You think the cows don’t very obviously express their displeasure at what’s being done to them? My cat uses body language to convey when they’re upset I pet them at the wrong time.
Is physically resisting not an expression of not consenting to something being done to you? Also, abinals absolutely can express that they like something being done to them, which would be an expression of consent for the respective behavior. We don’t need them to be able to talk to draw the conclusion that artificial insemination isn’t ethical.
consent is informed. cows aren’t people. expressing that they don’t like something doesn’t indicate that they understand it. they are no more able to consent then an inanimate object. discussing consent from them is just as absurd. if artificial insemination has an ethical issue, it can’t be consent from cows. it must be something else.
Is full understanding necessary? If they find it unpleasant, then resist because of it, and you continue anyways, you’re violating their bodily autonomy.
What I’m reading as your position here is that it’s not needed to consider an animals feelings on it’s body in regards to how we treat that animal.
Which I frankly see as downright inhumane.
we don’t consider their feelings when we spay or neuter cats and dogs. we don’t consider their feelings when we fence out rabbits. we don’t consider their feelings when we poison rats.
so the issue can’t be consideration of their feelings. we can say cruelty is bad without creating this mess about considering unknowable animal feelings.
This is a casual conversation, not an academic one. Clearly people are using terms like consent and autonomy more loosely, conflated with animal assent and instinctual drive–which is totally fine in context. The crux of the argument is around the suffering of sentient beings, even non-sapient ones like humans.
In order to properly communicate using a language such an English, it’s often necessary in casual conversation for both sender and receiver to be a bit more generous with interpreting others’meaning beyond strict field-specific definitions. This is because such languages are organic and evolve in many directions. Therefore, slight differences between intended meanings and understood meanings are to be expected.
Ideally yeah, we should stop doing to animals what we’ve been doing for a while now. People would rather feel right about eating meat because powerful people tell them too, than feel wrong because people like them tell them so.
Removed by mod
You should apply to the FBI.
You fuck your sink?
no but I put dirty dishes in it
You think the cows don’t very obviously express their displeasure at what’s being done to them? My cat uses body language to convey when they’re upset I pet them at the wrong time.
this doesn’t change whether it’s meaningful to discuss consent from something fundamentally incapable of consenting.
the whole discussion is absurd. it’s like debating the maximum height that a pig can fly.
Is physically resisting not an expression of not consenting to something being done to you? Also, abinals absolutely can express that they like something being done to them, which would be an expression of consent for the respective behavior. We don’t need them to be able to talk to draw the conclusion that artificial insemination isn’t ethical.
consent is informed. cows aren’t people. expressing that they don’t like something doesn’t indicate that they understand it. they are no more able to consent then an inanimate object. discussing consent from them is just as absurd. if artificial insemination has an ethical issue, it can’t be consent from cows. it must be something else.
Is full understanding necessary? If they find it unpleasant, then resist because of it, and you continue anyways, you’re violating their bodily autonomy.
understanding is necessary for consent to be meaningful.
I don’t believe livestock have bodily autonomy at all.
What I’m reading as your position here is that it’s not needed to consider an animals feelings on it’s body in regards to how we treat that animal. Which I frankly see as downright inhumane.
we don’t consider their feelings when we spay or neuter cats and dogs. we don’t consider their feelings when we fence out rabbits. we don’t consider their feelings when we poison rats.
so the issue can’t be consideration of their feelings. we can say cruelty is bad without creating this mess about considering unknowable animal feelings.
This is a casual conversation, not an academic one. Clearly people are using terms like consent and autonomy more loosely, conflated with animal assent and instinctual drive–which is totally fine in context. The crux of the argument is around the suffering of sentient beings, even non-sapient ones like humans.
In order to properly communicate using a language such an English, it’s often necessary in casual conversation for both sender and receiver to be a bit more generous with interpreting others’meaning beyond strict field-specific definitions. This is because such languages are organic and evolve in many directions. Therefore, slight differences between intended meanings and understood meanings are to be expected.
it sounds like you know I’m right, but want to defend the people who are wrong
Okay so if you agree that animals can’t consent, then we should leave them alone.
And I would get consent from my sink if it was a sentient being. (What a weird non-sequitur comparison)
Ideally yeah, we should stop doing to animals what we’ve been doing for a while now. People would rather feel right about eating meat because powerful people tell them too, than feel wrong because people like them tell them so.
sentience has nothing to do with the ability to be informed
you are so bad at this.
disengage
Removed by mod
What a chickenshit way to lose an argument lmao
this user has been stalking and harassing me all year.
Sure bud.
I don’t need to prove anything. they need to leave me alone.
no
By that logic there’s nothing wrong with pedophaelia or child labour either (as long as the kids are young enough to be unable to inform)
turns out, humans can be informed. and ethics are about how we treat other people.
I notice you didn’t say “other humans” there. I think that speaks for itself.
it says what it means. bad faith interpretations don’t change it.