Fair warning: The account you’re arguing with is a troll account who bad-faith argues with everyone, as evidenced by their post history - they often simply have their posts deleted by mods. It’s best to block and move on.

As much as I hate echo chamber-ing, when it comes to trolls, it is occasionally required.

or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again

You weren’t supposed to pick this option.

The post you’re citing was not the 7 month old one I was referencing anywhere. Also, the one you cherry-picked was from a year ago and isn’t anti-vegan either. It’s anti-logically unsound argument (kind of like this one here). I can agree with a stance and disagree with the reason someone does something. I agree with multiple reasons to be vegan explicitly in the post you cite.

And escalating the issue is in concern about the hundreds of rampant bannings, not the veganism.

Also, if that was what you call a parody, you are pretty terrible at parody.

For full clarity of what occurred (and not that my diet is any of your concern, but since you brought it up):

1. I am not vegan, but have been greatly reducing my meat intake and have been toying with going vegetarian.
2. I was kicked from a vegan Community I have never posted in and was about to do for the first time to thank someone for something I found interesting.
3. I do not know why I was kicked from a vegan Community. The reason was cited as a rule that I did not violate. I found hundreds of other bans while looking for why I was banned.
4. I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome. This should be irrelevant to what occurred with these bans.
5. I did all discussion in a single thread specifically created to discuss veganism in a discussion Community on a completely different instance.
6. The Strawman comment is you claiming I’m somehow screaming “1984” because of the ban. I am not.
7. You are being needlessly combative and creating arguments based on assumption. That is the definition of a strawman.
8. My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

Is that enough for you to parse what has occurred, or would you care to restate everything poorly and in bad faith once again?

The last time I spoke about veganism whatsoever was over 7 months ago.

Not to mention that it was specifically in a debate thread dedicated to discussing veganism, nor was I overly negative.

Was this intended to be a strawman of some kind?

But they are portrayed differently and there are entire threads about how “modern audiences” don’t like the American Pie way.

The three things you mentioned there in The Boys were not for titillation, they were played for humor or shock as was the (overwhelmingly) male nudity. And the actions are mostly done by the bad guys. A butt shot of a Starlight body double in the most recent season isn’t comparable and is a stinger to someone being raped. Sex and sexuality is portrayed poorly and as kinda gross throughout.

American Pie had a scene for titillation and the actions were carried out by the protagonists. Sex and sexuality is portrayed as fun, nothing to be ashamed of, and a normal part of life.

The OP is correct. It was never about not being able to reference creepy sex practices by bad people. That was never off the table.

Things are different now, and I would argue in a very unhealthy way.

They are? Where? I mod a Community and I’ve never seen anything that isn’t explicitly for Admins that can see them.

For my community ( !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca ) I would adore this as long as it’s available to Mods of the community the downvotes are in and Admins of that instance only. It should absolutely not be visible for normal users.

We are hit with downvotes nearly every time we post a new thread on anything even remotely controversial so it would really help us filter out people who simply downvote to bury the thread and contribute nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Heck, we made it a rule to not downvote unless the user is not adding to the discussion, and that it should not be used as a disagree button. People generally ignore this, however.

That or just add the moderator option to disable downvotes for Communities. It would be an incredibly handy toggle.

EDIT: For an example as to why it should be implemented, see this post you’re currently viewing where I give reasons, how it’s been impacting us, some alternatives, and people hit the “fuck you” button with zero discussion and that’s all. This is the problem.

A trash heap where it fucking belongs.

There isn’t a thing that you can put ketchup on that a good BBQ sauce or hot sauce isn’t better on. I will die on this hill.

I’ve reported hundreds of these stupid things because I use guides somewhat regularly. I think they’ve deleted like four? They do notify you when they take action, but it’s incredibly uncommon.

Looks like what I’d want to use, but to reach broad support it needs a Windows client as well.

I am as confused as you are by this comment section. She’s also given statements that are anti-genocide as well. You can be opposed to multiple shitty things.

17276667. Thanks for the memories.

Understanding underlying causes? On Lemmy? Abso-fucking-lutely not!

If you like strudel and Hitler liked strudel, then you’re Nazi by default. That’s just simple logic.

I see what you mean, but energy isn’t currently free, and as we built more headroom, crypto and AI have simply eaten up that headroom. Don’t take my word for it, simply look at the statistics on how much more energy we are using than 10 years ago, and then look at corporate energy usage now on those two things. Renewables haven’t kept up because large corporations keep eating more and more. In fact, governments have had to **de-**decomission a few coal plants because the energy usage was so high. Here’s an article on one of them that is supporting a massive crypto farm.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely 100% glad that the energy is not all coming from coal plants anymore, but also it isn’t like none of it is.

And no energy is emission free. You still have to pay the environmental cost to create and maintain the equipment gathering the energy in the first place.

In short, renewables are great. Corporate overusage of energy is not, especially for incredibly selfish gain like crypto and “AI”. I’m not going to cheer for the shares at corporations to be higher simply because we have renewables offsetting a tiny bit of the massive power they suck up.

“Oh, nice!” - Companies haphazardly adding AI into everything whether you want it or not and eating up three times this energy produced for short-term shareholder gain.

I appreciate it! I mod !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca if you’d ever care to join us.

We try to disagree in good faith and not attack each other there.

That paper is not really a source, it’s a literature review. That’s not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say “… and therefore this other thing may be true.” It’s essentially philosophizing.

The paper neither invalidate nor proves anything, it simply makes a loose connection to a strange claim.

The author is correct that we do have characteristics of herbivores. However that is not something anyone was questioning; that’s literally one of the requirements for being an omnivore. We also have characteristics of carnivores. And even obligate carnivores will often have some characteristics of herbivores due to evolutionary holdovers.

The paper is, essentially, saying nothing of value.

Errrr… are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it’s akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you’re asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).

I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I’m not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you’d even want it?

Here’s one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.

Here’s one on the development and evolution of teeth.

Here’s one on mammalian teeth in specific.

If you’d like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.

Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.

Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here’s a solid article on differences.

Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we’ve had multiple discussions on it.

Well. My child is that age and I very much relate to the protagonist. Was not expecting a gut-punch this afternoon.