Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.
Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.
a) we don’t b) they can happily fuck on their own, it just makes it harder to exploit them for their body fluids. Nobody cares about the calves, they are just needed for the mothers to lactate
Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply induce lactation than go through the whole rigmarole of artificial insemination and then having to dispose of the unwanted calves?
Apparently not, otherwise that’s what farmers would do. Milk production is not an on-off thing either. There is milk for newborns (colostrum) for older babies, there is less fatty and more fatty milk, milk production is a wondrous thing that is regulated by the babies saliva, the moms hormones, how much milk got eaten, how the baby looks even. You can be breastfeeding two kids, if you consistently feed breast A to kid A and breast B to kid B the milk they produce will be different!
And that’s what the farmer is taking away from the mom. Using prolactin to induce milk production is also very error prone and not reliable. At least in humans afaik but I don’t see why it should be that different for cows.
Exactly, this is basically finding excuses to justify these actions. A treatment treats a condition, yet what does this treat - an ego of an person apparently.
Remember there have been at least one-doctor that did this to women, not in his offices to become pregnant (warning, SP?). A famous case was a doctor that raped/impregnanted (SP?) a lot of women looking to become mothers, with his own sperm. The obvious results/proof came after birth,
Arguing with vegans is like arguing with antivaxxers, they are positions based on emotions and they have their own version of reality they use to reinforce their believes. They often claim they have studies to back up their claims but the most shallow dive shows them to be bullshit.
It’s literally evident as they try to reframe this as rape. Their need to lean on rhetoric shows they have a strong basis for their believes.
What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
A: I’m a giving person.
B: What would you do if you had a million dollars in your bank account?
A: I don’t have a million dollars in my bank so your argumentation falls apart.
Was B unjustified in providing a hypothetical because A doesn’t have a million dollars in their account? How else would B understand the reasoning of A in a specific scenario without bringing hypotheticals?
And also you’re moving the goalpost
OP posted animals getting fisted without consent. I’m asking what we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent. Can’t get more on topic than that.
My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.
That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.
A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.
This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.
Idk there’s two schools of thought on this. One is that you can own another creature with a mind. I find this attitude leads to a lot of very unsettling situations and possibly weird shit.
The other is that you treat them like a child that is in your custody where you can order them what to do and where to go and what to eat but society expects you to follow certain rules while they’re in your custody.
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
“Feels good” is not a valid justification to harm others, imagine how that justification would apply in other cases and it’s pretty easy to see how it falls apart. You can’t be logically consistent with that justification to harm others. The same with apathy, also not a justification to needlessly exploit animals.
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Most people agree that raping dogs is bad. Maybe they genuinely believe that raping dogs is okay, or maybe they’re just saying that to deal with their cognitive dissonance. I would prefer that it’s cognitive dissonance, but if they’re a dog rape apologist, then they’re a piece of shit anyways.
I hope it’s cognitive dissonance and not authentic approval of dog rape.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
Whether a dog is “someone” or not is irrelevant when discussing a completely different situation.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They’re absurd because they’re a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What’s it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to attempt to force an inconsistency?
Like, what a fucking stupid answer that can apply to anything and nothing at the same time.
Animals are animals, and humans are animals. Kangaroos are not cows, but both are also animals - different things ARE different, but at the same time, in some aspects, they are not.
Why doesn’t my dog have a right to vote? Why can a snake eat eggs but I can’t? Why is it OK for ants to farm aphids but not for humans to farm cows?
Different things are, in fact, different. There are lots of dead simple and airtight arguments for veganism without counterproductive emotional appeals. Talk about economics or ecology or health and not about sad puppy dog eyes.
Hell yeah! Morals are just a suggestion, lions eat their young, but I can’t? That’s bullshit and we all know it. If you wanna argue against eating our young (just the disabled ones, of course), please keep that melodramatic stuff out of here.
OK, so if negative fucks were a thing, that would be how may fucks in general i give about the actual argument you are having.
That being said, to me it seems hypocritical to be throwing shade about intentional animal cruelty unless you are somehow posting these replies without using any electronics whatsoever.
Almost all electronics require materials sourced or processed off the back of rare earth minerals not even mentioning the supply chain and assembly.
As you said, people are animals too, slavery and workplace mutilation are animal abuse.
I’m not whattabouting your argument, both things are fucked up and one doesn’t cancel out the other and as i said, i’m not supporting either side.
but the stunning lack of awareness (or acknowledgement) of the hypocrisy of your argument is offensive.
If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write “it’s pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape”? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing is in any way moral.
Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
I don’t even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.
Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don’t have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.
And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.
If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse
I can’t believe you said this with a straight face. This is the depths of depravity and mental gymnastics that a non vegan philosophical position leads to. I’m also sure that if this actually happened, you would throw your logic in the trash, where it belongs, and you would fight for the liberation of the slaughtered race.
Do you want to extend the argument to a person who is in a permanent comatose state? By your definition, they are without “higher levels of thought and expression”. Is it cool to eat them?
If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.
Your coma example is laughable. They’re a human. A medical procedure (even if we don’t have the technology to perform it) could return them to normal function. Turning a cow into a human-like creature is a different discussion altogether, it would be a transformation at such a fundamental level that we might as well be discussing artificial personhood instead of the ethics of diet.
If we invented a procedure that could make corn moo would it no longer be vegan?
If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.
You keep avoiding the moral implications here because you know the argument is bs. If some groups of people mass bred and slaughtered monkeys or dogs on an industrial scale would you not care, because they don’t have a choice? It would be the same as your example, without the alien hypotheticals.
A medical procedure could return them to normal function
The disconnect between the logical, robotical analysis in the first case and the childish, optimistic look here really just highlights the compartmentalization you have to go through for a “coherent” position.
Slaves can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
That’s exactly how people justified slavery in the past, and it is how the person I replied to justified their argument. That’s my entire point. It’s the same argument.
This is a ludicrous argument. If you truly believe that all animals have the same rights then the only internally consistent conclusion is the virtual extermination of the human species.
Life is a zero sum game. Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources. Optimizing for the minimum harm to earth’s ecosystem is always going to be the end of agriculture, housing, hunting, industry and basically everything other human institution. We’re the most insidious invasive species ever and the world would be healthier without us mucking around.
So unless you’re stumping for that, don’t pretend to have the moral high ground. If you are, stop wasting your time shaming people and skip right to culling them.
Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources.
True, but no one gives a shit when the consumed life is a plant.
People say the “plants feel pain” thing rhetorically, but it isn’t a serious argument. And if they were somehow actually being serious, then this would actually strengthen the case to only consume plants due the efficiency of doing so vs consuming animal products.
Plants don’t have to feel pain to be a lynch pin in the ecosystem supporting the animals around them. One less native plant is one less place to shelter or feed an endangered animal, or one less set of roots preventing the erosion of a habitat at risk.
Eliminating animal products mitigates the problem but it in no way absolves you from our exponential consumption of finite resources, and in many ways it’s naive non-solution.
For example: culling and eating pest animals like deer is not vegan, but leaving them alone with no natural predators does exponentially more harm to all other animals that depend on the native plants decimated by an unchecked deer population. Eliminating the predators is a human-caused problem but washing our hands of the situation will kill far more.
Brother I am vegan (at least 95% in diet if you want to quibble over niche animal product additives). I’m just not going to shed tears over every single creature on earth like they’re my family pet while losing sight of the purpose of harm reduction. Why is the few grams of milk powder in your chips more important than mass deforestation supporting your avocados and coffee?
If most militant vegans actually examined their emotional arguments before they posted them people would take them way more seriously. Animals suffering and dying might make you deeply uncomfortable but that’s not a universal experience. You can’t browbeat people out of 15k years of animal husbandry just because you personally couldn’t stomach skinning a rabbit.
I advocate for humanity to live in harmony and balance with our environment, that is why I am anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist as well as vegan. Our history is plagued with exploitation, that can’t be denied, but I am trying to change it and you are arguing that it cannot be changed and that we shouldn’t even try.
Humanity’s relationship with animals and nature has historically been exploitative but it doesn’t need to be that way.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance. Human greed and selfishness is rewarded by our society. That means our society needs to change.
I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game. My happiness does not need to come at the expense of another’s unhappiness. We can all work together to create a better future for all living things on our planet.
I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game
Then you’re a fundamentally blind idealist or just lying to yourself. The absolute bare minimum, purely vegetarian footprint needed to support a human is about 0.2 acres (~800 m²). That’s 0.2 acres of precious arable land that could support dozens of species of plants, insects and animals purely dedicated to one human and their crops. A diverse and thriving array of life traded for one person and a handful of domesticated species.
From there you’re now looking at displacement and damage from housing, water usage, soil degradation, waste disposal, pest control and every other basic necessity. God forbid you get into modern niceties like health care, transportation, education, arts, sciences, etc…
Humans aren’t friendly little forest nymphs, we’re megafauna. Even the most benign and innocuous species of primates (such as lemurs and marmosets) peaked their populations in the high millions. Getting the human population down from 8.3 billion to a sustainable level is a 99%+ reduction. That’s a more complete eradication than any genocide in recorded history, let alone the sheer amount of death and scope of institutional collapse.
That’s just a flat fact of our reality. Either 99% of humans have no right to exist or humans are inherently a higher class of animal. Choose one.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance.
Uh ooooooh… someone isn’t familiar with how dependent our agriculture is on pesticides, petrochemicals and heavy industry 😬
We (currently) have ample oil and topsoil. Not ample sustainable food. Don’t even get me started on out other niche limits, like our approach to peak mineral supply or pollinator collapse.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food.
And it has been largely the (petro)chemical industry responsible for this. The Haber-Bosch process transformed agriculture, but accounts for percent-level quantities of global energy consumption and carbon emissions. And it requires raw materials that are typically produced from hydrocarbons (although admittedly there are renewable options). And other nutrients typically come from mining (even organic options) - which displaces many species of all sorts. And this does not account for pesticides, etc., that others have mentioned.
Prior to the development of modern chemistry, our best sources of fertilizer were often animal manures - which require breeding, raising, and ultimately usually killing animals.
Sure, there is a lot we can do to minimize harm, and generally we should, and I try to myself as much as possible. But I’m not fooling myself into thinking that eating vegan or growing my food organically means nothing or no one suffered. Until we all go back to pre-agrarian societies, we will continue to cause large-scale destruction in some way. But of course this in itself would cause massive population decline and resultant suffering in humans.
I am, the comparison is extremely apt. An entire group of thinking, feeling, sentient, living creatures, exploited for profit. We look down on them as being beneath us, and a culture that normalizes beating, raping and killing them. Living beings, treated as property. They are slaves. Lots of people like to believe that if they had lived during slavery, they would have been against it. This is the modern equivelent.
Trying to be “facts forward” so make of this what you will. Source: I was in FFA in highschool in a beef intense-ish area.
The method of collecting semen I’m most familiar with is when they take a female cow in heat and tie her up, then bring a male bull they want to collect semen from into the same pen. The male will smell the female is in heat, gets erect, and will attempt to mount her.
As the male is trying to mount the female, people in the pen with the cattle will have a large rubbery “sleeve” on a pole (imagine a cow sized condom on a stick) that they will maneuver around the bull’s penis as it mounts the cow. He does his thing in the condom thinking he’s inside the female (usually less than 30 seconds) dismounts and then the ranchers have their semen for artificial insemination.
I’ve been out of that area for over a decade now so a new method may have emerged since then, but in my Animal Sciences class, that’s how we were taught semen is harvested for most livestock.
Edit: I distinctly recall the “artificial vagina” being on a stick (and laughing about it in class), but best video I can find on the quick:
https://youtu.be/-4ma3WeOxbo
Eh, I feel like the female cow is still getting a raw deal. Less raw than the classic “breed this bull with this cow” arrangement, but still somewhat not good.
You left out the rest, where the calf is seperated from its mother, tortured and killed for veal, while the mother mourns the loss of her child that the milk she produces is actually for, so the milk can be stolen from her for profit.
hahahahahahahaha I know that style of “arguing” from somewhere…
edit: don’t worry I’ll never tell I’ll get banned otherwise, make a yptb post about it which somehow results in feddit.org getting defedded and all the zionist crybabies coming out in force
Did you know that one of the common methods of turning pigs into pork is to lower them into a chamber filled with carbon dioxide so that the pigs suffocate to death? They scream out in agony while dying. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not moreso.
right mate, I am sure you can draw any equivalences with bestiality and such yourself, so I won’t explicate on them. I just want to say, you don’t have to defend the man-made horrors within our comprehension of animal product industries if you don’t want to be a vegan. I am not a vegan, because I can’t afford to. You can just say “that shit’s fucked up”.
There is a lot of horrible things in animal agriculture, this one isn’t really one of them. I’ve seen the process with my own eyes … the cows don’t care, they barley notice. I feel more for the people who have to do that professionally.
Are they inseminating a cows with non-steers’ sperm from a sperm bank without their consent? I do not think so, as a regular practice, but sometimes greater abuse, I would never be surprised.
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
Non-human animals aren’t moral agents and can’t be subjected to the same moral outcomes that humans have. The same way we can’t say a hurricane has done something immoral.
Non-human animals are moral patients. When moral agents act immorally upon moral patients, the agents are responsible.
isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
That’s not why people do it though. It is wrong to make up new justifications for actions after the fact. It exists as an industrial process to get animals pregnant more often than they’d naturally choose to.
isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
And no, not all sex between 2 animals is rape. Animals can consent to sex with other members of their species, animals can’t consent to sex with other species because of communication differences (the big one being any animal with a human).
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
The same way that hunting is more moral than farming, letting animals go at it in a natural way is way better than 1. tricking bulls into ejaculating into tubes and 2. forcibly inseminating cows with that genetic material.
You need to quantify the rate at which animal rape is occuring to justify using this method on the basis of “preventing rape.”
Also if you sought to prevent any animal rape, you’d have to seperate them all by sex. As far as I know this doesn’t generally happen except for their specific breeding season, and it would be cruel to seperate male and female livestock for their entire existence, just as it’s cruel to deny them their natural sexual intercourse. Humans aren’t supposed to play God with every facet of an animal’s life.
Veterinary in the sense that “it’s a duty a veterinarian might perform do,” but in this context it’s done to create more animals for us to harvest food from. Because letting them do it at their own rate wasn’t fast enough for this industrialised society’s appetite.
It’s disingenous to call it a veterinary procedure; we’re under no illusions about why this is being done. The cow didn’t ask for a bloody sperm donor, lol.
I’m not sure on the specific definition of “bestiality” and whether “sexual pleasure of the executing party” or whatever you want to call it is a necessity, but consent should certainly be a part of it.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent. If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent
Well … I agree with most of your points. But animals are not humans, so consent works fundamentally different. Domestic animals are owned, so humans act as the legal guardian. Yes, there should be regulation regarding general animal welfare.
But I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality. It’s a fun meme and shitpost, though.
Say Alice fists a dog and films it, let’s say she derived no pleasure from fisting the dog, just wanted to get her job done. But she then posts the video online for many others to derive pleasure from it. Did she commit bestiality?
If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
So they’re supposed to ask every fucking time you’re spread at the table
May i please insert my finger in your vagina to do my fucking job, pretty please?
And are you sure students can’t consent?
Yes to both. Nonconsentual digital penetration isn’t suddenly ok just because the perpetrator works in a specific field. Teachers hold power over students’ lives to such an extent that students might not be able to reasonably refuse consent, ergo, they cannot freely give it. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, you creep???
I’m a little disappointed that everybody is appealing to ethics and professionalism.
According to biblical law its fine as long as they’re married.
And the law of Nature: many plants use “pollinators”. These here are human pollinators for cows. They pull out the bull honey (pollinators) and insert it into cows (flowers). The only part thats weird is unlike bees, the humans aren’t taking a nibble of the honey.
Edit: I adjusted the language to be more combatible to australian english speakers.
I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering.
Is your gynecologist jerking you off?
I mean with some of the prostate exams I’ve had I’d almost assume as much.
Eww, no. Gross.
My gyno jerks off my cows like a civilized person.
No, but I’ve seen some video evidence …
A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.
Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
Do bulls obtain consent? Nature is rapey as hell
Artificial insemination is a treatment.
Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.
Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.
You can get consent from the cows owner. Definitely don’t inseminate some else’s cow without asking.
Consent from the owner?
And what if chattel slavery still existed? Would you be free to rape a black woman if her “owner” said yes?
No, because owning humans is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Same reason anything subjective “is” wrong, because it feels wrong. Just my opinion.
If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?
I can’t really answer that because I’m apparently having different moral values in this hypothetical scenario.
it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal
Right, but we do need more cows in the long run.
We, in fact, do not.
a) we don’t b) they can happily fuck on their own, it just makes it harder to exploit them for their body fluids. Nobody cares about the calves, they are just needed for the mothers to lactate
Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply induce lactation than go through the whole rigmarole of artificial insemination and then having to dispose of the unwanted calves?
Apparently not, otherwise that’s what farmers would do. Milk production is not an on-off thing either. There is milk for newborns (colostrum) for older babies, there is less fatty and more fatty milk, milk production is a wondrous thing that is regulated by the babies saliva, the moms hormones, how much milk got eaten, how the baby looks even. You can be breastfeeding two kids, if you consistently feed breast A to kid A and breast B to kid B the milk they produce will be different!
And that’s what the farmer is taking away from the mom. Using prolactin to induce milk production is also very error prone and not reliable. At least in humans afaik but I don’t see why it should be that different for cows.
If you don’t tear a postpartum cow and its calf apart the milk just ain’t that tasty
You can find cows that fuck, no need to insert yourself into the reproductive cycle of cows.
are they in my area
Absolute slaver brained person
Nah, just for eating, they don’t need to work. We got tractors for that.
That’s worse. You understand that this is worse right?
How is doing nothing and getting eaten worse than having to do slave labour and getting eaten?
If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will with the explicit intention then yes it is a medical treatment.
Ah yes so when I give my dog antibiotics for an infection against his will it’s definitely not medical treatment
Making an animal pregnant isn’t solving a medical issue. How do you not see the difference?
Personally I view it the same as giving medicine to a baby. They don’t understand, sometimes you have to make decisions in their best interests.
Key point: in their best interests, not for personal gain.
Are you planning on eating said dog?
Probably not. But if the cow doesn’t get pregnant, it will probably become dog food.
If we’re gonna eat it then same goes for my chickens
Yes.
With humans yes, but in the case of non-human animals these decisions are up to the owner.
edit: clarification for the ultra-dense.
You are aware humans are animals? The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…
non-human animals … I didn’t think it needed spelling out.
Uh… So the differentiation between ‘cow’ and ‘chicken’ is also artificial and made up, as well as the differentiation between ‘rock’ and ‘jetplane.’
What’s your point?
You share 25% of your DNA with a tree, is it slavery to own four apple trees?
…and it’s medically indicated
Not a vegan but if you think what happens to cows is a medical “treatment” then you are a dumbass
Exactly, this is basically finding excuses to justify these actions. A treatment treats a condition, yet what does this treat - an ego of an person apparently.
Artificial insemination requires consent and you can’t get consent from a cow…
It is rape!
Remember there have been at least one-doctor that did this to women, not in his offices to become pregnant (warning, SP?). A famous case was a doctor that raped/impregnanted (SP?) a lot of women looking to become mothers, with his own sperm. The obvious results/proof came after birth,
Cows are not on the same level as humans
Arguing with vegans is like arguing with antivaxxers, they are positions based on emotions and they have their own version of reality they use to reinforce their believes. They often claim they have studies to back up their claims but the most shallow dive shows them to be bullshit.
It’s literally evident as they try to reframe this as rape. Their need to lean on rhetoric shows they have a strong basis for their believes.
What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
Neanderthals don’t exist anymore so your argumentation already falls apart. And also you’re moving the goalpost
A: I’m a giving person. B: What would you do if you had a million dollars in your bank account? A: I don’t have a million dollars in my bank so your argumentation falls apart.
Was B unjustified in providing a hypothetical because A doesn’t have a million dollars in their account? How else would B understand the reasoning of A in a specific scenario without bringing hypotheticals?
OP posted animals getting fisted without consent. I’m asking what we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent. Can’t get more on topic than that.
My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.
That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.
A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.
This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.
Key word.
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
https://youtu.be/BAm79T6qScU
Thank you! I knew I heard it somewhere before
I would really like to see you try to get your dog pregnant.
Why do you want to watch that?
A human can try to impregnate a dog, they just can’t succeed
Oh gods I forgot about the humsters. Someone bring me a rum bucket and a new liver please
I’m the dog.
I think I need to mute this thread before I dig this hole too deep.
we can mute threads?
i don’t actually know
There’s websites for that.
That’s correct, yes.
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
Ah yes, that’s the take I want to side with!
Idk there’s two schools of thought on this. One is that you can own another creature with a mind. I find this attitude leads to a lot of very unsettling situations and possibly weird shit.
The other is that you treat them like a child that is in your custody where you can order them what to do and where to go and what to eat but society expects you to follow certain rules while they’re in your custody.
What in the fuck
Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.
Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.
Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?
“Feels good” is not a valid justification to harm others, imagine how that justification would apply in other cases and it’s pretty easy to see how it falls apart. You can’t be logically consistent with that justification to harm others. The same with apathy, also not a justification to needlessly exploit animals.
I’d ask them to sit down and watch a documentary about the animal agriculture industry (such as Earthlings) to be sure they really do know the truth.
Some people are just sociopathic and don’t have any empathy for others.
So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?
My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Most people agree that raping dogs is bad. Maybe they genuinely believe that raping dogs is okay, or maybe they’re just saying that to deal with their cognitive dissonance. I would prefer that it’s cognitive dissonance, but if they’re a dog rape apologist, then they’re a piece of shit anyways.
I hope it’s cognitive dissonance and not authentic approval of dog rape.
“I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”
Lol
So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.
But maybe we disagree only on terminology?
What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?
Raping a dog is bad, yes.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Whether a dog is “someone” or not is irrelevant when discussing a completely different situation.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
Ah the tried and tested “it’s ok if it’s my property” which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn’t ok.
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
…
Uh… what are they, then?
I don’t think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They’re absurd because they’re a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What’s it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to attempt to force an inconsistency?
If it applies to one animal it should apply to all, but go ahead and be a special snowflake instead
no. different things are different.
Like, what a fucking stupid answer that can apply to anything and nothing at the same time.
Animals are animals, and humans are animals. Kangaroos are not cows, but both are also animals - different things ARE different, but at the same time, in some aspects, they are not.
Why doesn’t my dog have a right to vote? Why can a snake eat eggs but I can’t? Why is it OK for ants to farm aphids but not for humans to farm cows?
Different things are, in fact, different. There are lots of dead simple and airtight arguments for veganism without counterproductive emotional appeals. Talk about economics or ecology or health and not about sad puppy dog eyes.
Hell yeah! Morals are just a suggestion, lions eat their young, but I can’t? That’s bullshit and we all know it. If you wanna argue against eating our young (just the disabled ones, of course), please keep that melodramatic stuff out of here.
The attitude of someone who mistreats animals ☝️
I don’t mistreat animals. this is libelous.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
paying someone to kill an animal so that you can consume its corpse is how you treat animals nicely, is it?
OK, so if negative fucks were a thing, that would be how may fucks in general i give about the actual argument you are having.
That being said, to me it seems hypocritical to be throwing shade about intentional animal cruelty unless you are somehow posting these replies without using any electronics whatsoever.
Almost all electronics require materials sourced or processed off the back of rare earth minerals not even mentioning the supply chain and assembly.
As you said, people are animals too, slavery and workplace mutilation are animal abuse.
I’m not whattabouting your argument, both things are fucked up and one doesn’t cancel out the other and as i said, i’m not supporting either side.
but the stunning lack of awareness (or acknowledgement) of the hypocrisy of your argument is offensive.
I’ve never done that. most people haven’t.
That’s what somebody who mistreats animals says
Pretty fucked up to try to equate animal husbandry with rape.
If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write “it’s pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape”? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing is in any way moral.
Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.
I don’t even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.
Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don’t have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.
And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.
I can’t believe you said this with a straight face. This is the depths of depravity and mental gymnastics that a non vegan philosophical position leads to. I’m also sure that if this actually happened, you would throw your logic in the trash, where it belongs, and you would fight for the liberation of the slaughtered race.
Do you want to extend the argument to a person who is in a permanent comatose state? By your definition, they are without “higher levels of thought and expression”. Is it cool to eat them?
If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.
Your coma example is laughable. They’re a human. A medical procedure (even if we don’t have the technology to perform it) could return them to normal function. Turning a cow into a human-like creature is a different discussion altogether, it would be a transformation at such a fundamental level that we might as well be discussing artificial personhood instead of the ethics of diet.
If we invented a procedure that could make corn moo would it no longer be vegan?
You keep avoiding the moral implications here because you know the argument is bs. If some groups of people mass bred and slaughtered monkeys or dogs on an industrial scale would you not care, because they don’t have a choice? It would be the same as your example, without the alien hypotheticals.
The disconnect between the logical, robotical analysis in the first case and the childish, optimistic look here really just highlights the compartmentalization you have to go through for a “coherent” position.
Your ancestors, probably
Kind of racist to suggest that slaves were a different species
That’s the point
The point is that the animals I eat are the same species as me?
You seem confused.
That’s exactly how people justified slavery in the past, and it is how the person I replied to justified their argument. That’s my entire point. It’s the same argument.
Except that slaves were/are humans. Literally the same species.
other animals are a different species
This is a ludicrous argument. If you truly believe that all animals have the same rights then the only internally consistent conclusion is the virtual extermination of the human species.
Life is a zero sum game. Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources. Optimizing for the minimum harm to earth’s ecosystem is always going to be the end of agriculture, housing, hunting, industry and basically everything other human institution. We’re the most insidious invasive species ever and the world would be healthier without us mucking around.
So unless you’re stumping for that, don’t pretend to have the moral high ground. If you are, stop wasting your time shaming people and skip right to culling them.
True, but no one gives a shit when the consumed life is a plant.
People say the “plants feel pain” thing rhetorically, but it isn’t a serious argument. And if they were somehow actually being serious, then this would actually strengthen the case to only consume plants due the efficiency of doing so vs consuming animal products.
Plants don’t have to feel pain to be a lynch pin in the ecosystem supporting the animals around them. One less native plant is one less place to shelter or feed an endangered animal, or one less set of roots preventing the erosion of a habitat at risk.
Eliminating animal products mitigates the problem but it in no way absolves you from our exponential consumption of finite resources, and in many ways it’s naive non-solution.
For example: culling and eating pest animals like deer is not vegan, but leaving them alone with no natural predators does exponentially more harm to all other animals that depend on the native plants decimated by an unchecked deer population. Eliminating the predators is a human-caused problem but washing our hands of the situation will kill far more.
Bro would rather exterminate all humans than admit that he should just go vegan
Brother I am vegan (at least 95% in diet if you want to quibble over niche animal product additives). I’m just not going to shed tears over every single creature on earth like they’re my family pet while losing sight of the purpose of harm reduction. Why is the few grams of milk powder in your chips more important than mass deforestation supporting your avocados and coffee?
If most militant vegans actually examined their emotional arguments before they posted them people would take them way more seriously. Animals suffering and dying might make you deeply uncomfortable but that’s not a universal experience. You can’t browbeat people out of 15k years of animal husbandry just because you personally couldn’t stomach skinning a rabbit.
I advocate for humanity to live in harmony and balance with our environment, that is why I am anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist as well as vegan. Our history is plagued with exploitation, that can’t be denied, but I am trying to change it and you are arguing that it cannot be changed and that we shouldn’t even try.
Humanity’s relationship with animals and nature has historically been exploitative but it doesn’t need to be that way.
We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance. Human greed and selfishness is rewarded by our society. That means our society needs to change.
I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game. My happiness does not need to come at the expense of another’s unhappiness. We can all work together to create a better future for all living things on our planet.
Then you’re a fundamentally blind idealist or just lying to yourself. The absolute bare minimum, purely vegetarian footprint needed to support a human is about 0.2 acres (~800 m²). That’s 0.2 acres of precious arable land that could support dozens of species of plants, insects and animals purely dedicated to one human and their crops. A diverse and thriving array of life traded for one person and a handful of domesticated species.
From there you’re now looking at displacement and damage from housing, water usage, soil degradation, waste disposal, pest control and every other basic necessity. God forbid you get into modern niceties like health care, transportation, education, arts, sciences, etc…
Humans aren’t friendly little forest nymphs, we’re megafauna. Even the most benign and innocuous species of primates (such as lemurs and marmosets) peaked their populations in the high millions. Getting the human population down from 8.3 billion to a sustainable level is a 99%+ reduction. That’s a more complete eradication than any genocide in recorded history, let alone the sheer amount of death and scope of institutional collapse.
That’s just a flat fact of our reality. Either 99% of humans have no right to exist or humans are inherently a higher class of animal. Choose one.
Uh ooooooh… someone isn’t familiar with how dependent our agriculture is on pesticides, petrochemicals and heavy industry 😬
We (currently) have ample oil and topsoil. Not ample sustainable food. Don’t even get me started on out other niche limits, like our approach to peak mineral supply or pollinator collapse.
And it has been largely the (petro)chemical industry responsible for this. The Haber-Bosch process transformed agriculture, but accounts for percent-level quantities of global energy consumption and carbon emissions. And it requires raw materials that are typically produced from hydrocarbons (although admittedly there are renewable options). And other nutrients typically come from mining (even organic options) - which displaces many species of all sorts. And this does not account for pesticides, etc., that others have mentioned.
Prior to the development of modern chemistry, our best sources of fertilizer were often animal manures - which require breeding, raising, and ultimately usually killing animals.
Sure, there is a lot we can do to minimize harm, and generally we should, and I try to myself as much as possible. But I’m not fooling myself into thinking that eating vegan or growing my food organically means nothing or no one suffered. Until we all go back to pre-agrarian societies, we will continue to cause large-scale destruction in some way. But of course this in itself would cause massive population decline and resultant suffering in humans.
no one believes that. not even vegans
Wow, comparing actual human slavery to cattle production. That’s certainly a take
Fucking hell, now you’re comparing slaves to animals? Seek help
I am, the comparison is extremely apt. An entire group of thinking, feeling, sentient, living creatures, exploited for profit. We look down on them as being beneath us, and a culture that normalizes beating, raping and killing them. Living beings, treated as property. They are slaves. Lots of people like to believe that if they had lived during slavery, they would have been against it. This is the modern equivelent.
Dude we did not eat slaves the fuck. That’s quite possibly the second most disingenuous comparison I’ve read in a while. Bravo.
deleted by creator
How is impregnating a treatment?
Dude, forcing semen into a vagina is not a fucking treatment. Disgusting rape apologia.
Aka the nudist defense.
It is sexual, it sounds like they jack them off to acquire genetic material to impregnate the female livestock with
Trying to be “facts forward” so make of this what you will. Source: I was in FFA in highschool in a beef intense-ish area.
The method of collecting semen I’m most familiar with is when they take a female cow in heat and tie her up, then bring a male bull they want to collect semen from into the same pen. The male will smell the female is in heat, gets erect, and will attempt to mount her.
As the male is trying to mount the female, people in the pen with the cattle will have a large rubbery “sleeve” on a pole (imagine a cow sized condom on a stick) that they will maneuver around the bull’s penis as it mounts the cow. He does his thing in the condom thinking he’s inside the female (usually less than 30 seconds) dismounts and then the ranchers have their semen for artificial insemination.
I’ve been out of that area for over a decade now so a new method may have emerged since then, but in my Animal Sciences class, that’s how we were taught semen is harvested for most livestock.
Edit: I distinctly recall the “artificial vagina” being on a stick (and laughing about it in class), but best video I can find on the quick: https://youtu.be/-4ma3WeOxbo
TBF that one sounds like no lines are crossed
Eh, I feel like the female cow is still getting a raw deal. Less raw than the classic “breed this bull with this cow” arrangement, but still somewhat not good.
there is a new method of eletrical rectal stimulation that stimulates the prostate through the anus, afaik only used on bovines
Ew.
So that is to say, as far as you know, the method I describe above more or less still applies for pigs, sheep, etc?
yes those methods are pretty universal
ew? heh, thats not even the worst stuff, look up how artificial semination is done in goats, it is really bad, efectively a surgery has to be done
You left out the rest, where the calf is seperated from its mother, tortured and killed for veal, while the mother mourns the loss of her child that the milk she produces is actually for, so the milk can be stolen from her for profit.
almost no calves end up as veal at all. the vast majority are brought to full weight before slaughter
hahahahahahahaha I know that style of “arguing” from somewhere…
edit: don’t worry I’ll never tell
I’ll get banned otherwise, make a yptb post about it which somehow results in feddit.org getting defedded and all the zionist crybabies coming out in force
stating facts to correct misinformation is a style, i guess.
Found the vegan
Did you know that one of the common methods of turning pigs into pork is to lower them into a chamber filled with carbon dioxide so that the pigs suffocate to death? They scream out in agony while dying. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not moreso.
Unless they are jacking off themselves at the same time, it’s not sexual.
I get what you’re saying but it’s sexual assault, no?
Is artificial insemination of livestock sexual assault?
…
No.
If I were to artificially inseminate a woman with sperm from a spermbank without her consent, would that be sexual assault?
Unless that women is a literal cow, yes.
right mate, I am sure you can draw any equivalences with bestiality and such yourself, so I won’t explicate on them. I just want to say, you don’t have to defend the man-made horrors within our comprehension of animal product industries if you don’t want to be a vegan. I am not a vegan, because I can’t afford to. You can just say “that shit’s fucked up”.
There is a lot of horrible things in animal agriculture, this one isn’t really one of them. I’ve seen the process with my own eyes … the cows don’t care, they barley notice. I feel more for the people who have to do that professionally.
eating vegan is cheaper idiot
Others Beings have rights!!! If you believe in god(s), then you are in real trouble after death, let alone those that do this.
Only if we say so. We invented the entire “rights” thing in the first place and we’re kind of in charge of handing them out.
Nope, just plain old non-existence after death for me.
No they don’t.
Are they inseminating a cows with non-steers’ sperm from a sperm bank without their consent? I do not think so, as a regular practice, but sometimes greater abuse, I would never be surprised.
If non-human animals cannot consent, isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?
If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?
Non-human animals aren’t moral agents and can’t be subjected to the same moral outcomes that humans have. The same way we can’t say a hurricane has done something immoral.
Non-human animals are moral patients. When moral agents act immorally upon moral patients, the agents are responsible.
Compare: it’s rape to have sex with someone underage, but two underage people can have sex with each other without it being rape.
That’s not why people do it though. It is wrong to make up new justifications for actions after the fact. It exists as an industrial process to get animals pregnant more often than they’d naturally choose to.
And no, not all sex between 2 animals is rape. Animals can consent to sex with other members of their species, animals can’t consent to sex with other species because of communication differences (the big one being any animal with a human).
The same way that hunting is more moral than farming, letting animals go at it in a natural way is way better than 1. tricking bulls into ejaculating into tubes and 2. forcibly inseminating cows with that genetic material.
You need to quantify the rate at which animal rape is occuring to justify using this method on the basis of “preventing rape.”
Also if you sought to prevent any animal rape, you’d have to seperate them all by sex. As far as I know this doesn’t generally happen except for their specific breeding season, and it would be cruel to seperate male and female livestock for their entire existence, just as it’s cruel to deny them their natural sexual intercourse. Humans aren’t supposed to play God with every facet of an animal’s life.
Yes, it is.
It is sexual abuse on Living Beings, let alone sexual.
it’s a veterinary procedure
Veterinary in the sense that “it’s a duty a veterinarian might perform do,” but in this context it’s done to create more animals for us to harvest food from. Because letting them do it at their own rate wasn’t fast enough for this industrialised society’s appetite.
It’s disingenous to call it a veterinary procedure; we’re under no illusions about why this is being done. The cow didn’t ask for a bloody sperm donor, lol.
I’m not sure on the specific definition of “bestiality” and whether “sexual pleasure of the executing party” or whatever you want to call it is a necessity, but consent should certainly be a part of it.
Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent. If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.
Well … I agree with most of your points. But animals are not humans, so consent works fundamentally different. Domestic animals are owned, so humans act as the legal guardian. Yes, there should be regulation regarding general animal welfare.
But I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality. It’s a fun meme and shitpost, though.
If the perpetrator of the act (or the beneficiaries from the act) derives pleasure from it, isn’t it bestiality?
I think I know where you’re going with this … mh. Depends of what kind of pleasure. If it’s sexual, that would be bestiality, I guess.
If someone likes doing it because their arm feels good inside the cow’s anus, fisting a cow wouldn’t be bestiality?
Sure, but I think there is only a very small number of people that are in this business for that reason. Most of them just want to get their job done.
Say Alice fists a dog and films it, let’s say she derived no pleasure from fisting the dog, just wanted to get her job done. But she then posts the video online for many others to derive pleasure from it. Did she commit bestiality?
What was the job?
So they’re supposed to ask every fucking time you’re spread at the table May i please insert my finger in your vagina to do my fucking job, pretty please?
And are you sure students can’t consent?
Yes to both. Nonconsentual digital penetration isn’t suddenly ok just because the perpetrator works in a specific field. Teachers hold power over students’ lives to such an extent that students might not be able to reasonably refuse consent, ergo, they cannot freely give it. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, you creep???
I forgot not to feed the trolls.
I’m a little disappointed that everybody is appealing to ethics and professionalism.
According to biblical law its fine as long as they’re married.
And the law of Nature: many plants use “pollinators”. These here are human pollinators for cows. They pull out the bull honey (pollinators) and insert it into cows (flowers). The only part thats weird is unlike bees, the humans aren’t taking a nibble of the honey.
Edit: I adjusted the language to be more combatible to australian english speakers.