you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 45 points 8 months ago (63 children)

Artificial insemination is a treatment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 63 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Nah, just for eating, they don't need to work. We got tractors for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    That's worse. You understand that this is worse right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    How is doing nothing and getting eaten worse than having to do slave labour and getting eaten?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    They must be working the night shift, because I can see them standing around on the pastures all day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (32 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (30 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (29 children)

    No, because owning humans is wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    I can't really answer that because I'm apparently having different moral values in this hypothetical scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Again, I can't answer the question, because I do not think owning slaves is ok and I can't imagine how somebody that does think is ok, thinks about rape, because that person is not me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Just to make a bit more clear:

    If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says "it's not rape, it's artificial insemination of my property".

    You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    So artificially inseminating your property without consent is rape when it's a human, but not when it's a cow. What's the difference between a cow and a human that grants this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    Yes. The difference is that we are humans in a human society and cows are our food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    Tomorrow we discover there's an amount of (what we thought were) human population that is not really human. There's a vote and all countries decide to classify them as non-human animals, not part of our society anymore and now standard to farm them as food. Woud you classify artificially inseminating this human-simile without consent as rape?

    If yes, what's the difference between this human-simile and cows that grants considering one being raped and not the other?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (4 children)

    Well, it would depend on how good the evidence for that classification is, but I find it quite hard to fathom how that could work out. How can they be a "human population" but than turn out not to be? Either they are humans or they aren't. We have like taxonomic definitions backed up by DNA data for that.

    But trying to just run with it, I'd say if a population can pass as fellow humans and we only single them out because of a technicality, then I'd probably still consider them human, so I wouldn't agree with the governments decision. Passing a IRL turing test has to count for something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Ok, now let's equalize the trait that justifies the difference in treatment between cows and these beings: passing a turing test.

    Say these human-similes are mentally handicapped and have the intellect equivalent of a cow. Would you now verdit as guilty someone who artificially inseminated one of them without consent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I think it really depends on what these "human-similes" actually are. Are they just humans with maybe a genetic defect or people affected some environmental poison that causes neurological damage? In that case, they're still clearly human in my opinion.

    Or are they basically dumb monkeys that just look similar to humans (which of course means, they never were human to begin with, so this no longer fit's into the premise of the previous comment)?

    I don't think that "intelligence" is that important of a factor when it comes to deciding which animals you can eat. It's really about if they are human or not. Like, personally I wouldn't eat the closely related monkeys, both, because I think they are kind of endangered and it feels a bit weird that they are so closely relate to us. But if there is a way to reasonably/legally eat monkey somewhere and people do it, I won't condemn them too hard for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I think it really depends on what these “human-similes” actually are.

    Would there be a difference if they were an alien species or a species related to us but not Homo sapiens, when either woud still feel and have a will to live?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    Haha, I actually typed out a version of my comment with alien shapeshifters as a solution. And then it really depends on what their intentions are. Still, if you managed to fool humans into being humans, they're obviously a species that is beyond just being livestock.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (12 children)

    Something that might feel wrong to you might feel good for someone else.

    Is it right for a serial killer to kill humans because they get enjoyment out of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Is it right for a serial killer to kill humans because they get enjoyment out of it?

    Well, not in my opinion. But there is probably some serial killers that do think that they are right in doing so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (10 children)

    Should we allow serial killers to kill other humans for fun even if they think they are right in doing so?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Absolutely not. And I'm quite happy that we live in a society where the vast majority of people agree that they shouldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    Well, the broad consensus allows society to adopt laws and actually enforce them, which is really cutting down on murders being committed. So that's good for anyone that is living in a society.

    Also I personally don't get the appeal of murdering people, so I don't feel a need to accommodate people that do. Feels detrimental to myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    What if broad consensus changes and we allow murdering, like The Purge?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So murder to you is good or not because of the law? If there was no law, you'd be fine murdering people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    This is lemmy ... and if there were no consequences I'd probably murder a billionaire or two. But yeah, it's not a power I should think should be granted to the general population. I'd probably abuse it after a while ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    What if someone were to use that power and kill you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Neanderthals don't exist anymore so your argumentation already falls apart. And also you're moving the goalpost

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)