skeletorfw

I’m sorry, I’m confused here. I’m obviously all against race science and greenwashing, but I was talking about the quoted study in my post.

That aside, it definitely is good to have more people talking about the inherent subjectivity and impermanence of science though!

Honestly (and I see you do recognise this in your comment) but this really seems like a kinda crappy study that I’m surprised made it into plos.

For instance I couldn’t find any evidence of them considering that the dietary choices of the guardian may affect the attitudes of the guardian to vetenarians (and thus the self-reported health of those animals). To take this further, in the scenario that a cat guardian believes their choices make their cat healthier, especially when going against vetinary orthodoxy, the guardian is probably less likely to take the cat to the vet for minor issues. This confounds the analysis of “healthiness” as performed by the authors.

Furthermore any cat that is not an indoor cat is likely also not fed a purely vegan diet (as they do hunt), so they should possibly account for that via a sort of bootstrapped approach. Generally the stats were okay though, and don’t make super strong claims from some pretty weak data. Though GAMs were a pretty odd choice and I’d have preferred some sort of explicit model fit with Bayesian fitting or NLLS.

In the end all of this points to the sort of thing where they should really have been doing perturbational research. I.e. feeding cats different diets in a controlled lab space. This is not the sort of research that lends itself to surveys and that seriously impacts the actual practicality of its findings.

Also as an aside, I really cannot abide anyone who includes a questionably inspirational quote that they said themselves in the fucking French Alps on their own website. That’s just pure wankery. The only people I usually see doing things like that are scientists like Trivers, which is not company one should wish to be in.

Informal tenancies seem to be state-dependant from what I can find (more concrete in california and florida), though I’d be fascinated to see if this has been legislated or litigated upon more generally. Of course verbal contracts are valid contracts, but that’s the sort of thing that would probably have to be sorted out in court.

In the end as advice for OP, I stand by the opinion that “they can’t kick you out without notice” is not a good idea to base one’s decisions on. You could be kicked out, whether it is legal or not, and the legality of such a no-notice kick out on a verbal and informal contract is certainly not an entirely non-disputed concept in all states.

OP could get kicked out, and maybe they could take their mother to court to try and get that solved eventually, but in the immediate they would end up houseless and in a pretty dire situation.

Fair indeed.

Point still stands (at least depending on state) that without a residential lease agreement in the US then generally you would be considered a guest in your family’s house if over the age of 18. As such OP could be fairly easily evicted.

Depending on where OP is, that’s not strictly true. If you are in a situation such as this, at least within the UK, you are not strictly entitled to the rights of a tenant if you do not pay rent nor do anything in lieu of rent.

Basically in the UK if you do not have a tenancy agreement, cohabitation agreement, or license to occupy, then it can start getting very complicated. If they were named as a property owner, or had a common understanding of financial interest in the property, they might be able to fight for a stake of the house, but that isn’t really the point here. In the end whether they can be kicked out legally is a complex issue (at least in the UK) and not really a question we could answer here.

Roland CS-10-EM are excellent binaural mics for a very low cost :)

Yup, it depends on the person but at least in my life many male friends are physically affectionate. Admittedly some of these are affectionate via general sparring, which started in our teens and never went away.

What? How in the world is that your conclusion from my point? Are you seriously advocating for mob vigilante justice systems? I agree in essence that these crimes are abhorrent and must stop, but what are you proposing as a functional justice system?

The question really is what do they need to be protected from? If they must be heavily protected from physical harm that certainly implies that there is a threat of grave physical harm to them on a regular basis. That doesn’t sound like a sweet life to me.

So here’s the rationale that is generally used: If you are in a country that utilises the death sentence then the only system that can decide that is the legal system. Vigilante justice, even when morally justified in the immediate, is not a rigorous or systematically moral justice system. Ergo if anyone is in danger of being killed then they must be protected, even if they are a terrible person, as they have not been sentenced to death (or even if they have, that sentence is not to be meted down by just some other random person).

If you are in a country with no death penalty, you as a society believe that no-one should ever be killed as retribution or as an example to others, thus the argument for protecting people from serious harm is obvious.

These same basic arguments apply for corporeal punishment.

Those who are believed to have committed horrific crimes such as those you mentioned will be in extreme danger because their crimes are fairly universally considered reprehensible (because they… You know… Are). The danger is that there is no perfect justice system. Miscarriages of justice do occur and whilst you may believe that actual perpetrators should be killed or maimed in prison, the risk is that innocent people may be subjected to a horrific and irreversible punishment for no crime at all. That is not acceptable to most people within most justice systems.