The “Broken Earth” series by N.K Jemesin

First book

I’m stating my opinions just as you are.

Nobody is putting words into your mouth. I’m responding to the words you have said.

I’ve been trying to understand how you could hold such opinions in the face of both facts and your own stated understatings.

Seems willful ignorance is where we landed.

From your other responses elsewhere in the thread it seems this isn’t isolated to just this exchange.

For the record, I do not appreciate your opinion on this as it lacks merit or substance.

If you are unwilling or unable to defend your opinions, a public forum is unlikely to be a good experience for you.

I’d suggest a blog, with the comments turned off.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ? As with any dispute, both parties can always strive for more, but I try to put myself in the cop’s situation. How long is long enough before you have to pull somebody who is clearly not cooperating from their car? Not following a lawful order during a traffic stop is a misdemeanor, which means you may be exiting your vehicle whether you like it or not.

That’s not an answer to the question, that’s a reiteration of your previous stance.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ? I am positive racism plays a part in policing. But I didn’t see anything in this that leads me to believe Tyreek’s skin color affected his outcome.

Given that answer i go back to my previous question of :

If you understand racism plays a part in policing, what makes you think this is the exception ?

I’m a white dude and I easily see this happening to me if I did what he did.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the overall statistics disagree with you.

Not in an individual instance sense, but in an overall sense. You might very well have this same thing happen, but it’s statistically much less likely.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

They are not opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions. I can be sorry for him but also unsurprised.

Now this is interesting, i wouldn’t consider “they had it coming” to be the same as “I’m unsurprised this happened” , one is very much assigning blame and the other is more neutral.

If you meant the latter, then sure, not mutually exclusive.

“I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions.” can easily be interpreted the same way as “I’m sorry he made the officer drag him out of his car but he totally deserved it”.

Yes, I truly feel this way in these circumstances. Perhaps I’m a naive idiot, but I just didn’t sense that he was treated that unfairly given his actions.

The point the article was making wasn’t that he was treated unfairly based on his actions, it was that the treatment he received was different (read: worse) because of his race.

That the treatment he received could be considered unfair for the situation isn’t the point.

A boy and a girl both steal an apple, they both get grounded, the boy is also banned from the shop.

“Well the girl still got grounded” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.

Same as “The boy deserved punishment” doesn’t negate that the punishment wasn’t equal.

If you truly understand that racism is a large problem in all aspects of policing, that isn’t naivety that’s wilful ignorance.

It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.

Agreed, but “didn’t do the most optimal thing in a given situation” isn’t the same as “deserved to be dragged out of his car”

Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.

This confusion is easily resolved though, let’s clarify with a couple questions.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?

I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.

And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.

That doesn’t even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.

So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it’s going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.

Which is what is happening here.

This could easily happen to a white person.

That’s subjective but again, let’s clarify :

In these exact same circumstances, you’d expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?

I don’t have any studies to hand, but isn’t the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?

But lets look at your argument both ways.

On the one hand you’d be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn’t exist at all and so wouldn’t apply here.

Or

Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn’t apply for some reason.

If that’s the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn’t apply in this specific circumstance?

Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn’t fall in to the above categories?

how would you measure quality of life for cats and their food?

Already answered, Here and Here

If you are asking for an example of a specific methodology, I’ve no idea, I’m neither an animal behaviour nor nutrition researcher.

In the same way i wouldn’t be able to provide a specific methodology for measuring orbital decay or the long term effects of language drift on emotional responses, because I’m not a physicist , linguist or psychologist either.

That’s one of the reasons for peer reviewed research by specialists.

I presume you would be happy if it was formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.

Seeing as we are going around in circles i’m going to streamline the process and make it easier for you by providing a checkpoint system.

I’ll be happy when it ticks both of these boxes.

1 : [ ] Independent

2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

On this occasion your reference gets a 1 out of 2 :

[ X ] Independent

[ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.

they seem independent enough.

See above

Hardly tree hugging hippies.

You’re the only person using this phrasing, but you are correct in that they don’t match a phrasing nobody has claimed so far.

Hardly magical thinking.

I suspect the irony of claiming a lack of magical thinking by providing no actual evidence and just saying it a second time is lost on you.

the data so far in encouraging.

Again, the data so far is inconclusive

“We don’t know yet” vs “Sure, go ahead”

The food is engineered and independently tested.

Again, possibly true but beside the point.

it has the approval of agencies that exist to make sure animals are cared for.

So I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you have citations for this that aren’t institutions that actively promote (or have a vested interest) in veganism.

As I’m sure you can understand that such institutions can hardly be relied upon to be neutral.

that’s hardly magical thinking.

“magical thinking, the belief that one’s ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world.”

“Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them”

Belief in the absence of a plausible causal link.

In case you are unsure, a plausible causal link can be obtained through quality, reproducible, verifiable research.

Unless you have some of that (or some other proof) , you are basing your opinions on anecdotal evidence and inconclusive studies, they very definition of magical thinking.

It seems we are treading the same ground here so I’m just going to assume you have nothing to add.

sure. But the indications so far are that it is fine.

no, the indications so far are inconclusive.

like the original indications for asbestos were inconclusive or lead pipes/paint.

But it seems you are deep into your magical thinking so i doubt anything I’ve said will make a difference to you.

I hope it works out for you.

they do have world class teams preparing the food.

As i specifically said, this doesn’t address the actual issue.

In case i haven’t been clear, the current state of nutritional science on this matter has no consensus on mid to long term outcomes.

So taking the all of the experts in the world and creating the pinnacle of vegan pet nutrition will still garner a best guess, because, and i’m going to bold this part on a separate line:

THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WITHOUT DOING THE ACTUAL WORK

It is potentially being done now, great, wishful thinking and anecdotal results are not a replacement for actual study.

Also, they have independent bodies verifying that the food is suitable.

Outstanding, and when they’ve provide repeatable results from long term studies with quality methodology and reasonable sample sizes that will make a big difference.

Until then it’s a gamble with potentially life altering consequences (for the animals i mean)

seems good enough for me.

Each to their own, your own subjective comfort doesn’t prove validity, neither does my subjective discomfort prove a lack of it.

For you the risk might be worth it, but to pretend there is no risk is delusional.

If long term , broad participation studies with rigorously reproducible methods came to the conclusion that a vegan diet is a viable option then i would be open to switching.

The issue isn’t which food is the most nutritious, it’s that the evidence available in general doesn’t yet support a conclusion on mid to long term viability.

You could have a team of world class nutritionist vets custom make you the best mixture and you would still have the same issue.

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.

the meta analysis found no major implications to health.

What it said was the current evidence which is potentially bias and only from short term and limited quality studies indicates there are no major implications to health.

However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

Agreed, it’s a reasonably promising start and with all the caveats in place it does have some merit, but “should not be disregarded” isn’t the same as “go ahead, everything is fine”.

It’s hardly radical, and with proper care cats can be fed a nutritious and tasty diet with not animal products.

It’s not radical to think this might pan out to something beneficial, no.

But currently it’s still a gamble and to argue from a position that glosses over the many many caveats of the studies you provided is disingenuous and weakens your overall argument.

That you personally think the risk is worth the reward is your own business, presenting the situation as containing no risk is not.

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.

Ah…i think i see the problem.

If what you’ve understood so far from my responses has been “this person thinks cat’s are being force fed cucumbers” then I’m not sure I’m best placed to help you, that’s a job for a professional.

Just for completeness sake I’ll address your response but it seems there might be bigger obstacles in play than i had first thought.

you do understand that people are not force feeding cats cucumbers.

See above

the food is indistinguishable from the meat versions.

incorrect, it might be similar but so far (again, according to your provided meta study) there has been no conclusive research to suggest an equal nutritional profile in the medium to long term.

See my previous response about gambling.

I’m not sure any further conversation on this subject is going to garner anything new if you are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend and respond to points raised.

Good luck.

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.

Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match.

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 ?