The UK government's ban on Palestine Action is a "disturbing" misuse of counter-terrorism legislation, the United Nations' human rights chief has warned.

Not all laws are just by nature of being laws.

I edited my comment after with this because I thought I was coming off too harsh against the idea, and even this I would soften further:

Edit: it is different if you adopt an elderly isolated cat that would otherwise be put down. In that situation, you'll still be providing them with a life, but if you do get through to them, they will bond to you, and it will still make leaving for trips difficult, even if they're used to your daily absence. A support network is inherently more flexible and robust then a support pair.

The fact that you're putting this much thought and consideration into it, signals that you would probably be a very good cat owner, and I don't think you should write the idea off.

Just, try and find a cat that seems independent, and 6 months or a year in, look back and reconsider if it would actually be that much harder to add a friend to the mix.

I don't have experience with taking care of multiple pets concurrently and don't really feel comfortable doing so. I've never taken care of a single cat, so immediately jumping into two sounds incredibly daunting and I am quite frankly just not interested in doing so considering I have zero experience in that.

I get what you're saying, for a responsible pet owner, it's always nerve wracking going into pet ownership and taking on a dependent.

But my point is that jumping into cat ownership is jumping into cat ownership. You're going to have to keep their water full, pour some food in their bowls a couple times a day, clean their litter, and then play and cuddle with them every day. Once a year you have to put them in a carrier and bring them to the vet.

Adding a second cat to that situation means that you pour a second bowl of food, fill up a second bowl of water, clean a second litter box when you clean the first, and once a year put two cats in carriers rather than just one. At the same time the amount you need to play with them and cuddle them every day decreases substantially.

With one cat, going away on vacation means that you basically need to find a cat sitter, or you leave them just sitting at the door waiting for you all day getting depressed. With two cats, they get sad but then play and cuddle and bond with each other.

You keep saying stuff like 'im just not interested' which isn't an explanation, it's a thought terminating phrase. Take it from us experienced cat owners when we say that in your situation, it's would be great to adopt two cats, and cruel to adopt just one.

Edit: it is different if you adopt an elderly isolated cat that would otherwise be put down. In that situation, you'll still be providing them with a life, but if you do get through to them, they will bond to you, and it will still make leaving for trips difficult, even if they're used to your daily absence. A support network is inherently more flexible and robust then a support pair.

Because I don't feel like I can care for multiple pets as a single person who lives alone? I know some do, but I am not comfortable with that.

But the question is why?

What about owning two pets seems more difficult than one?

I've owned multiple cats bonded to me and each other, and I've owned a single cat bonded to just me, the former is much much easier.

True happiness lies in learning to be happy with being content.

Why are you insisting on a single pet?

Cats are less socially dependent than dogs, but they are still social creatures who prefer to not be alone for 8+ hours a day.

Either work from home so you can provide their social needs, or get two cats so that their social needs can be met even when you're not there (also makes taking vacation and travelling easier).

Seriously why would you insist on only a single pet? That seems insanely arbitrary.

A population where everyone is armed will also almost certainly have more firepower than a single terrorist group, too.

It will also arm a whole shit of load terrorists, and people just having a bad day.

The power dynamic is between the terrorists and anyone who would oppose them, not just the state.

Yeah, and now you've raised the floor massively.

when terrorists are basically always ultimately handled by a military force

[citation needed]

It's so wild. I vacationed in Northern England, about an hour south of Scotland, in Tynemouth, and our whole family found the offshore turbines to be magical.

There's ruins of like a massive 4-6 story monastery from the 15th century, and it's wild because the remnants of the one wall are the tallest thing in town, and have been for centuries. There's literally paintings and drawings going back centuries showing it, and centuries and centuries of people living in the shadow of this partial massive monument that no longer exists.

It's super interesting, but there's also something kind of inherently scary and depressing about feeling like you're seeing ancient remnants of some massive great thing that can no longer be done.

But then at a foggy sunset we saw the off shore turbines and it was genuinely uplifting and magical in a solar punk way. Just the blades peaked out of the fog, and similar to the monastery ruins, they looked too big to be created by humans, but these were actually still working. It felt like it was providing a glimpse into our future massive endeavours, and was one of the most magical moments of the whole trip.

Edit: pictures

America is not the only place in the world. In places without mass corporate landlords, private landlords happily fill that void and are absolutely still the problem.

Show me a landlord that genuinely finds efficiencies that arent just 'hire a cheaper contractor than they would hire for their own home'.

No they don't. They've been profiting off of doing no work for decades. They can sell their cottage if that's what it takes for their tenants to have a single reasonable home.

I'm pretty sure half these articles are issued by the companies themselves just to get people outraged and talking about this, just so that they can test the waters and see how many people will defend it.

You haven't actually proven anything, you've just modelled a possible scenario.