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.

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.

Depends on how you define 'cost' I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn't worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I'm imagining I'm protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn't scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That's a win win right?

Ah. OK. Thanks for clarifying

I was genuinely asking because it wasn't (and still isn't) clear that that's what they meant.

The dairy farm thing makes sense.

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

I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS

I'd put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren't particularly easy to access from the outside.

Not to say it isn't possible.

There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start

To a degree yes, but assuming they aren't pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.

They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.

Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don't care about, but that isn't the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.