Hey idiot, note how I started that sentence with the word “seems”, as in how your comments looked to me. You’re welcome to correct that perception! I don’t see you pushing back on this though.
Artificial insemination is not rape
It is.
I’ve never claimed that animals cannot be raped.
You actively are by denying that artificial insemination isn’t rape
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
From humans they can’t. From other animals of their species, yes they can.
If you can’t see how domesticating animals is a form of fascism, just applied to non-humans, then I can’t save you. You’re reinforcing your pre-existing beliefs by insulating yourself with lies. Do me and all rape victims a favor: learn about the evil and corrupt animal ag industry, and its effects on both humans and animals. You’ll come back with a stronger sense of morality than whatever flimsy shit you call yours now
Factually incorrect
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.
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!
Whether someone reads both of our comments is not up to us. There are likely many non-vocal lurkers on this post and on Lemmy in general that have their opinions swayed by the users that are vocal.
My motivation to voice my opinion is the same as yours in this matter.
And bud, that ain’t common sense. That’s a reflexive mechanism since people don’t like being told they’re wrong, bad, or immoral. Doesn’t change the fact that they still are. What IS common sense is recognizing our capacity to do evil in this world, and lessening that. Veganism aims to do just that. Don’t see you providing any alternatives
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
How is genocide different than animal slaughter?
The former involves eradicating the entire ethnic population of a region. The latter involves eradicating a continuously regenerating population of victims, bred for slaughter.
In fact, animal slaughter might be worse than genocide if you think that humans control certain domesticated animals species to be bred to die. With genocide, the idea isn’t to regenerate the ethnic population: it’s to get rid of them for good.
The tactics used to accomplish the two are exactly the same, if only in tone of force used. We don’t use bombs to slaughter animals, but we do cut their throats, shoot them, make them feel fear, kick them, gas them. With genocides, it’s the bombs, bullets, and gas chambers that have historically and contemporarily executed genocide. Between both cases, however, is violence done to helpless populations with no capacity for self defense.
Tell that to the people that voted in far-Right politicians in many of the Western countries in the last few years. Recognizing climate change, or animals rights for that matter, is not a value the Right holds.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, once again you’re IGNORING the reason why I brought up climate change in this context. Why are deliberately misreading my arguments? Makes you seem disingenuous and acting in bad faith.
Our response to climate change will mean we need to change how we power our lives. People in Western countries by and large don’t want to change or be forced to adopt different habits. They want their desires met, whether that means gassing up their cars faster than it takes for EVs to charge, taking flights when rail or road based transit would work, or using more and more Artificial Intelligence to do things for them that they have the ability to do already (driving up grid costs exponentially). When talking about consumption of these things in the economy, trends don’t show decreasing consumption. More people on the planet use more, and this is not to even begin talking about phenomena like the Jevons paradox.
With animals rights, we’re now talking about taking meat, pork, chicken, lamb, fish, etc. off the menu. New alternatives for dishes will need to be found, or existing dishes will need to be converted to use non-animal plant-based foods. People will need to change their habits if alternatives aren’t found, which is the less preferable option. Once again, humans on the whole don’t like change, so there will be a resistance here to changing diets. People will find all the excuses in the world to fend off change.
The behavioral antics humans display in the face of climate change and animal rights, or better put in the face of people’s habits and lifestyles changing as a result of climate change and animal rights (if the latter is ever possible), are the same. The CAUSES that ELICIT the behaviors can be different.
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.
Your application of false equivalency here just cements my idea of you. You’re egocentric and anthropocentrist, and only care about the human species for moral consideration. You’re no different to me than the fascists in power the world over that seek to dominate minority groups.
Cows have a variety of responses to being artificially inseminated. Because of this, farmers have adopted different tactics to force them to submit, whether that’s using drugs, stun guns, cages that don’t allow the cows to flee. Whether cows resist, which is possible, or they submit doesn’t matter. They are still raped at the end of the day.
If YOU know so much about the dairy industry, then you either know the answers to this debate and choose to ignore them because it makes you look bad, or you ignore the reality altogether and tell yourself bedtime stories to cope with your already existing immoral habits.
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.
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
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.
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?
No, I’m not going to change my messaging. There are many other vegans both on Lemmy, on social media, and IRL that probably have different messaging than me in this one instance. Hell, I probably will have different messaging from post to post and conversation to conversation.
But in my opinion, this conversation violates my beliefs so much that I need to retaliate.
If you have something you care about, let me see how you react. “The live streamed Holocaust in Gaza right now isn’t bad because the Palestinians want this”. I’m not sure if you’re for or against Palestinian resistance, but if you take the thinking in this thread and apply it elsewhere, it’s fucking psychotic.
Thanks for showing us all how much of a clown YOU are
You cite data. What’s your data that proves that singular attack vectors at persuading populations works best, compared to multiple vectors?
And what common sense? Eating meat, and using animals in general for our purposes, is serving as one of the largest contributors to climate change, to water overuse, to nitrogen and fertilizer runoff that kills ocean life, to heart disease (red meat specifically), and to cancer (UN classifies red meat as a carcinogen).
Seems to me that your “common sense” is willful ignorance at the pleasure of others’ suffering, both on an acute and obtuse level.
I do agree with you that this is common. Most societies today are not vegan. Hell, most aren’t pro-Palestinian, or at least the governments aren’t. That latter example is changing, thankfully.
…do you hear yourself? You’re abetting an industry that commits the most violence on Earth. How fucking gross
If you can’t see how fascism applies to animal abuse today, then I really am speaking with idiots