• 0 Posts
  • 291 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle



  • If you want the barest understanding, I guess the barest definitions are “good enough”. If you want a more sophisticated understanding then you have to take the time to understand the actual philosophical lexicon that the definition relies upon, since, as it points out itself, “Veganism is a philosophy”.

    Y’know, considering your username is commie, I’m surprised you don’t have a better understanding of exploitation, as Marx was really pivotal in developing that philosophical concept.



  • We’re not talking about consensual exploitation. Were talking about behaviors that aren’t exploitation due to, or perhaps shown not to be so by consent. There’s no need to explicitly mention consent because a) it would needlessly complicate the definition, b) as a practical matter, it almost never actually arises except in these sorts of thought experiments, and c) it’s already included implicitly in the concept of exploitation.

    Let’s look at our original thought experiment: “It’s vegan to eat someone who has consented to being eaten.”

    Usually we don’t put too much thought into this sort of stuff because it doesn’t really come up much outside of tongue in cheek mention, but I digress.

    OK, so off the bat, if you think about it, there are indeed some problems with this statement. There could be systemic issues that made them consent to something harmful because the transactional benefit outweighs the harm to them. So in that sense, you’re right, looking directly for exploitation is the more objectively vegan thing to do.

    However what if they have a genuine desire to be eaten (non-injuriously or posthumously, hopefully) where there are no confounding influences like above? The absence of exploitation is indicated through consent, in this case, and indeed, without any form of consent the other party would have no way to know of their desire to be eaten.

    I think maybe a more realistic example than eating someone would be “Is it vegan to honour someone’s organ-donor card?” That seems to me to be a fairly clearcut case of accepting consent as implying non-exploitation.








  • enkers@sh.itjust.workstoLinux@lemmy.mlIs Linux (dumb)user friendly yet?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    I’ve got to agree with this. I love Linux and have run it on my servers for years. That said, I’ve got Mint on my laptop and tried to print an image over wifi at a friend’s place and could not for the life of me get it to print properly.

    For the most part things do just work, but there are a lot more “obscure” scenarios that are handled correctly in windows but not Linux.

    I also find that when things go wrong on Linux, they are harder to fix. I’ve had several times I’ve had to deal with circular dependency hell to get something to install properly. I did eventually get those problems resolved, but it was often a single person having a tangential problem that hinted me to how to solve it.

    Edit: I think if your usage patterns are straight forward enough, it is by far and away the better choice. If you do the same stuff all the time, it’ll pretty much never break, which is not something I could say about windows. So for OP, it sounds like it would be a good fit.








  • Profiting off the suffering of others isn’t acceptable behavior. Establishments that do so should be boycotted where possible and practicable. I think protest is a justified response.

    Given two scenarios where I’m potentially wrong, the one where I’m mistaken and vegan is the one with a substantially more ethical outcome than the one where I’m mistaken and not vegan.