enkers

But that can of soup did irreperable harm to the sheet of glass protecting the painting. Wahh.

And the corn flour did irreperable harm to the lichen on the stones, but climate change certainly won’t. Wahh.

Their arguments are always just knee jerk grasping at straws.

Somehow it seemed to actually work

Tell that to East Palestine. Train derailments are on the rise because of lax safety measures, and this was one of the issues that the workers were trying to resolve. Instead Biden had congress force them back to work.

Virtual Network Computing. It’s basically an alternative to remote desktop.

I’d imagine you could run a VNC server, and then just login from the same PC. This kinda what you’re looking for?

There are some limitations, like I don’t think hardware acceleration would work, for example.

Edit: I did a little searching for “nested x-session” and found out that there is a specific x11 program to do exactly what you want called xephyr. There’s also a brief guide on the arch wiki.

UwU drumf is really really cursed

Right? I don’t think satire pointing out how utterly fucking ridiculous the cat eating allegations are is being part of the problem. This almost seems like “won’t someone appease the racists by not making fun of them?”

I wonder if that’s because most of its value is predicated on him being able to gain an unfair advantage due to his potential position in office.

If so, then this is probably a more accurate indicator of his chances in the election than any pollsters.

When you surround yourself with sycophants, of course nobody will tell you when you fuck up. People who can’t accept criticism always end up in a bubble of unreality that’ll grow and grow until it pops.

Would you rather take on 30 otter-sized horses, or one horse-sized otter?

Exactly. Harris and Trump both have pro-Israel policies which I’m strongly against. Trump’s stance is far worse, AND he’s a racist, misogynist, corpo sellout piece of shit.

Y’know what, I’m going to actually address your post on the merits, against my better judgement. (Against my better judgement, because I suspect you’re going to try and suck me in to a time wasting debate on semantics.)

The lie in your meme is the framing. You’ve set up two things that may well be true, but you’ve framed it in such a way to imply equivalency between the two candidates. If you simply wanted to point out Harris’s or her supporter’s hypocrisy, there was no point to bring Trump into it.

The meme I posted… Is it wrong?

Approximately 0.01% of lemmy’s user base would conflate simple “use” with exploitation. I warned you about sophistry before. If you have knowledge relevant to the domain at hand, put it to use, or stop wasting both of our time.

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.

That would imply that vegans could not have sex with each other because it “uses” the body of an animal.

Exploitation involves one using the vulnerability of another in order to gain something in an unfair manner. It’s not simply “use”.

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.

Your assertion was that consent isn’t at all relevant to veganism in regards to exploitation. However, if there exist situations in which consent could relieve the existence of exploitation then it must be relevant to consider.

Also, not that it matters, but there are 10 mentions if you also search for “consensual”, but that’s not really here nor there.

If you don’t wish to debate, you’re free to not respond at any time.

If we we’re having a discussion about physics, presumably we would use the terminology of physics. If we are having a discussion about morality and ethics (fields of philosophy, that is) we should probably use the terminology of philosophy. If you want to play semantic games, play them by yourself.

Veganism is an ethical position and as such can only be properly understood in the context of ethics.