I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.

I mean, i've no idea because it's never happened, you also have no idea.

You can assure me it's true all you want, your assurances mean nothing to me if they don't make any sense.

The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics.

It does not, at all.

A decision can easily be based on a belief, an understanding of relevant statistical values isn't required.

If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?

That's not the claim, the claim is "Some people vote this way , wholly or partially because they think it disproportionately harms minorities"

They probably don't know , they may think it does, or hope it does, or not care at all either way.

There are of course people who are voting solely on their opinion of "baby murder is bad", nobody is or has been arguing otherwise.

You are arguing race isn't a factor, i am arguing that that's an impossible position to defend and no "All the people i know aren't racist" doesn't count as a valid defense.

But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.

Common ground is a good basis for understanding.

Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.

I've no idea, all i was stating is that dismissing race as a part of the decision making process (consciously or unconsciously) in a place known for outcomes based on race could be considered dumbing down the argument.

What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?

Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.

I was saying these people are what makes up the statistics.

---

As an entirely made up example:

"10% of the population don't like the taste of potatoes" doesn't mean 10% of the population base their decisions about eating fries on reading the statistics.

claims such as "All the people i know like potatoes , so potato preference can't possibly be related to the amount of fries eaten" just doesnt make any sense.

---

and to be clear I'm not claiming all positions are race based, just that it's enough of a factor that pretending it doesn't have any impact at all is some gold medal mental gymnastics.

I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.

In a country notorious for it's systemic and institutionalized racism, you grew up in a section that votes predominantly for the party that is notoriously racist ( In general, not in comparison to any other party ) and would claim that race has no part in a decision that is known to have racial divides in applicability.

That might be the greatest feat of mental gymnastics i've ever seen, truly.

On the off-chance you genuinely mean what you say:

That you and the people you know don't care about race is laudable, but it doesn't seem to be broadly applicable to the rest of the state or country ( and in the case of republicans their party )

Sure

if it ticks the two boxes then it'll be useful to know :

1 : [ ] Independent

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

"This stops them from killing babies" and "This also predominantly affects the group I don't like" aren't mutually exclusive ideas

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.