EnviroLink Forum

Animallover has cut my posts on the thread discussing Timbro forlag's paper on animal rights. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10534

If I read the rules correctly, I have broken the rules by quoting more than 2 sentences. Is that it?

If it is, then Reeves did the same on Dec 15th in the 2.14pm post with no censorship: Again, one page 8, the author says, “Both Tom Regan and Peter Singer agree that there are qualities that are unique to the normal adult human being. To Peter Singer these qualities imply that the normal and adult human automatically weighs a litle bit more than a child or a pig …. To Tom Regan these qualities imply that she is appointed a “moral agent,” I contrast to being just a “moral patient.” But, again, “neither of them wishes to make this a moral demarcation between species.” For Singer similar interests and their qualitative/qualitative measurements matter more, and for Regan our being subjects-of-a-life has more moral significance in discussion of what is moral and who should have rights.

In fact, this piece does not have correct closing inverted commas.

I am far from convinced that animallover is up to the job of moderating in the sense of not being able, apparently, to deal with posts fairly due to personal bias. I believe this is what caused Wayne to stop posting a few months ago.

Roger Yates.

_________________
"If you think that being vegan is difficult, imagine how difficult it is for animals that you are not vegan," animal rights philosopher, Gary Francione, 2009.

I have had a personal post by animallover confirming that I broke the 2 sentences rules. Is it not also the case that only the FIRST two sentences should be posted which means we are all probably breaking the rules.

_________________
"If you think that being vegan is difficult, imagine how difficult it is for animals that you are not vegan," animal rights philosopher, Gary Francione, 2009.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Roger, would you please re-submit mindful of the rules? I, for one, am interested to read your point of view. (As I'm sure many others would be as well).

Roger... your use of the term censorship in this context is way off base. We have a rule in place (that you agreed to by using the forums) that clearly states what the policy is for quoting content from other sources. We do this because EnviroLink has been the target of multiple Digital Millennium Copyright Act take down notices that threaten the entire website.

Most of these threats come from large corporations who hire lawyers because they don't like the fact that EnviroLink hosts open dialogue and resource about animal rights/welfare. I find it ironic, then, that we get attacked from both "sides" of the issue... we must be doing something right.

Follow the rules or don't come here. It's very simple.

-josh

Thanks Josh for your explanation. And my apologies AL for my earlier (frustrated) comment which you deleted. I see that you are just doing your job as moderator.

Copy that Roger?