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.
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.