In short
I got a reply from a prolific anti-vegan troll and referred them back to an earlier conversation we had. Got banned for "harassment" and "following someone around" when in fact they replied to me and keep following vegans around when they post against anti-vegan propaganda.
The 14-day ban and comment removals by @aeronmelon@lemmy.world: https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/modlog/45638?page=1&actionType=All&modId=6106918&userId=18352111
And the posts in question:
The comments when I posted them rendered as
Oh hey its you
The link is to a discussion which expanded is this here (The link goes to the comment with the highlighted star):
With background
The person in question is a very dedicated anti-vegan troll who is known to make non-sequitur claims as replies to vegans, in the hopes of roping then into a defensive position under the guise of "debate".
To exemplify this I engaged with them a couple months ago and got a perfect showcase of their behaviour. I had never used this and have never replied to them since then (at least I don't remember that I have and searching didn't turn anything up). But then when they replied to me yesterday I did. And got promptly banned for "harassment" and "following someone around". I messaged the mod who banned me to no reply.
Their behaviour is being enabled by lemmy.world mods like @aeronmelon@lemmy.world who will readily delete comments made by vegans should they dare step a foot outside of the norms of "civilized debate", like e.g. in the same thread (1) and (2). The petulant and incessant trolling by them is of course never subject to such moderation actions.
To any vegan comrades, do not engage this troll, you risk getting banned and your comments deleted.
Apparently I used wrong account to post this. Will have to switch accounts to my blahaj account on occasion to reply to comments, apologies.
oh whoops looks like someone got confused about the claim I was arguing again.
My point was that lack of sentience is not unfalsifiable since there is a necessary condition for its existence. But that a formal proof would be too cumbersome to reasonably demand of someone in an internet comment section. That for most people lack of a nervous system should be reason enough to at least consider it more plausible than the alternative.
Ironically the exact argument I made six months ago lol
this isn't shown
you can't be sure what those are, or that plants don't have them, unless you are defining these traits in a way that specifically requires animal physiology.
why would I need to define these in a way that requires animal physiology?