antivegan rhetoric.
Your initial comment was borderline butI decided to engage in good faith. Then you didn’t engage with anything I said and said a few random gotchas. Other mods are welcome to intervene if they felt I removed your comment in error.
If you would like to rephrase your reply and write a better one you are welcome to do so.
There’s no gotchas, and it is in good faith.
This post is about how vegans engage with non-vegans.
I noted that often many vegans who are arguing on online forums (this is something I also specified in both comments, because I acknowledge and respect the fact that small online communities don’t necessarily represent everyone, or even most people) are often very dogmatic. This can be seen from them getting very upset when they can’t answer certain rhetoric.
Case in point; you deleting a reply you found hard to answer and then pretending I’m arguing in bad faith.
You clearly say that you think vegans don’t have an issue with “scavanged” meat. (“Scavenged”, btw.) This implies that you think vegans would agree that hunting and eating game meat is acceptable and even necessary. Do you think that? (Note, I’m not assuming you do. I’m asking, in good faith.)
The second question is about sheep, since you clearly say that stopping their breeding is the answer. Stopping breeding will lead to the extinction of a species, this is a rather clear consequence. Again, I’m asking this in good faith, exactly because it’s a hard question to answer. Asking the hard questions is often when the dogmatic attitudes are revealed.
But it is in the interest veganism to try to satisfactorily answer these questions to develop as an ideology. If it can’t do that, then it has to change. If it can’t answer, but won’t change either, then it is dogmatic.
You can only comment here under the guise of good faith for so long. You’re trying to bait a certain response so that you can “prove” a point and put words in other people’s mouths.
If you can do the following:
comment on the content of my post on culling
talk about hunting and perverse incentives
edit your reply in the context of sheep species perpetuation to address what I had to say about super sheep/pugs, how wool is used
edit your reply to differentiate hunting versus scavenging
I will engage with you. Otherwise I will be recommending you get banned.