I’m tempted to say Abed from community (the TV show) the representation could be considered subjectively accurate.

The social situations are a bit contrived though, given it’s focus as a comedy, so it may not be useful as a representation of real life interactions.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

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.

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.

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can’t see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.

Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?

That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.

or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.

TL;DR;

The rules might be considered a list of “immoral things” but in my experience it was treated more as a list of “distracting things”, YMMV.

Then why is it on the list of horrible things?

You mean the list specifically titled “precepts” ?

It does indicate that it’s a list based on what is considered “moral conduct” so i suppose it could be considered a list of “Immoral” things.

I personally read it as “Rules and Guidelines to prevent distraction during the process”.

While i don’t personally prescribe to that kind of moral absolutism i was willing to adhere to the guidelines for a short period to experience the process in it’s intended form.

Attendance isn’t mandatory so people will have to make that call for themselves if they are considering going.

The list doesn’t mention communication, and in fact specifically prohibits lying. That suggests that speacking truly is permitted,

The section titled “Noble Silence” 4 paragraphs down, specifically goes in to the details of the non-communication i was referencing.

and this is a list of bad things

Not sure what you mean here, but hopefully i’ve covered it above.

That’s a list someone makes when they don’t approve of sex (or intoxicants, but that’s another conversation).

Very possibly and i’d guess it comes from the Buddhist origins.

I will state that my experience is that it wasn’t preachy at all, the video recordings do reference some Buddhist stories/teachings but only really to use them as examples for teaching the meditation process.

Given that you aren’t supposed to be communicating in general there is very little leeway in which preaching could occur.

It’s not considered bad , but it is a distraction, there’s supposed to be no communication between attendees.

It’s supposed to be full introspection, afaict.

Don’t know if its the same in all places but men and women were completely separate in the one I went to.

Even if you went with your wife you’d not really be there with her, you’d be two people in the same place at the same time, not communicating.

It’s not really a relaxing holiday kind of place.

I genuinely have no idea if it’s an option for you or if it’d even help but for 10/11 days of relative isolation you could try vipassana

Not sure what the northern US wait times are like, but you generally need to book ahead.

It’s free, it works on a volunteer basis, no idea how if it works for people with no fixed abode but proof of residence was not required where i am.

Do check if it’s suitable for you though, there are rules (albeit not many), they seem reasonable to me but might not be for you.

Isolation wise, there is no communication between attendees, but there are group meditation sessions (though they are also non-talking).

The three aspects that weren’t silent :

• the meditation instruction, it was a one hour-ish video playback per day explaining the process.
• the final day, discussion is allowed.
• optional question time with an instructor.

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

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?

I know of it but I’ve not put any effort in to specific practice.

My personal opinion is that most communication between anyone contains manipulation, even if they aren’t doing it consciously, it’s an intrinsic part of how we deal with each other.

The difference is that i don’t have much of a natural instinct for it, i have to practice and be much more intentional, which brings benefits and drawbacks.

I find that a lot of people in general can be manipulated in similar ways (I’m no exception to this) but techniques vary by culture, upbringing, experience, context etc, i don’t like to do it , however, for the reason stated a bit further down.

Identifying which markers work for which people is a a lot of the battle initially.

Unfair is relative and heavily context dependent but in some circumstances yeah it can feel a bit like a cheat, what I’ve found over time is that I’d be cheating myself just as much as anyone else, my goal in general was/is better communication and understanding, if I’m intentionally manipulating outside the norms then the interaction is tainted in terms of learning natural communications patterns.

If they are intentionally manipulating outside of the norms then that’s significantly more interesting and useful for gaining samples from uncommon behaviours.

Lots of practice.

For me it works like an elaborate pattern recognition tree.

e.g. This face in this context means x thing 75% of the time so far.

Then it’s “strong opinions held weakly”, you now have a working hypothesis but it’s just that, a hypothesis.

Every facial/body/word/etc change could be a modifier to the previous assumption. You could also match some newly remembered memory to the situation that also changes the impression of what is going on.

It’s exhausting, but it becomes easier with practice.

It’s gets more refined the more you are around the same people, as you get a ‘feel’ for their patterns.

You also start to build up a library of ‘shortcuts’ that you can sometimes apply to unfamiliar situations/people.

At some point it starts to become ‘muscle memory’ and the energy required to do it is greatly reduced.

YMMV however, I’ve no idea if this will work for anyone else in the way I have described.

I’d also say to remember that everyone is guessing to some degree or another it’s just that your guesses might require a bit more intention, whichever method (s) you settle on.

You do what you can with what you have, that is the best that can be reasonably expected of anyone.

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”