I see what you mean. However, it was at no point my intention to equate the severity of those two different contexts. But given your interpretation, I understand why you found it to be a ridiculous comparison. I just wanted to highlight that even seemingly harmless things can become a tool for harming someone regardless of the actual severity. Sorry if that wasn’t clear enough before.

Given that this protest is performed by adults and not 5 year olds, and assuming that they are not shy about their hostility towards tourists, I would argue that the severity of such an confrontation can linger for a while with someone. I am absolutely sure that this would keep my mind busy for a while if it were to happen to me or those close to me. Therefore, I would rank this higher in terms of severity than a child being silly. (Of course it would be no match with being bullied.)

my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word “attacked”.

Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t interpret the wording in such a dramatic manner like you did. I’ve seen it in a more general, abstract manner. Not in a way that would motivate me to call the police, no. Almost like the phrasing “verbal attack”, which is also understood rather lightly. It seems this is why we’ve got into this misunderstanding. So thank you for clarifying this. :)

How so?

It illustrates the hostility experienced by the target. It’s just water, which is by itself harmless.

But:

In the one case it is a demeaning gesture by bullies, which does imply so much more than “just water”.

In the other case it is experiencing aggression, possibly being shouted at or insulted, which also causes more than “just water”.

How would you feel?

You plan a trip to the city, with your partner and kids. And then you come accross angry people who tell you to fuck off while shooting at you and your family with water pistols.

Would you feel the same way about this as if it was just raining?

To me, and probably a lot of people, this is certainly another and far more hostile experience, which is also not a pleasant one.

In a hostile context even the most harmless of things can become weapons.

For example, do you care if the guy in school gets a bucket of water emptied above them while being ridiculed by bullies?

It’s just water at the end, so what?

Hmh… 🤔

Radioactive waste disposal is better than ever now.

But is it good enough?

Yes yes. Let’s continute to use energy sources which are limited in terms of available but necessary resources and cause highly problematic by-products. It has been going on so well so far. Hasn’t it?

Or Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other major religion.

But no, suddenly I am the maniac for believing that – in reality – we are pink elephants, hopping on the moon and imagining life as we believe it to be true. No one can prove I am wrong. But uh oh, sky grandpa mad.

(/s I don’t believe anything. Just making a sarcastic point.)

Here is a nice visualisation of the logical paradox:

Wicca (English: /ˈwɪkə/), also known as “The Craft”,[1] is a modern pagan, syncretic, earth-centered religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

Isn’t the firey interpretation popularized by Dante’s Inferno?

Fear of the unforknowable.

The petition doesn’t seem to be active, i.e. signable, right now.

Yep. Nothing more to say in this matter.

The only reason to use AI in programming is to simplify C++ error messages.

It’s impossible to trust any sources these days because there are hidden agendas. […] No amount of “scientific literature” can contradict actual, basic, fundamental science about who we are and what we are supposed to eat. Anyone who does has an agenda.

Sounds more like, “I don’t like it, so it must be an agenda”.

If you have issues trusting science we won’t come to an agreement here. Having a biased view and choosing what you want to believe, despite contradicting evidence, is building an illusion and not having an accurate picture of reality.

Note that research on that topic has not just popped up in the last couple of years. Also you may take a look at other cultures for hands-on counterexamples, e.g. some monks who live and have lived their whole lifes without consuming animal products.

The fact remains: we are omnivores

I wonder how you decide what a “fact” is, since you have issues trusting the work of scientists.
Anyway:
The fact also remains that digestion capabilites, i.e. being able to eat both plant and animal matter, don’t necessarily impose dietary recommendations.

What you need to survive is a set of nutrients your body can digest. In which form they come, is less important.

Humans need at least some meat to survive. […] It causes long-term, serious harm to people who do not supplement their diet with at least some meat. […] completely cutting out meat is bad for you.

That is not correct.

Advocating a vegan (or even vegetarian) diet is ignoring science and how our bodies function. […] Pure veganism is a cult that ignores science, diet, and common sense.

To the contrary. It is very much supported by science. Are you interested in the scientific literature? I’ll happily share.

True, increased demand for meat is one of the driving factors of ecological malpractise as it’s found in the meat industry.

Plant based diets and a lifestyle free of animal products provide a more sustainable and ecologically beneficial alternative. As does reducing the overall world population of course.

In that case you could pay tuem for their USB A plug-in service.

The us is in many ways a much worse country than Germany (or almost any EU country). I don’t see why we should strive to emulate that model.

Besides the point. Immigration does not necessarily lead to “bad” legislation.

an AfD or nazi kid in your home

Mostly the same thing.