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.
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.
Artificial insemination is rape. It involves non-consensual penetration of another animal. It can happen by a bull, by a human, or by any other animal (or alien for that matter). Makes no difference for the animal that is on the receiving end.
Your idea of nuance quite conveniently means that the moral caution you afford to humans isn’t afforded to animals, which is anthropocentrist and egocentric. If ever in the future you call yourself empathetic, know that you absolutely aren’t.
Your idea of nuance quite conveniently means that the moral caution you afford to humans isn’t afforded to animals
Yes, absolutely, things are different in different situations and contexts. That’s literally how nuance works. Absolutism and reducing morality down to black-and-white is incorrect.
If ever in the future you call yourself empathetic, know that you absolutely aren’t.
🙄 yeah, using actual rape victims’ suffering to push your personal agenda makes you super empathetic and the good guy… oh brother
Nope, I’m right. Rape is the non-consensual penetration of another animal’s vaginal, anal, or oral orifices. Applies to humans, cows, or any other animal.
things are different in different situations and contexts.
But humans and animals are the same in their capacity to experience pain and pleasure (i.e. to be sentient). That capacity may vary according to species, but your lack of recognition for that once again proves to me how egocentric you are. How fucking dull.
actual rape victims
You mean cows right? And women? And any other member of a species that experiences rape? You cannot gatekeep this to just humans. Seems to me that you’re the one disrespecting rape victims here by denying how other species can experience the same.
Imagine if we sugar coated women that undergo sexual abuse and rape. We’d be 100% in support of the women, no questions asked (well, hopefully, but more and more beta incel cucks are making their voices heard online).
People will ignore this issue just like they ignore climate change. We as activists have a role in making it so they can’t ignore these things
Are you actually comparing climate change to animal abuse? Lol
Holy SHIT the reading comprehension in this thread is subzero. I wasn’t COMPARING.
I was saying that HUMANS will ignore the reality in front of them if it means they can uphold their materialistic desires and wants. HUMANS will ignore climate change, genocide, animal abuse and slaughter, homelessness, whatever you want to put here. Many Western countries into today’s age are individualistic and selfish.
People aren’t ignoring climate change though, and I would generally think that’s because it’s an existential threat. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Also I think even if they want to make the most forfecul point possible, I don’t think talking about consent is the greatest thing.
Should really impress the fact that they’re won’t produce milk unless they’ve been pregnant. So dairy cows are kept pregnant as much as possible. They live like five years then collapse of exhaustion and get carted to the slaughterhouse.
The cows my late grandma tended to in her youth lived like 20 years.
Industrial intensive farming is immoral as fuck but I can’t really pretend like the cow understands sexual assault.
Its also an insult to actual rape victims to equate artificial insemination of a cow with rape. Just using their real suffering as propaganda to push an agenda
Ew, ai.
Ewww people defending raping other animals.
no one is doing that
dAIry. Conspiracy confirmed.
this is all gampys fault, he shoulda shot that cow he found eating chips
Ew, content promoting
animal rapedairy.Removed by mod
no, it’s not
Removed by mod
People would probably be more supportive of your cause if you didn’t exaggerate in the most extreme and incorrect ways
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.
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.
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.
So you are saying rape doesn’t exist in a slavery context.
No, slavery does not apply to livestock.
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.
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.
You’re a dairy shill that lacks moral intelligence.
Of course you find the truth exaggerative when you’ve twisted your ethics to only consider rape a human phenomenon.
I’ve never claimed that rape is only a “human phenomenon”. Artificial insemination of livestock is not raping them though.
I just have common sense and understand that nuance exists.
Artificial insemination is rape. It involves non-consensual penetration of another animal. It can happen by a bull, by a human, or by any other animal (or alien for that matter). Makes no difference for the animal that is on the receiving end.
Your idea of nuance quite conveniently means that the moral caution you afford to humans isn’t afforded to animals, which is anthropocentrist and egocentric. If ever in the future you call yourself empathetic, know that you absolutely aren’t.
Factually incorrect
Yes, absolutely, things are different in different situations and contexts. That’s literally how nuance works. Absolutism and reducing morality down to black-and-white is incorrect.
🙄 yeah, using actual rape victims’ suffering to push your personal agenda makes you super empathetic and the good guy… oh brother
Nope, I’m right. Rape is the non-consensual penetration of another animal’s vaginal, anal, or oral orifices. Applies to humans, cows, or any other animal.
But humans and animals are the same in their capacity to experience pain and pleasure (i.e. to be sentient). That capacity may vary according to species, but your lack of recognition for that once again proves to me how egocentric you are. How fucking dull.
You mean cows right? And women? And any other member of a species that experiences rape? You cannot gatekeep this to just humans. Seems to me that you’re the one disrespecting rape victims here by denying how other species can experience the same.
I’ve never claimed that animals cannot be raped. Artificial insemination is not rape, though.
How do you think cows make milk on large, industrial scales?
Do you think they’re always producing milk? Or that the industry switched cows out 1 by 1 as each and every one stops making milk?
If you don’t the answer to these important, fundamental questions, you are living an ignorant life
Dairy cows are artificially inseminated once per year.
Raped*
wrong
Care to point out where I exaggerated “in the most extreme and incorrect ways?”
They have got a point. You know what they mean. People will ignore you if you push your narrative too far, in their opinion
Let’s ignore all protestors because they’re annoying I’m sure fossil fuels and Israel would be very pleased with your comment 🤪
There’s quite literally no other way to put it.
Imagine if we sugar coated women that undergo sexual abuse and rape. We’d be 100% in support of the women, no questions asked (well, hopefully, but more and more beta incel cucks are making their voices heard online).
People will ignore this issue just like they ignore climate change. We as activists have a role in making it so they can’t ignore these things
Are you actually comparing climate change to animal abuse? Lol
At the very least I’d say people are significantly more aware and receptive to climate change.
Holy SHIT the reading comprehension in this thread is subzero. I wasn’t COMPARING.
I was saying that HUMANS will ignore the reality in front of them if it means they can uphold their materialistic desires and wants. HUMANS will ignore climate change, genocide, animal abuse and slaughter, homelessness, whatever you want to put here. Many Western countries into today’s age are individualistic and selfish.
People aren’t ignoring climate change though, and I would generally think that’s because it’s an existential threat. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Because I said “animal rape?” How dare I state blatantly where the beloved dairy products come from, the horror!
So you do know what the incorrect and absurd exaggeration was, after all.
I’m with this guy.
Also I think even if they want to make the most forfecul point possible, I don’t think talking about consent is the greatest thing.
Should really impress the fact that they’re won’t produce milk unless they’ve been pregnant. So dairy cows are kept pregnant as much as possible. They live like five years then collapse of exhaustion and get carted to the slaughterhouse.
The cows my late grandma tended to in her youth lived like 20 years.
Industrial intensive farming is immoral as fuck but I can’t really pretend like the cow understands sexual assault.
They don’t have to “understand it” they feel it. Stop defending the rape of cows.
Its also an insult to actual rape victims to equate artificial insemination of a cow with rape. Just using their real suffering as propaganda to push an agenda
Does the victim have to understand sexual assault in order for an action to be so?
How do we know that cows DON’T understand it???
Holy SHIT the speciesism on this post is RAMPANT
deleted by creator
Apparently it doesn’t bother you that you make veganism look bad since you chose to be sarcastic like that. You’re actively preventing veganism
Are you a vegan?
If not, who are you to say you know what’s best for our movement?
Activism from all sides is important to the cause. You downplaying this Lemming’s activism is serving to silence their voice
If anyone would know best, it’d be someone you’re trying to convince. Shit take
It could be a femboy milk pipe, you don’t know.
From a consenting fembAI.
has anyone ever asked chatgpt if it consented to the conversation
Thanks for calling it out. Something needed to be said with this post