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.
It’s a foreign object in the vagina used to inject semen. It’s exactly the same. An artificial insemination device is an artificial penis. It’s designed to do what a penis does.
You really think you’re going to win an argument by attempting to claim that fucking a dog is “exactly the same” as what dairy farmers do when they artificially inseminate cattle? False equivalency. What’s it mean when your beliefs depend on fallacies? 🤔
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
It’s a foreign object in the vagina used to inject semen. It’s exactly the same. An artificial insemination device is an artificial penis. It’s designed to do what a penis does.
You really think you’re going to win an argument by attempting to claim that fucking a dog is “exactly the same” as what dairy farmers do when they artificially inseminate cattle? False equivalency. What’s it mean when your beliefs depend on fallacies? 🤔
Disgusting comment, it doesn’t stop being rape because the species are different.
So you are saying rape doesn’t exist in a slavery context.
No, slavery does not apply to livestock.
Farm animals are slaves.
Are you a troll? Are you giving bad carnist arguments on purpose to help the vegan cause?
Great job!
Removed by mod
No, I’m just correct.
Watch rapists try this one nasty trick.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Never thought I’d ever have to actually use this but
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
Removed by mod
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.
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
Good point.
It’s hard to express how weird a statement this is…
You’re stating cows experience no “real” suffering, which is verifiably false.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I think it’s more about the vaginal penetration that this vegan is talking about than fondling some nipples, but the point still stands, yeah.
I don’t know if I should or the one to tell you this, but the milking itself isn’t the rape they’re referring to.
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