Asklemmy

54637 readers

434 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

123

[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 days ago by when@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

258 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to “stir up shit,” surely they’d be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I don’t believe that’s their intent at all.

Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if there’s a risk of people taking it the wrong way. I’d say OP’s doing a decent job encouraging civility, and that’s something I wish we could see more of online.