IIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.
old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407
"This stops them from killing babies" and "This also predominantly affects the group I don't like" aren't mutually exclusive ideas
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.
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 ?
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.
"News outlet" might be the most generous interpretation I've ever seen.
Or perhaps decide that interaction with such a person isn't viable.
There is no requirement to adopt others particular eccentricities or needs, choosing to not engage can also be a valid choice.
There are of course potential downsides to this, but if each person is unwilling to adhere to a common contract of communication then the cessation of communication is a reasonable response.
To me this reads as:
< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >
< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >
"Not going to explain because it's obvious"
Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
D-O