set -o vi / emacs works in bash too

Some people even support the industries fight for animal cruelty, climate change and new zoonosis

As long as people give money to the animal industry no government on earth will do shit

According to the manpage --Yay --clean is the thought behind it, its a Yay specific shortcut for pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt) Remove recursive what the Query quiet (short names) on the database lists as unrequired t

Now -Yc does not sound that bad.

It is still good to learn the verbose commands for pacman/paru/yay from the manpages, once you are familiar with them its easy to build more advanced commands for special use-cases.

SwayWM, but I think any of those you mentioned should be able to do it?

the wording was a bit of, it should spell “carcasses raised with their own shit”

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23817808/pig-farm-investigation-feedback-immunity-feces-intestines

A section of the A24 was limited to 130 kmph for 20 years to reduce accidents. Because the reduction the speed limit was lifted early this year. Now there are 8% more accidents with injury and 42% more injured. Politicians call now to make it possible to limit the section again.

https://archive.ph/hPIpp

My point is that there is no “as it should be” god given right to rape, abuse and kill animals when there is no need. You are not different to those who opose same rights for all right now. You think you are superior to others and that is justification to abuse those.

There have always been people like you in history that declared the circumstances as something “that should be”

Here are the prequels of your statement:

We don’t prosecute people for killing any slaves (as it should be)

We don’t prosecute people for beating their wives (as it should be)

We don’t prosecute people for racism (as it should be)

Obviously everyone is limited by the scope of understanding they have right now, I could not decide what is best for everyone in every situation and the view of the world changes over time in society.

Rawls did not consider many issues but I think that makes it easier: It is not you or me in our current situation who decides, you and me are already human so we have to decide before we are anybody and at that point we have none of those limits. If at this point you don’t want to experience suffering or injustice what prevents the you you are now to not inflict suffering and injustice on others?

Yes, you could become one with lower intelligence so maybe you decide to give them the best possibilities they can have in live. With even distribution you are 10 times more likely to end in cage an be killed than to end up as any human, it takes little imagination to see that its not desirable.

Martha Nussbaum (Justice for animals - absolute recommended read) has some good points on the shortcomings of the veil of ignorance, not invalidating but refining. She takes it and extends the thought of freedom and independence with fairness. A fairness that is not required by Rawls because in his scenario everyone has the same abilities.

Not to disagree with the usage of Kant, it is obviously valid. I personally lean more towards Kohlbergs theory of moral because I think it provides more depth, nuance. For the point made in the video I think Rawls is a good fit.

If you are more interested in the point made at ~13:00

Imagine if you have a 50-50 chance of being born as … human …or as a pig

this is basically John Rawls original position, or veil of ignorance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

I think it is a valuable thought experiment for all -isms

Animal products. No, it was not worth it.

So tell me, which group is excluded? Religious carnivores? Or is it only you starting to cry if no chicken died for your tendies?

People who eat animal products are not excluded if there is none. Do you only ever eat meat and have nothing to eat if its not a dead animal?

How hard is it for you to understand that nobody is excluded for not serving what their little meatflake brain desires?

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant when I have already posted plenty of examples where students choose to fight and vote for a plant based cafeteria. Its very simple: everyone can eat plants, nobody needs animal based products. With a limited numbers of menus plant based food is the most inclusive. Special taste preferences can be accommodated at home.

E: https://feddit.de/comment/2695679

That is why students choose to have their campus vegan because plant based food is the most inclusive.

Many universities had students surveys and made the choice for vegan menus already.

In Cambridge the students voted for completely vegan menus https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/21/cambridge-university-students-vote-for-completely-vegan-menus

In Berlin 34 canteens have only one day a week a option with meat https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/31/berlins-university-canteens-go-almost-meat-free-as-students-prioritise-climate Many others are already plant based.

It is on a steady rise due to demand of the students https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/22/vegan-college-menus-on-rise-as-students-return-to-universitys

This sounds kinda wrong, if you would put that logic in other circumstances we are at the argument the “anti-women-voting-right” argument from the crazy lady: Women should only be allowed to vote if they work. Or old people who retire, should they not be allowed to vote anymore? People who have medical conditions and so on…

or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Meat-eating

Its a multitude of reasons for people to go vegan: The animals, their own health, the probability of not creating a living hell on earth. The reason why vegans try to convince others is often because after a few years most are so disconnected from the killing of others for taste where it is a giant argument. The suffering and abuse of 90 billion sentient land animals per year alone is for most good enough to stop supporting it. I have surrendered that argument for most discussions because it is hard to have that empathy while it is a part in your live. It wasn’t for me, although is was not challenged in that view back then. So now my arguments moved more towards egoism which sometimes works.

I am vegan since 5 years, before I was (don’t judge me, or do- its deserved) 10 years vegetarian. Since ~15 years? PV on my roof which feed into the grid many times more power than I used I rarely travel, not one flight. I advocate and work towards a sustainable future. Demonstrations and some political work. Go on, check my my posts and judge for yourself if I was maybe sarcastic?