disengage

oh have a nice day

if you can't provide any proof that non-human animals understand personal mortality, this is just handwaving.

i learned my behavior is no longer within the bounds of the acceptable use policy for db0.

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.

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.

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.

Your actual belief is opposition to veganism

no. "skepticism", maybe, but i'm not opposed to it.

they may feel that way, but I know what I'm saying is True

what I said is true

when i'm saying something factual, getting pushback indicates a level of cognitive dissonance that i find, personally, annoying.

frankly, I don't care for debate at all. id rather you read what I say, understand it is true, and upvote.

“Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person’s evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense.”

this is a straw man. and i wasn't wrong: what i said is it is no longer the acamedy's position that a vegan diet can be healthy at all stages of development, and i've been right this whole time.

we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal’s mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain

understanding pain does not require the understanding of the potential for mortality.

given the guidance i've been given from, now, 3 admins, i'm just going to find another instance.

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.

You don’t have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they’re right and you don’t have a leg to stand on.

that's not the situation we were in.

Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn’t even relying on.

they were relying on that for their initial claim, and never backed off the very strong, but unsupported, claim. the evidence they brought later does not support that claim.

but the difference is that they were right.

we both had some things we were right about, but the comment to which i initially responded was peddling outdated information, and, yea, i didn't click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.

if i'd been on a walk, i might have missed it entirely, then, if the same admin took offense to my continued use of the site, they'd be able to say i'm a repeat offender.

i thought it to be important to understand the actual acceptable use, so i could use the site without wondering if any comment or report might end up getting me banned, and i pro-actively established my honest uses with the admin before i joined. now that is in question, and, yea, i do think the admin that banned me is power tripping a bit, since none of the other admins took action.

doesn't mean they feel pain

can you link this?