You know what, you’re right. Looks like I’ve gone too long assuming they were interchangeably usable by changing the surrounding words.

I’ll redact my previous statement, though to be clear, I still strongly disagree that one could say that the attackers schizophrenia was definitely a factor in this without having a previously existing mental evaluation and the expertise to understand it. You could say that it’s more likely to have been influenced by his schizophrenia, but as I previously noted, a relatively small minority of schizophrenic people are violent (10-15%).

You don’t need to be a psychologist to determine whether his mental illness was a factor.

I’m not saying his mental illness was the reason.

Please continue saying more contradictory statements.

If you think it could be a factor, then you think it might be a reason that he did this. It could be a factor, but again, neither of us are equipped to evaluate the mental status of someone based on news articles.

Edit: Factor =/= Reason. My argument in this message is flatly incorrect due to this, though I’ll leave it up.

Please don’t tell me to stop and breathe, I’m fully calm in this discussion.

My argument is that no one in this thread is a psychologist who has evaluated the schizophrenic person. Not you, not me, not anyone else. We can speculate as to the cause, but making prescriptive statements like “he did this because he has schizophrenia” only serve to stigmatize the condition further when we truly have no idea if that was the cause.

A person who is mentally ill and has done violent things, doesn’t mean they did those violent things because of their illness.

In fact, your “common sense” isn’t even supported by science.

• Only 10-15% of schizophrenic people exhibit violent tendencies

• Schizophrenic people living in communities are up to 14x more likely to be the victim of violence rather than the perpetrator

• Finally, this is anecdotal, but for whatever it’s worth, I have multiple (3) friends who are schizophrenic and they are genuinely the kindest people I know, whether or not they are on their medication.

Stop vilifying the mentally ill.

I edited one word of my comment because I had another reply from someone who misunderstood what I was referring to, so i clarified so there wouldnt be further confusion, not to give myself an excuse to be snarky.

• I’ve read the article you’ve provided a number of times previously and while yes, it does indicate that there is no scientific evidence for my claim, it is limited to the UK.

• I don’t see what interbreed-ability has to do with invasiveness?

I don’t care about some American publication talking about cats

• I provided 3 sources, one was American, the others were from Oxford (also in the UK last I checked) and Tillburg (Netherlands), both discussing the EU broadly

• Here is another study from the checks notes British Ecological Society which concludes in part

“…It is also well established that free-ranging cats pose a significant threat to biodiversity conservation and restoration worldwide, and that remedying this threat is relatively easy when compared to other drivers of biodiversity loss…”

If you’re not going to read the evidence I’m providing, while saying I’m only providing americentric evidence, then I’m going to respectfully abandon this thread. I apologize for the snark, that was uncalled for.

Edit: formatting only

I was specifically referring to domesticated cats not being native to these regions since that was what is being discussed.

Fantastically, a wild cat isn’t a domestic cat! Wow! Who knew!

• I’m not american

• The discussion involved housecats, I assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to housecats, not fucking wildcats

• Housecats are native to Egypt and are descendants of the African wildcat

• https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/free-ranging-and-feral-cats.pdf

• https://academic.oup.com/jel/article/32/3/391/5640440

• https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/current/press-releases/cats-must-stay-indoors-protect-wildlife

Stop thinking that things that make you feel bad about your world view are “patently false information based on an amero-centric worldview”. Please and fucking thank you

Except plastic straws aren’t actively hunting marine creatures.

Domesticated cats are not native to north america and western Europe, and people should be more responsible in how they care for their pets, especially the ones that are invasive fucking species.

Also, 2 things can be true. It’s possible that bird populations are being decimated by ecological destruction as well as the mass breeding and free roaming of invasive predators introduced by humans.

Edit: clarified that I meant domesticated cats

Despite the state’s monopoly on violence, they shouldnt have the right to end their citizen’s life.

• On average an execution costs significantly more than life in prison

• Even with overwhelming evidence, in some cases you can never fully remove the chance that the person being executed has been wrongfully convicted. Idk about you, but even one innocent person getting the death penalty is enough to fully ban in in my opinion.

• The majority of methods used to administer the death penalty (including in this case) are faux-humane and actually result in the person experiencing horrific, torturous pain while everyone else talks about how humane their death is

Frankly, I’d rather have someone rot in prison for decades

Could you explain what part of it doesn’t make sense to you? (Or what part you disagree with) Maybe one of us can clarify better if we start there

Trans woman = woman, I fail to see your point.

I still have a lot of de-googling to do. However at this point, I only use google as a search engine maybe once/month, and it’s frankly usually for the google business info…thing. For everything else, I use Kagi and quite frankly have not looked back. Probably one of the few services that I happily pay for.

I think the assumption from the Vermont police is that someone comes to Canada, gets a tracker put in their wheel well or whatever while they’re here, then they return to the USA before their car is hit, but because of how these trackers work, their location is probably still known.

People are stealing cars in Canada and shipping them out of Port of Montreal and Port of Toronto in containers with falsified manifests. reportedly theives are using tracking tags to keep an eye on vehicles they want to eventually grab.

I’m going to very sincerely disagree. You can see it as misinterpretation if you like, but I believe there’s functionally no difference between the two statements you’ve provided and as long as the right is trying to come up with any excuse to outlaw our existence, its optically beneficial to come up with ways of educating people who may be “eggs” about being trans/enby that are informative, but are less likely to fuel a deranged groomer witchhunt. I’m glad it helped you and your friends, but given the political climate, I believe we should avoid terms that endanger us more than needed.

Continue using it, I certainly won’t stop you. But I’m not going to start.

I… Where are you buying Caesars that you’re getting them with fried pickles/onion rings/etc?

Or am I misunderstanding and you meant that those are on the side?

“The cruelty is the point”

Whoops, Yes it was a little past 1am when I wrote that I must’ve gotten them mixed up which switching back and forth between the documents. I’ll double check and correct that in a moment.

I’m sincerely glad you actually read it all, the world can be a little fucked right now.

TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including “homosexuality” broadly

Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (…)

It carries on to later define “harmful to minors” in section h-3 as the following:

(3) “Harmful to minors” means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding “Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors” and goes on to declare in section d-2 that “harmful to minors” refers to several things including sexual conduct (I’m omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

(8) “sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female’s breast; and (…)

Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups

Frankly idgaf about the prime directive (edit: this is perhaps an exaggeration, I meant I wasn’t necessarily referring to the prime directive) , but as an enby person, I think going around saying “doing this makes you an egg” is pretty antithetical to people not wanting to be judged for not complying with the gender roles that correspond with their assigned gender.