https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmowEQeEMaY

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”

I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.

The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.

Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.

Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.

I’d guess it doesn’t last long, but haven’t looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.

That’s also a logical fallacy.

You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.

In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren’t effectively contributing to said position.

Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.

“Our genocide guy is better” is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.

Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.

What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don’t want to be “in support of parties involved in committing genocide”?

To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.

Personally, I define a cult as either an NRM (The more common use in the 20th century) or a local sect (the more common use in antiquity)

Sure, but that’s a fairly narrow definition that ignores a large proportion of the actual dictionary definitions.

I am politically motivated not to consider Christianity a cult, because I believe it makes unjust apology for Christianity

A somewhat subjective take that doesn’t really explain how the term cult would imply “unjust apology”

Cults are, politically speaking, groups which have been targeted by the Satanic panic

Not true, by any commonly accepted definition of the word.

The fact that Christianity is not a cult

Christianity does in fact meet many of the dictionary definitions of the word “cult”.

You could argue that the normalisation of christianity excludes if from adhering to the definitions that mention “unorthodox” or “small” but those definitions are relatively few.

and that anti-cult religious leaders have not labelled Christianity a cult, is historically important.

How so ?

Other than power and money i mean.

We can’t go using words in a way that implies Christianity is the victim and confuses the history. I object to calling Christianity a cult precisely because I think ill of Christianity.

I can’t find any reference to the word “cult” that, when applied to christianity. would absolve them of the egregious historical shitfuckery perpetrated by and for them.

They do yes, this is clearly marked as an opinion piece.

What i was trying to convey is to not expect stellar journalism, opinion or otherwise, from a media source that has built it’s readership on sensationalism and tabloid shenanigans.

That is of course, just my personal opinion.

The guardian is three tabloids in a trenchcoat.

They don’t generally outright lie, but unbiased journalism it is not.

To be clear, the interview was a shitshow, I’m just saying you’ll need to manage your expectations about journalistic quality when reading the guardian.

“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can’t see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.

Actually the shooting at gay night clubs in the states are usually not white Christians

citation ?

(legitimately, i’ve been looking for a useful resource for stats like this)

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?

Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.

Various back and forth emails, a completely “justified” performance review program because of your “falling standards” and several meetings with various managers at different levels of “importance”.

Also the “You’re absolutely correct, ENJOY” is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your “redundancy” exit interview.

That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.

or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I’d imagine that’s why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?