Fair enough, like most matters of language I suppose it's ultimately subjective and comes down to differences in personal interpretations. Specific context and perspectives will always have the potential change things but by and large I stand by my point in general application.

I completely agree with what you mean, but I would argue it is actually quite simple just not easy. People often talk about the two like they're the same but it's important to remember that at times simple things can be quite hard and complicated things may still be easy.

From the conclusion of the paper you linked:

This review has found that there is no convincing evidence of major impacts of vegan diets on dog or cat health. There is, however, a limited number of studies investigating this question and those studies available often use small sample sizes or short feeding durations. There was also evidence of benefits for animals arising as a result of feeding them vegan diets. Much of these data were acquired from guardians via survey-type studies, but these can be subject to selection biases, as well as subjectivity around the outcomes. However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

There is an urgent need for large-scale population-based studies to further investigate this question, with a particular focus on assessing the dietary aspects cited to be of particular concern, e.g., taurine and folate. For guardians wishing to feed their pets vegan diets at the current time, based on the available evidence it is recommended that commercially produced vegan diets are used since these are less likely to lead to nutrient imbalances.

While it does support the viability of specially formulated vegan dog and cat diets based on the current research it is important not to gloss over the fact that they also stress that the current research is lacking and largely based on self-report surveys. Personally I'm not terribly swayed by this paper one way or another and wouldn't take it as being definitive. Of course I recognize that more precise research has difficulties due to the ethics involved, but I'm also confident that we can do better.

I agree with what you say about the obsession with natural diet being weird by the way, but I think there is a reasonable disconnect in the leap from natural meat -> meat based pet food ------> no meat. For example, even if I don't eat the same food an early homo sapien would eat I still eat the same kind of food rather than an all mineral diet or something. That's not to say that I wouldn't if such a thing were viable of course, just that I'd want to be very sure first.

My dude, you haven't pissed anyone off here that I can see, you've just gotten overly defensive and are seeing slights where there aren't any. People are disagreeing with you and some may be critical of your responses but that doesn't mean anything is heated. Maybe take a short break from Lemmy and get a glass of water or something? I mean that with 100% sincerity. If you're interpreting these comments as hateful you're probably in a bad headspace and I'm doubtful the internet is going to help.

A bit of both in my non-expert but local understanding.

That pattern doesn't really hold though. The third strong enemy becomes a sexy man. Seriously though, it's not the greatest show ever made but it is better than 95% of the isekai trash out there and isn't nearly as formulaic as you seem to think it is.

I'm not a doctor or even well read on the subject but my understanding is that: a) it's not, and b) it's a rather different texture/stiffness.

If that's all you said, I agreed with that part. Why did you keep arguing with me?

I see people doing this so often (on the internet especially) and it honestly baffles me. The best I've ever been able to rationalize it is that people are often far more interested in arguing their own points and saying what they believe than actually listening to and understanding others or having a real debate. That may be overly simplistic but it's how I cope.

It kind of does in context actually, since, if I recall correctly, it was a sacred Native site. So specifically carving the faces of their colonizers into it is extra fucked.

I entirely agree, and that does sound like a good approach. I just caution against presenting recycling as a solution rather than as a reduction of harm.

You often can't though unfortunately. Most plastics can only be recycled a handful of times before they degrade too far. Recycling, while better than nothing, is a far more inefficient and flawed process than it is often presented as. That's why it is far better to reduce usage in the first place and reuse things as is where you can. Of course this is all still easier said than done.