Look, I don’t disagree with your point necessarily, but you’re not winning over literally anyone in this thread. It’s just not happening.
Nobody ever has been convinced that dairy is rape and meat is murder by some Lemmy user saying “dairy is rape” and following up with “because it is”.
Most obviously, your primary argument is consequentialism, which many people just don’t see as a valid form of ethics. Many people subscribe to deontology instead, and so they don’t see it as rape because they are not obtaining sexual gratification from artificial insemination or drinking milk.
You’re telling me motive makes a bad thing okay to do under deontology? In other words, it’s okay for a deontologist to murder someone if they have a cool motive?
I dunno I thought Kant said you should never do bad things even if you have a good reason.
Imo, Kant’s principles don’t really apply in this scenario, the Categorical Imperative applies to human-to-human treatment. Kant’s primary principle is act as such it would become universal law. Animal consumption is already a universal law.
Murder (of a human) is wrong because when applied universally, then society collapses. Theft is wrong because when applied universally, the right of property, and therefore society, collapses.
Animal consumption doesn’t cause societal collapse.
Animal consumption causes factory farming, and farming causes chickens to develop stress-induced autophagia. I don’t like it when the chickens are so unhappy they eat themselves and need to be debeaked. We should all stop doing things that cause that.
Is “sticking your dick in a pet dog” the same as artificially inseminating livestock? No, it’s obviously not even close to the same thing? Then, obviously, no.
It’s a foreign object in the vagina used to inject semen. It’s exactly the same. An artificial insemination device is an artificial penis. It’s designed to do what a penis does.
You really think you’re going to win an argument by attempting to claim that fucking a dog is “exactly the same” as what dairy farmers do when they artificially inseminate cattle? False equivalency. What’s it mean when your beliefs depend on fallacies? 🤔
Not so in various parts of the world, which goes to show that humans play fast and loose with rights and morality.
You wanting to uphold those values anyway tells me that you wish for all humans to be treated the same: with dignity and respect. That same belief underpins my desire for animals to have the same, despite many places in the world completely foregoing their rights.
It’s a shame that your anthropocentrism doesn’t afford empathy for non-human animals
So… I guess you’re done trying to argue your position after running into multiple fallacies, we’ve moved past the threats and name calling (sorta lol), and we’re onto the signaling-false-moral-superiority stage. Cool
I’m perfectly keen on continuing to argue my position. You haven’t shown me how I’ve committed any fallacies, and yes I’m very much signalling my moral superiority to you! I hope that came across at some point!
One is done with a glorified Turkey baster to livestock. The other with your penis to a woman.
Both are non-consensual penetrations of animal vaginas. The actors involved need not be the same species, as in bestiality, and the thing used to penetrate need not be a body part. How would you like it if the women loved ones in your life were vaginally penetrated with Turkey basters instead of penises? Makes no difference because the deed is the same: concent is violated and in a sexual (read: vaginal body parts = sexual body parts) manner.
I’m not comparing women to livestock in the slightest, you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m saying that actions of rape DONE TO BOTH women and animals bear exact similarity. There is no difference between artificial insemination without consent of women as for animals, and there is no difference between vaginal intercourse without consent of animals as for women. Both of these instances constitute rape.
And artificial insemination without consent to a women is absolutely rape. It consists of vaginal penetration without consent. That is literally the definition.
Forced impregnation isn’t rape, forced labour isn’t slavery, and forced death isn’t murder with you carnists. What else, war is peace and ignorance is strength? We’ve always been at war with eastasia?
see, the first thing you learn when you graduate from college, and the first point of evidence i provided, is that things you learn in college are not the same as things in the real world. you should probably spend some more time outside the ivory tower and in the real world.
Cows produce more milk if they’re forcibly impregnated every year. Supporting cow milk is supporting rape, this is a fact.
Look, I don’t disagree with your point necessarily, but you’re not winning over literally anyone in this thread. It’s just not happening.
Nobody ever has been convinced that dairy is rape and meat is murder by some Lemmy user saying “dairy is rape” and following up with “because it is”.
Most obviously, your primary argument is consequentialism, which many people just don’t see as a valid form of ethics. Many people subscribe to deontology instead, and so they don’t see it as rape because they are not obtaining sexual gratification from artificial insemination or drinking milk.
You’re telling me motive makes a bad thing okay to do under deontology? In other words, it’s okay for a deontologist to murder someone if they have a cool motive?
I dunno I thought Kant said you should never do bad things even if you have a good reason.
Imo, Kant’s principles don’t really apply in this scenario, the Categorical Imperative applies to human-to-human treatment. Kant’s primary principle is act as such it would become universal law. Animal consumption is already a universal law.
Murder (of a human) is wrong because when applied universally, then society collapses. Theft is wrong because when applied universally, the right of property, and therefore society, collapses.
Animal consumption doesn’t cause societal collapse.
Thoughts?
Animal consumption causes factory farming, and farming causes chickens to develop stress-induced autophagia. I don’t like it when the chickens are so unhappy they eat themselves and need to be debeaked. We should all stop doing things that cause that.
no, it doesn’t
The word you’re looking for is “artificial insemination” and it does not equate to rape. This is a fact.
Watch rapists try this one nasty trick.
Alright then c’mon over buddy I’ll get the turkey baster ready
I’m not even vegan but wtf is this logic
False equivalency; I am not a cow.
My logic is sound and self consistent while yours depends on fallacies.
…can animals not be raped?
Of course they can, however artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Nuance exists.
There is no nuance.
Rape means no consent was granted. We need communication to receive consent. We cannot communicate with cows.
You’re a shill for the dairy industry. You drink rape milk
doors dont consent for you to jam your keys in them.
Does the door bleed when you do that? Does it cry out in fear of rape, or of sadness of losing its child right after birth?
So putting semen up a vagina without consent isn’t rape?
The concept of consent does not apply for livestock in this context. And yes, in the context of artificially inseminating livestock, that is correct.
Removed by mod
it’s a veterinary procedure
In what context? Animals? Are you saying a guy sticking his dick in his pet dog is a situation without any consent problems?
Is “sticking your dick in a pet dog” the same as artificially inseminating livestock? No, it’s obviously not even close to the same thing? Then, obviously, no.
It’s a foreign object in the vagina used to inject semen. It’s exactly the same. An artificial insemination device is an artificial penis. It’s designed to do what a penis does.
You really think you’re going to win an argument by attempting to claim that fucking a dog is “exactly the same” as what dairy farmers do when they artificially inseminate cattle? False equivalency. What’s it mean when your beliefs depend on fallacies? 🤔
But you didn’t explain why it’s a false equivalence, because you don’t have any good reasons
The concept of human rights does not apply for when I shove a boot up your ass after you’re done licking the dairy industry’s.
Nope, it still applies because I’m a human.
Not so in various parts of the world, which goes to show that humans play fast and loose with rights and morality.
You wanting to uphold those values anyway tells me that you wish for all humans to be treated the same: with dignity and respect. That same belief underpins my desire for animals to have the same, despite many places in the world completely foregoing their rights.
It’s a shame that your anthropocentrism doesn’t afford empathy for non-human animals
So… I guess you’re done trying to argue your position after running into multiple fallacies, we’ve moved past the threats and name calling (sorta lol), and we’re onto the signaling-false-moral-superiority stage. Cool
I’m perfectly keen on continuing to argue my position. You haven’t shown me how I’ve committed any fallacies, and yes I’m very much signalling my moral superiority to you! I hope that came across at some point!
So you are saying rape doesn’t exist in a slavery context.
No, slavery does not apply to livestock.
Removed by mod
no they are not
Are you a troll? Are you giving bad carnist arguments on purpose to help the vegan cause?
Great job!
Removed by mod
No, I’m just correct.
No you’re an full fledged animal abuser and rapist supporter.
Genius S+ tier strat
Ok buddy, explain to me the difference between artificial insemination and rape.
I’ll wait
I am sure laws vary by country, but going with laws here…
One is done with a glorified Turkey baster to livestock. The other with your penis to a woman.
Are we seriously comparing women to livestock here? But even AI to a human woman would be sexual assault, not rape.
Both are non-consensual penetrations of animal vaginas. The actors involved need not be the same species, as in bestiality, and the thing used to penetrate need not be a body part. How would you like it if the women loved ones in your life were vaginally penetrated with Turkey basters instead of penises? Makes no difference because the deed is the same: concent is violated and in a sexual (read: vaginal body parts = sexual body parts) manner.
I’m not comparing women to livestock in the slightest, you’re putting words in my mouth. I’m saying that actions of rape DONE TO BOTH women and animals bear exact similarity. There is no difference between artificial insemination without consent of women as for animals, and there is no difference between vaginal intercourse without consent of animals as for women. Both of these instances constitute rape.
And artificial insemination without consent to a women is absolutely rape. It consists of vaginal penetration without consent. That is literally the definition.
You must either life under a different legal system or your farmers are shagging their cattle to inseminate them for it to be rape.
How does a farmer find his cows?
Irresistible!
Adding “This is a fact” doesn’t make it a fact, sadly. Unless you’re in the US.
yeah, we just let the bull do his thing and the family dairy worked fine until we sold it in the 90s. where you getting your info because I lived it?
https://extension.umn.edu/dairy-milking-cows/artificial-insemination-cattle
!=rape. sorry.
Forced impregnation isn’t rape, forced labour isn’t slavery, and forced death isn’t murder with you carnists. What else, war is peace and ignorance is strength? We’ve always been at war with eastasia?
see, the first thing you learn when you graduate from college, and the first point of evidence i provided, is that things you learn in college are not the same as things in the real world. you should probably spend some more time outside the ivory tower and in the real world.
Removed by mod
Never thought I’d ever have to actually use this but