But Genesis 3:16 seemingly has God setting man above woman, so a Christian could just use that instead.

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

I suppose you could argue it only applies to a husband and wife, or possibly even just Adam and Eve specifically, but that seems unlikely given the first part applies to women as a whole.

There’s also Timothy 2:11-13, and Christians tend to hold the new testament in high regard.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

(from the NIV for both)

So it seems like the Bible explicitly has God himself commanding sexism, rather than it needing to be inferred from symbolism.

Which scenario do you think is more representative of the average cow’s life?

People have their own standards for upvoting and downvoting, but I wouldn’t say it’s trivial. Nearly everyone would intuitively agree “I think more people should see this” is a reason to upvote and vice versa and so act accordingly.

With a controversial default sorting order, you would be incentivised to downvote a popular, quality comment and also downvote unpopular spam to affect visibility appropriately. The difference between high updates and downvotes disappears. The current default sorting order doesn’t incentivise changing your vote based on a comment’s current score to influence its visibility, which is nicer.

Yeah, and you can argue with them. That doesn’t mean controversial comments should be assumed to be higher quality than those with widespread support by default.

I suppose you might also leave trash at your seat in a movie theater or restaurant. After all, cleaning up is someone else’s job and you don’t even work there. Plus, you can pat yourself on the back for contributing to that person’s job security with your added burden like some of the people here.

more like wokémon

I like spending time with my friends when I am in the mood to socialize. I want to be able to opt in to hanging out. Needing to improv a conversation outside my “office hours” is frustrating.

In America, literally 99% of livestock is factory farmed. Here, the idea of animals living a life that is anything but miserable on a farm is largely a myth. If you don’t expressly know how the livestock animal that was used for meat was treated, you can safely presume it was tortured.

People are demonstrably ok with animals being mistreated. They continually endorse the abuse in the industry when there are other options available to them. It is simply not important enough to people for them to bother changing their behavior.

From memory, much of its advice could be summarized with “act with humility, treat people well, and show an interest in what others have to say, and they will generally like you and be willing to do what you want”. It had a lot of anecdotes from people describing how they handled difficult confrontations with others as part of their jobs at usually small businesses. Notoriously annoying customers would reflect on their behavior and change it after someone hears out their complaints and offers to accommodate them.

It is manipulative and can be used maliciously, but it’s also just generally good advice to prevent and de-escalate conflicts. I don’t think it’s any more evil than a hammer is for its potential to harm people as well as build things.

That seems like an overreaction. It’s not like they’re doing it by purpose.

People are linking good guides to inventing the important stuff, but you should also know that you can download wikipedia. The text-only English snapshot as of 2025-03-01 was 25 GB, so fairly reasonable to include on a flash drive, laptop, or phone. Just make sure you charge your device before time travelling.

They charge that much because you’re willing to pay that much. If it isn’t worth it, don’t buy it. Simple as.

Yup, this and some spicy potato soft tacos are my regular order. Comes out to around 200 calories per dollar, which is pretty good value.

Yeah Marvel characters’ identities don’t usually feel important. Nick Fury was race swapped for the movies and it was well-received.

Wikipedia describes the first two songs as

A 1980s-inspired downtempo electropop and synth-pop ballad

and

A synth-pop song

Both those are still pop. I listened to the first few songs in the album. They’re not bad, and imo they’re more interesting than her earlier hits. You’re right that she has matured as an artist. But I imagine someone that disliked her earlier stuff would also dislike these. Music taste is something you can’t really be right or wrong about. You shouldn’t accuse someone of lying about listening to something just because they didn’t like it.

In the US, brokerage companies legally have to send you a Form 1099 which covers all investment income over the year. You then include this when submitting your taxes. They probably send a similar report to your government instead.

Yes, there is the possibility that self-reported cases are untrustworthy. But there is no reason to think vegan cat owners would be more biased than non-vegan cat owners.

My desired outcome is simply showing that it is possible for cats to be healthy on a vegan diet. I only need one example to show that. And there are examples of such cats in the study my link had. At least for its tested disorders, reported vegan cats on average were slightly less likely to have at least one. The majority of both groups were in fact “healthy” (having no measured disorder). The difference between the healthy rates is small enough that it can be explained by variance and other factors contributing to health besides diet, and that’s fine.

Before anyone starts, yes there could be health metrics not being measured that are relevant to the spirit of the idea being explored. But you need to measure easily quantifiable things. If you just asked “Is this cat healthy?”, you would have some owners disqualify a cat for having a cut on their paw, and others disregarding serious concerns just because there hadn’t been a diagnosis. This is as wide a scope as you can expect to explore a qualitative idea with.

Unless you are suggesting that literally every owner reporting a healthy vegan cat in the study is just lying, my claim is supported by the study. And if you thought otherwise, you invented a different claim and assigned it to me.

I genuinely want people to engage honestly with other people’s arguments made in good faith. I know Lemmy is ultimately a collection of largely anonymous internet users, but still, I expected better than what I have seen in this thread.

See, this is actually good reasoning for why owners shouldn’t force a vegan diet on pets. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done well, but the difficulty in meeting dietary needs creates significant health risks for many owners’ cats. And it’s fine to leave it there, but it doesn’t close the door on the idea forever.