Is that a thing you have to apply to some formal committee for?

Or do we have to ask you specifically whether or not it qualifies?

Ooh maybe there’s ASCII symbol for it like ® or © ?

Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you’re the personification of a county.

That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.

You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.

What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.

You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word “vast”.

I concede.

Just realised that if you are struggling with “vast” you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn’t going to make any sense.

Dammit forgot the rating.

Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.

1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.

A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?

If a gambit doesn’t land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it’s like you aren’t even trying.

Moving goalposts again? you’ve already used that twice, le sigh

“vast majority” and “majority” aren’t the same, i specifically called out the vast part…but you do you.

yes, finally an lgbt dig i was losing hope at this point but i get it now, you were keeping it in reserve, i can’t wait to see what you do with the immigrants, perhaps even we can hope for some drag queen action?..wait no, don’t tell me, i want it to be a surprise.

a bit weak after that though

provable unlikelihood presented as fact x2 , then lie that is easily provable and contradicts your own stance ( and still fundamentally misunderstands the difference between regular and voting population )

You did get the slogan in though so some extra points for that, weird capitalisation, but close enough.

hmm, a tough call this one…i’ll give it a 6/10, a couple new bingo entries but repetition and self contradiction are fairly weak.

Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.

Come on guy it’s like you aren’t even trying anymore.

Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?

lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-size-of-donald-trumps-2024-election-victory-explained-in-5-charts

https://www.wusf.org/2024-12-03/trump-falls-just-below-50-in-popular-vote-but-gets-more-than-in-past-elections

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/

in fairness that last one did use the phrase “vast majority” to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes

I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i’m not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don’t strain yourself.

Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.

Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i’ll give this a 7/10 shitpost.

Hey, if you want to reinterpret what “vast majority” in the context of a political win means, you do you.

Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept or voting population.

You hit all the highlights, personally i’d have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?

A solid 8/10 shitpost.

Vast means large btw, as in big.

“Essential” implies more than just a small part, but if you want to claim otherwise you are free to do so.

Do you also say “no, ALL lives matter?”

Because project management is comparable to civil rights? That’s some weak sauce whattaboutism.

Downvotes with no actual reasoning behind them?

I am shocked, shocked i tell you.

So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?

I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.

Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.

That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.

Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.

Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.

But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.

Shaw explained that the act of asset reuse is essential in stopping crunch

Utter bullshit, you stop crunch with realistic timeframes and competent planning/project management.

Asset reuse could be part of that sure, but making out like it’s essential is a geometric fractal of red flags holding other, smaller, red flags.

It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.

This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.

Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.

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

Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.

Thanks.

Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?

I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.

How so?

IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.

old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407

Julie d’Aubigny

so obviously provide your cat with nutritious food. if the cat is not eating the food then find something it will eat.

And that’s the issue, the short to midterm studies are relatively bias (as shown by your own provided meta-study), show you need supplements to stave off issues (taurine etc) and are somewhat inconclusive.

There are no long term studies.

It’s a “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”

Of an option between a known good and a potential good , one of those is more certain to produce a good outcome.

at the moment these are new fields of studies.

Agreed, and making potentially life altering long term decisions based on new fields of study comes with risks.

I’m not saying it won’t or can’t work, I’m saying it’s a gamble. At the moment it’s a sketchy gamble based on incomplete fields of study with limited quality results and it’s a gamble you are making on behalf of another life that can’t consent.

If you want to roll the dice on this, that’s on you.

For me, i would consider that kind of risk to be too great for the sake of my personal beliefs.

Either way, if you are going to be trying to convince people there is no risk you’re probably going to have a hard time with anyone who understands how to read the papers you provided.

there is food available that is vegan, palatable and nutritious.

• Vegan : sure + supplements
• Palatable, meh, as long as they are eating it
• Nutritious, see above (read: inconclusive)

so there is no problem.

A strong claim to be making when the meta study you provide specifically goes out of it’s way to say “we don’t really know yet”

quality of life is subjective to measure at the best of time.

Sure, no arguments here.

The findings so far so do not demonstrate a problem if the cat is cared for.

Your own citation doesn’t even show that , so unless you have another that definitely concludes this I’m not sure where you are getting this from.

As i said above, at best it’s stating:

“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 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.