nutbutter"Being vegan is unnatural"
I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering …
A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
“someone”
Keyword.
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
That’s correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.
But maybe we disagree only on terminology?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
LeonRaping a dog is bad, yes.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Whether a dog is “someone” is irrelevant. Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable? Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable?
Yes, of course. This is quite literally what defines morality itself. There is no universal, tangible, or measurable morality.
Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Okay.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
For what it’s worth, I am not trying to trap you in a “gotcha”, I’m trying to follow your logic because it doesn’t make any sense to me. The division between OK and not OK seems to me completely arbitrary.
If say, a large enough population of people were to deem a certain subgroup of humans as livestock, would it then be ethically correct to artificially inseminate them and slaughter them for their meat?
My knee-jerk reaction is no, but said knee-jerk reaction extends to all animals.
Similarly, I don’t see why there’s a line drawn between someone artificially inseminating a cow so that you can slaughter and eat the flesh of them and their offspring, and sexually abusing the same cow.
I’m not a vegan. I was born a vegetarian, and haven’t ever eaten flesh on purpose. Unlike vegans I don’t really see a problem with say, caring for sheep as pets, and using their wool to make yarn.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
I don’t know. If someone viewed me as livestock, and stuck an implement in me and squirted me full of semen, I don’t think I’d care that it’s ethical in their eyes.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape.
I don’t think you’re being genuine, but if you really can’t tell the difference between these 4 things or why there are lines drawn between them and actually do find them to be arbitrary distinctions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Pet animals and other animals are no different in and of themselves, objectively. A pet dog is no different than a stray dog. A pet cow is no different than a domesticated cow.
The difference you ascribe to these organisms is how much meaning they demonstrate for you, subjectively.
And since your morals and world view depend on subjectivity rather than objectivity, this opens so many doors into unethical situations that I’m not sure you wanted.
P.S. You’re giving off big psychopath vibes, I hope you know that.
Pet animals and other animals are no different in and of themselves, objectively. A pet dog is no different than a stray dog. A pet cow is no different than a domesticated cow.
Agreed. This is completely irrelevant though.
The difference in these scenarios is one scenario was artificial insemination of an animal and the other scenario was a person having sex with an animal. These are not the same actions.
I guess the vast majority of people on the planet are “psychopaths” because the can tell the difference between these 2 obvious things?
If someone was fucking cows
That’s the exact issue we’re talking about in this thread actually.
Intercourse does not have to involve a penis, vagina, and rectum. It can involve many more things, human related and other.
Do you think that it isn’t rape if you do it to someone with, say, a hand/fist/arm? How about a bottle?
Do you think that it isn’t rape if you do it to someone with, say, a hand/fist/arm? How about a bottle?
someone
Good to know we’re at the end of the line here.
You’re not willing to define rape, which is convenient for your argument because you get to worm your way out of being pinned down with good arguments. You have an inconsistent world view that undermines your qualifications to speak on this topic.
At least we didn’t waste ALL of everyone’s time getting you to reveal this.
Keep pretending that you don’t know the difference between artificial insemination of livestock and rape of a person. You do know the difference, but admitting it would prove your worldview false.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
You’re losing the argument btw because you’re falling into reactionary contrarianism without providing positive meaning yourself. Keep digging your own hole.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
Yeah, agreed. Go ahead and quote me where I stated that an animal cannot be raped. Artificial insemination is not rape though.
You’re losing the argument
We’re trying to get to the bottom of why you think forcible impregnation of someone is rape while of a cow isn’t.
You said that dogs can be raped, and specifically pet dogs.
I pointed out that there are no differences between pet dogs and stray dogs, and likewise between pet cows and stray cows.
I called you out for holding a subjectivist world view because the outcome of raping a pet dog and a stray dog, or pet cows and stray cow is the same. Something happens to them that they would’ve have sought out for in the first place if it wasn’t forced on them. That is the objective reality.
Subjective views of reality where empathy doesn’t apply by virtue of no personal connection sends society back into barbarism. Your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Plain and simple: your world view is wrong and morally indefensible. If you like it that way, so be it. But you’re sick and twisted if so.
your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Imagine thinking you have the moral high ground while trivializing and using the suffering of actual rape victims and slavery by falsely equating it to something as harmless as artificial insemination of livestock. That’s genuinely disgusting.
Do you really think this makes you look good or helps your argument?
How do we know that artificial insemination isn’t traumatizing to cows? Where is your evidence of that? You claiming that rape to cows is harmless is trivializing.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation. Don’t fucking put words in my mouth.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation.
So now you’re admitting they aren’t the same? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Show me where I perfectly equated humans to cows, cows to dogs, or dogs to humans.
It’s okay to feel uncomfortable and conflicted right now if you can’t find it. Perhaps dwell on the fact that you actually do understand that they are the same IN THE WAYS I DESCRIBED while simultaneously clinging to a world view that requires them to be different.
Lol ya got nothing, huh? That’s what I thought.
Cope. You’ve ran out of arguments, but you’re trying to cover your ass to make it look like you’re the one that came out on top.
Keep up the debate if you’re not uncomfortable with people pointing out the flaws in your world view for all to see.
You admitted that artificial insemination of livestock is not equivalent to rape. So yes, I did come out on top, as this was the original point that we were debating.
Artificial insemination is equivalent to rape though. That’s been my whole argument this entire time.
And instead of finding good reasons to refute that, you’re doubling down on straw mans and trying to derail the conversation. You’re sweating that I won’t give up to your bigoted views.
“Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation.”
this you?
Yes dumbass. I said that IN THE CONTEXT of referring to how humans, cows, and dogs aren’t ALL the same. However, humans, cows, and dogs are ALL sentient beings with the capability to communicate and experience pain. In that way, consent is real for them, and artificial insemination via non-consent is rape for ALL of them.
You’re trying to trap me in a cognitive fallacy, when the really fallacy is your inability to understand nuance and context. Truly not shaking the dumbass reputation.
when the really fallacy is your inability to understand nuance and context
That’s truly ironic. Again, no self awareness at all? Nuance and context is what I have highlighted to you. If you understood nuance and context, then you would understand that things happening in a different context to different subjects are actually nuanced and different. Instead your flawed world view requires all of this to be viewed as black and white and the same, when it is not.