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.
So you’re saying if I paid an assassin a million dollars to take your life, I wouldn’t have any blame for your murder, because the assassin has free will?
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.
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
Well I guess that’s true if you shoplift. Shoplifting is fine. Just don’t give money to factory farmers or their distribution networks.
unless farmers don’t have free will, the only thing that can be said to cause them to farm is their own choice.
So you’re saying if I paid an assassin a million dollars to take your life, I wouldn’t have any blame for your murder, because the assassin has free will?
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?
The word you’re looking for is “artificial insemination” and it does not equate to rape. This is a fact.
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?
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.
Watch rapists try this one nasty trick.
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.
So you are saying rape doesn’t exist in a slavery context.
No, slavery does not apply to livestock.
Are you a troll? Are you giving bad carnist arguments on purpose to help the vegan cause?
Great job!
No, I’m just correct.
No you’re an full fledged animal abuser and rapist supporter.
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.
Adding “This is a fact” doesn’t make it a fact, sadly. Unless you’re in the US.