nutbutterA 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.
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.
It’s so sad that you have to project your own lack of self-awareness just to make your argument. Clearly grasping at straws here.
In the meantime, us vegans will keep convincing people successfully that any animal can be raped, and especially cows who are artificially inseminated.
I have won this argument for a 2nd time because you have no other response besides “no u”
any animal can be raped
True
cows who are artificially inseminated
Is not rape and you already admitted it is not equivalent to rape.
You keep trying to catch me in a trap as if I fell into one. You’re hallucinating.
Real suffering
Shows your speciesist bias. How fortunate that you ignore to acknowledge that bias in order to buff up your argument and make it appear stronger than it is.
Artificial insemination is rape, and cows suffer as a result, just as women do, dogs do, and any other species.
And for the record, you don’t care about women getting raped. You literally don’t give a fuck because if you did, you’d understand the parallels between what humans can experience and what non-human animals can experience. Rape to any animal is a violation that can fuck them up, psychologically!
But your sick, egotistical, selfish world view blocks you from giving a shit. I suspect this world view also extends to other beliefs of yours.
Go crawl back into the hole where you feel morally righteous. Meanwhile, is vegans will continue to fight for animal rights which includes anti-artificial insemination and freedom.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
Interesting to hear this perspective when theunknownmuncher has been doing the same throughout my thread with them and this entire post.
No, I never make personal attacks or ad hominem. The fact that you’ve stooped to this level shows that your argument has failed and you cannot use logic or reasoning to back it up.
You made a personal attack when you put words in my mouth and forced me to take a position I never held.
I’m defending myself accordingly.
Theunknownmuncher said that I trivialize the experience of human rape victims. I never said anything that would trivialize their experiences. I advocated for broadening the scope of what we call rape to more than just humans. It’s anthropocentric to think that only humans can be raped.
Does this sub encourage bad faith discussions? That seems to be against the principle of civility.
Theunknownmuncher said that I trivialize the experience of human rape victims.
i think it’s reasonable to say that when you compare a veterinary procedure to rape.
Artificial insemination is not a veterinary procedure though. It’s a forced action on a animal that violates their consent.
How the fuck do y’all not recognize this.
It is not. I’m sorry you have a different version of reality.