Philosophical Vegan Forum

@brimstoneSalad

Looks good, thanks.

I'm sure that rule will be of use in future debates on the forum.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:04 pm OK, updated forum rules. What do you think?
@Lay Vegan @Lightningman_42 @Jebus @Red

The "spamming" section is nicely designed. The spamming process (steps 1-5) described in quotes does appear reminiscent of your interactions with a particular conspiracy theorist, repeatedly demanding impossible standards of evidence and asserting a grand vegan conspiracy.

@brimstoneSalad

Well done on the On-topic argument/assertion spamming section. Definitely a necessary improvement.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:04 pm OK, updated forum rules. What do you think?
@Lay Vegan @Lightningman_42 @Jebus @Red

This update just makes even easier for you to get rid of members for expressing views unpopular with vegans. As I pointed out previously, you're just creating an echo-chamber rooted in anti-intellectualism here.

Do you think I give a shit about you banning me? This is just your petty power-trip and means nothing to me. I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.

So by all means, continue to expose yourselves as anti-intellectual hacks that have to ban anybody that disagrees.

carnap wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:01 am I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.

And NOW he shows his true colors.

The anti-vegan bias is very apparent. I'm more interested in an honest discussion with somebody who is open minded and can challenge our arguments in an interesting way, not a closed minded broken record who does nothing but make the same far fetched conspiratorial claims again and again.

Fact: Mainstream health authorities generally agree that veganism, properly planned is healthy. That goes for dietetic organizations and those like the USDA which develops my plate, the Canadian equivalent, and many others. You have to cherry pick the odd minority to find anything contrary to that.

Fact: The TREND in research into diets for optimal health (not even just adequate) is toward more plant based and less animal products. Will this trend continue to zero animal products, or will it turn out that a tiny amount (particularly more health correlated ones like sea food) is better than none? Not clear, we can't guess the future. It could go either way, and that tiny difference doesn't make veganism dangerous (it could just as easily be said it makes NOT being vegan dangerous).

The words you use like "dangerous" or "risky" are blatant fear mongering, and your dismissal of authority with the presumption that your heavily biased anti-vegan "research" really qualifies you to do that is absurd.

You're a what's what of anti-vegan claims. From Alan Savory style pro-pasture pseudoscience to anti-vegan health fear mongering, even to denial of animal ethics and a rejection of any sound answers in moral philosophy. I'm sure you're very proud to have collected all of these terrible arguments.

It's very unlikely that you will be banned, I never know if you'll find a new argument I haven't seen, and having them presented here has value.
But interesting to see how dishonest you are that you would lie about your identity to continue to troll us.

@brimstoneSalad

This might be a good time to exorcize that modified anti-spamming rule.

I think carnap should be forbidden from making these already-addressed arguments in additional threads.

Contrary to his assertions, we are more than welcoming to non-vegans on this forum, and we have openly/honestly engaged with his arguments (albeit repetitive & poorly constructed). His claims are demonstrably false: there are numerous active members of this community who are not vegan. Many of us fall somewhere on the reducitarian spectrum, but that’s because we are established as a rational community of people interested in debating vegan-adjacent topics. What we don’t tolerate is his continuously spamming redundant arguments across multiple threads, all of which are either designed to be unfalsifiable or have already been debunked. If we were an echo chamber, we would have banned him the minute he claimed plants respond to operant conditioning, rather than taking the time to explain to him he has no idea what he’s talking about.

To any bystanders reading this thread, please take a moment gauge past debates between carnap and other members of this forum. All which involve members responding openly and honestly to his anti-vegan or anti-morality claims. None of his arguments are particularly novel, and they’ve all been addressed or outright debunked time and time again.

Objection to Minimal Moral Realism:
(Morality is just an empty theory)
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4156

viewtopic.php?p=40322#p40322

"indirect rights" Deontology & Consequentialism:
(carnap thinks plants are sentient)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3986

Help me debate!!!:
(carnap trying to strengthen anti-vegan arguments)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3972

Clean Meat:
(Clean meat is little more than vegan sci-fi hype that has little to no basis in science)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3819

Thoughts on Singer’s Effective Altruism (Rethinking Vegan Advocacy):
(Referring to global statistics makes no sense when you're thinking about your individual actions)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4221

Which type of Milk your consuming ??:
(Cow’s milk has nutritional advantages over fortified plant milks)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4065

Evaluation of Carnivore Diet Video:
(vegans delegitimize their own diet/philsoophy when they spend time debunking pseudoscience diets)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4201&p=40618#p40618

@Lay Vegan Just use the moderator function, "move posts", use destination topic 4488
I'll use it as a reference while working on the Wiki to make sure I didn't miss anything.

What a sad case of utter dogmatism. Not only do you guys try to ban away anybody that argues against you but you blatantly lie about people's actions and comments and then delete their responses.

This is utterly pathetic but sadly the norm for vegans who seem to prefer echo-chambers to honest debate.

carnap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:55 am What a sad case of utter dogmatism.

We represent a wide range of view points here, and the norm is actually quite opposed to dogmatism (e.g. we appreciate reducetarianism, welfare, etc.).
That's why we invite non-vegans, and even anti-vegans like yourself, here to discuss. We're interested in hearing new arguments, we just aren't interested in spamming.
I've told you before and I'll tell you again, you're welcome to have one thread devoted to each of your claims where you make your case and anybody who is interested may argue with you.

carnap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:55 amNot only do you guys try to ban away anybody that argues against you

Very few people have ever been banned here, most of them vegans for being too nutty.

I've been meaning to make a thread outlining the bans and the reasons for them. I want people to feel confident that this is a safe place for critical thinking, and know that we don't ban people lightly or regularly.

carnap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:55 ambut you blatantly lie about people's actions and comments and then delete their responses.

Your comments have been moved, not deleted. They appeared to be the same conspiratorial rambling you repeat regularly. I don't think anybody read them, I just skimmed them. It's not an interesting argument, and you've made it already.

Come up with a new and interesting argument.

carnap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:55 amThis is utterly pathetic but sadly the norm for vegans who seem to prefer echo-chambers to honest debate.

We're explicitly a non-echo-chamber here. I've even considered the idea of offering some kind of incentive for the most interesting argument against veganism each month, but I haven't been able to think of anything.

Maybe some kind of feature that's pinned each month? I'm not sure.

When you arrived here I spoke positively of your contribution of some arguments, but you haven't brought up a new one in a very long time. You're a broken record, Carnap. It's not interesting, and it's hot helpful. Thank you for your past contributions, you've made some arguments and points I haven't heard... bad arguments and points, but none the less these are things that help flesh out the wiki more completely and are good to have on hand.

Obviously we would *most* like to have people come here to discuss who mostly agree with veganism and are open to it, but just have some concerns.
But aside from that I am (and I think most of us are) also very happy to have people come here who have more disagreements but can introduce us to new discussions, particularly philosophical ones. The thing is that you avoid those interesting discussions or respond dismissively, and even avoid getting into the real epistemological arguments underpinning your conspiratorial claims. It's a dead-end with you.

I'm sorry, it's just not useful and it's not interesting. Nobody wants to argue with you in circles when all you can do is make assertions and spam the same thing across the forum.
You had a good run. You're welcome to stay, and if you find a NEW argument you haven't made before please do share, but otherwise the spamming is just going to be moved from here on.

If you're dishonest enough to create a new account and lie about your identity to troll us, I guess that's what you're going to do.

If you want to argue about forum policies or what is or isn't dogmatic, you can start a new thread. This one is derailed enough.

carnap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:55 am I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.

Pot kettle black?

This statement tells us 3 things:

1. You're not really interested in reasoned debate. That is, your primary concern is to confirm your preconceived notion about the greater vegan community.

2. You think the debunking/dismissal of poor arguments is "anti-intellectual"

and

3. You're not an honest person, since you'd go as far as to create troll accounts and spam the forum with arguments that have been multiply debunked.

No further conversation with you is necessary.