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.

“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.

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.

Brazil (1985)

Damn, all but 2.

Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.

TL;DR;

Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting

See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.

Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.

The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.

Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.

No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?

Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.

At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.

Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.

Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.

No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.

Not big on history, are you?

Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :

Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.

You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?

Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.

The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.

But i suspect you know this.

This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )

• Bad faith arguments
• References to things that didn’t happen, with either no actual reference or one that doesn’t relate to the “argument” being made
• Fallacies in place of actual points
• Personal attacks
• Claims of my devout atheism, again with no references or proof
• Complaints that i’m pointing out any of the above, but without substantive refutations
• Equivalent of “I’m not arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t understand <Pseudo-point with no coherent supporting argument>”
• lol
• lmao

They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?

Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.

Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.

Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.

Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”

Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.

What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”

Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.

If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.

Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.

Note the “organised”, it’s important.

Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.

It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.

See the above.

The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.

I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.

Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.

The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.

One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.

Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.

So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?

Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.

Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.

“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

vs

“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”

it’s Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes

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?

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

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.