Senal

how else will you study quality of life from a cat?

Empirically and with a structurally repeatable methodology.

Preferably with funding provided by a somewhat neutral party.

The meta-study you provided specifically calls out the problem with self reported studies.

Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.

The whole section : "4.1. Evidence Considerations" specifically points out the inadequacies and limitations of the studies under analysis.

As does the conclusion section : "5. Conclusions"

Which to my personal interpretation says

"We haven't found anything overtly damaging, some benefits even, but the research is lacking in scope, sample size and length is largely from potentially biased sources"

"If you are going to feed your cat or dog a vegan diet, use the commercial ones as they are less likely to be problematic"

emphasis on the potentially there, lest you think I'm claiming absolute bias in my interpretation.

I asked you to show peer reviewed studies that prove cats will not find vegan food palatable.

You asked for nutrition and palatability, the nutrition part is covered in the inconclusive nature of the meta study conclusion section, neither strongly for nor against until higher quality research is available.

Going back to a previous comment

You asked for peer reviewed studies into the palatability and nutrition of vegan cat food.

I provided.

Your provided studies made no mention of a particular palatability metric (i could have missed it however). The fact that they eat either type of food would imply a measure of palatability both ways, but if you have something definitive I'd be interested to see it.

Thats the one same difference

Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn't.

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

What do u think?

I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else's right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

U cant just proclaim something to be true.

That's fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I'll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

This is true for all.

In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying "well they can just smoke when they get home", technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren't exactly as "outside" as they could be.

I'm not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i'd imagine its heavily subjective.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

Oh absolutely, even if it wasn't bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it's a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the "huge burden" on the NHS.

cheery picking laws aside

That would imply there was "cherry" picking to be set aside.

cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.

I'd be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?

God given rights comes from the American Constitution

It does not, purposely so.

It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).

Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.

We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.

Who's we and when was this decided ?

If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.

That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.

Assuming everyone's idea of the ultimate goal is "liberty for all" is also a stretch.

That's an entirely different conversation though.

The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.

That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn't make the previous change any less a governmental decree.

Let's assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:

Is this the only universal right that exists ?

Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?

To pre-empt the "but they don't have to be near the smokers" argument, yes, they do.

A pub garden isn't magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.

God-given? That's your go to?

Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?

Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?

I'm not saying what they are doing isn't bullshit, it very much is, but "who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don't have to listen to them" is some Olympian level mental gymnastics

That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it's in the sidebar, in my UI it's green) but the app im using doesn't have an obvious button

You don't need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.

/r/onetruegod would like to know if you have some time to discuss ..well...the aforementioned one true god

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.