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 !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i’m still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
“this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged”
“I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it”
“I am respectful of the rules of communities”
This is a small snippet of your history. It’s a 2 hour ban, you can either chill or not, up to you.
What a disengenous asshat. I can’t stand these people who are all like, “My only problem with your cause is I don’t think you’re persuing it the right way,” but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren’t willing to defend their actual positions.
can you link this?
I’m fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal’s mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.
That is, assuming that’s your genuine position and you’re not just playing games.
understanding pain does not require the understanding of the potential for mortality.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of someone fitting the label of
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.
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.
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.
i have objections to each of the examples you’ve raised, but they are red herrings, since they could not have been the reason for a ban, or i would have been banned when they occurred.
this isn’t what you banned for, and I think it’s inappropriate. this smacks of poisoning the well.
the clarity I’m looking for would say how often you plan to ban me, how long I can expect those bans to be, and what you will ban me for.