LwL

I am not in the US lol. Insulting people is in fact illegal here, that doesn't mean i necessarily agree with that in a general capacity. There was a famous case of a politician here a few years ago that sued and had someones house raided over them insulting them on twitter (with a very harmless insult too), which is absolutely ridiculous.

Honestly the EU is fucked up in so many ways but somehow still feels far more competent at doing good for its citizens than basically any other government institution, even if it's of course not without its failures (looking at you, copyright reform).

Because what is insulting enough to warrant removal is extremely subjective. Pretty much everyone agrees there's a line somewhere, where people draw that line is very different. I would never even consider trying to stop people from making bad edgy jokes, but I will tell them the joke isn't funny and they just seem like a bigot if that's what I think.

I also wouldn't consider 4chan a public place. Someone holding up a sign in a train station that says "gays are an abomination" I would agree should be removed as they are actively making a public space hostile to someone. But then I'd also put different standards on a non-spontaneous demonstration, as those have to be cleared beforehand and won't happen on a super frequent basis, and there needs to be some way to voice any opinion that doesn't outright call for violence.

Technically public still means you act in the interests of the owners, aka shareholders (at least in germany anything else is illegal), it's just that naturally that will always be profit for the majority.

The rate of kids that don't transition after being on puberty blockers is something like <2%. All I've seen is some people crying about regret rates increasing by a lot when it goes from like 1 to 2%. "It doubled!!!!!" (Should be obvious that it will go up a little the easier it is to get treatment).

In any case, while puberty blockers aren't without adverse effects, those aren't huge, so prohibiting them is utterly nonsensical unless a majority of kids end up not going through with it.

And if a child knows at age 7 that it's not the gender it was assigned at birth, that's not some puberty thing. Which is a significant portion of transgender people.

Everything here except the one expensive brand is just full plastic packaging. The one expensive brand used to have the window, but now removed it for environmental reasons.

When I realizes this I decided to switch to the more expensive brand, even if I'm very much paying for brand name, in the end it doesn't matter to me if a pack of spaghetti costs 89 cents or 2.09€ (even if it's like half my diet), but especially given the problems of microplastic I can't justify buying plastic packaged noodles.

From what the link says it doesn't seem that hard if your cat happens to like some brand of vegan cat food you can get, since those seem to be generally nutritionally ok (also going off the study the other comment replying to me linked). I would hope that most people that can't find a brand of vegan cat food their cat likes would just decide to not bother, or actually put in the full effort.

At that point the main scary thing is that if you only feed your cat one brand of food their entire life, they can sometimes get so used to it they refuse to eat anything else. But plenty of people run into that without going vegan, so eh. Overall it doesn't seem to be an issue provided you're not an idiot about it, which in this case I would actually guess most people aren't.

Yeah that study is pretty convincing, especially along with the other commenter providing a link claiming that the parts of a cats diet that usually require meat can be quite easily synthesized from vegan sources. That's good to know. (Minor caveat of the study would be considering cats that go outdoors as being on a vegan diet when they almost certainly eat wild animals, but it doesn't seem results were inconsistent between cats that go outside vs. cats that don't, or maybe the full study even mentions it).

Also fwiw I wouldn't trust the first link on its own bc what companies claim and what they actually do doesn't always line up, but when there's multiple studies backing it it has much more credibility.

But yea you've convinced me

Yes, but I am questioning whether such a thing is being produced and actually equivalent. The thread further down cites for example synthetic taurine to be of inferior nutritional value to natural taurine.

This isn't something I know a lot about, and it's probably possible to produce vegan cat food with sufficient nutrition somehow, but there's still a burden of proof that such a thing is actually on the market and shown to not be worse for cats.

I also just don't get the point of censoring. I don't have any particular feelings about the word retarded, but I'm also autistic. Do I get annoyed when people use autistic as an insult (i hope it never reaches actual slur status because I'll never accept it as such), esp for stuff that has nothing to do with ASD symptoms at all? Sure. Does it make it better if someone crosses it out in a screenshot, or censors it in a quote? Lolno.

Cats eat no plant matter naturally. Absolutely none. If you have studies somehow proving that they can live by eating only things that they naturally never eat, feel free to educate me. But as far as I'm aware, attempting to put cats on a vegan diet is animal abuse.

Can't attest to their intentions but "speak for yourself" would be the continuation of the ken m "we are all x on this blessed day" meme, whether or not that's what you were going for.