• theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    People would probably be more supportive of your cause if you didn’t exaggerate in the most extreme and incorrect ways

    • Genius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      12 days ago

      Cows produce more milk if they’re forcibly impregnated every year. Supporting cow milk is supporting rape, this is a fact.

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          12 days ago

          Alright then c’mon over buddy I’ll get the turkey baster ready

          I’m not even vegan but wtf is this logic

          • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            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.

            • Genius@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 days ago

              In what context? Animals? Are you saying a guy sticking his dick in his pet dog is a situation without any consent problems?

              • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 days ago

                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.

                • Genius@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  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.

                  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 days ago

                    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? 🤔

            • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              11 days ago

              The concept of consent does not apply for livestock in this context.

              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.

                • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  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

                  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 days ago

                    So… I guess you’re done trying to argue your position after running into multiple fallacies, we’ve moved past the threats and name calling (sorta lol), and we’re onto the signaling-false-moral-superiority stage. Cool

          • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 days ago

            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.

            • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              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.

              • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 days ago

                You must either life under a different legal system or your farmers are shagging their cattle to inseminate them for it to be rape.

      • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

        • Genius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 days ago

          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.

          • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            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?

            • Genius@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 days ago

              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.

                • Genius@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Well I guess that’s true if you shoplift. Shoplifting is fine. Just don’t give money to factory farmers or their distribution networks.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    unless farmers don’t have free will, the only thing that can be said to cause them to farm is their own choice.

      • MrSmith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Adding “This is a fact” doesn’t make it a fact, sadly. Unless you’re in the US.

      • LousyCornMuffins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        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?

    • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 days ago

      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

    • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 days ago

        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.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 days ago

          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.

          • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Artificial insemination is rape.

            Factually incorrect

            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

            • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              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.

              • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                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.

                • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  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