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.
I mean it sounds like you are being willfully obtuse about the concept of colloquial language vs jargon for the sake of being a dick on the internet to strangers
So do you feel that it is okay to do literally whatever you want to a creature just because it is not capable of complex understanding or having the ability to make an informed decision?
I think cruelty is bad. but just killing nonhumans is probably fine. killing them for food, clothing and medicine is absolutely acceptable. breeding them for food clothing and medicine is also acceptable.
I don’t think I’m informed enough to have an opinion the whole industry but I live in a rural area and know plenty of farmers. I don’t think they’re cruel to their livestock.
I don’t think I’m informed enough to have an opinion on whether artificially inseminating an animal when it appears to be resisting is cruel, or not—but if you are self aware enough to admit that then consider that causing an animal undue stress and/or pain seemingly against it’s will may be on a level of cruelty that you may have not considered, and is part of a system that may no longer be necessary due to our current level of technology as it was in the past. They used to not anesthetize babies for surgery because it was widely believed that they couldn’t feel pain, now we know better than that.
It sounds like you may be making an assumption that might makes right, and just because we are more complex and intelligent than other creature that somehow means our lives are inherently worth more than theirs and that innately gives us the right to kill animals for food and resources—despite having the ability to no longer depend on that as our ancestors did. That or you possibly believe that we were given divine agency to do so, idk. I say all this as someone who currently consumes meat. It’s just something to consider
I think it’s bc you don’t actually believe the ridiculous shit you’re saying.
you don’t actually think sawing off a table leg carries the same moral weight as slicing through a cow’s throat; or that animals can’t have preferences or are unable to dislike being confined or abused. just unhinged shit that gives away that the last thing you’re capable of is having an honest look at your habits.
unless you actually think that shit, in which case you should be kept away from animals, children, and any other vulnerable person.
I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.
Like I said, I disagree that it’s an absurd starting point. Animal research applies animal assent rules as a consent analog all the time as part of ethical research.
If you want to get into an argument about whether or not it’s absurd, we can do that. But we’re both clear where we stand and we can agree to disagree as well.
If we can’t agree on the meaning of “animal consent” in this context, I think there will too much semantic friction to have a fruitful discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering.
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
I mean it sounds like you are being willfully obtuse about the concept of colloquial language vs jargon for the sake of being a dick on the internet to strangers
still sounds like you know I’m right.
So do you feel that it is okay to do literally whatever you want to a creature just because it is not capable of complex understanding or having the ability to make an informed decision?
I think cruelty is bad. but just killing nonhumans is probably fine. killing them for food, clothing and medicine is absolutely acceptable. breeding them for food clothing and medicine is also acceptable.
Do you feel that the meat industry in its current form is cruel or no? As opposed to hunting and/or typical ranching and animal husbandry
I don’t think I’m informed enough to have an opinion the whole industry but I live in a rural area and know plenty of farmers. I don’t think they’re cruel to their livestock.
ding ding ding!
I don’t think I’m informed enough to have an opinion on whether artificially inseminating an animal when it appears to be resisting is cruel, or not—but if you are self aware enough to admit that then consider that causing an animal undue stress and/or pain seemingly against it’s will may be on a level of cruelty that you may have not considered, and is part of a system that may no longer be necessary due to our current level of technology as it was in the past. They used to not anesthetize babies for surgery because it was widely believed that they couldn’t feel pain, now we know better than that.
It sounds like you may be making an assumption that might makes right, and just because we are more complex and intelligent than other creature that somehow means our lives are inherently worth more than theirs and that innately gives us the right to kill animals for food and resources—despite having the ability to no longer depend on that as our ancestors did. That or you possibly believe that we were given divine agency to do so, idk. I say all this as someone who currently consumes meat. It’s just something to consider
I know you’re used to “having it your way” but you’re getting pretty trounced in this one.
disengage
I think it’s bc you don’t actually believe the ridiculous shit you’re saying. you don’t actually think sawing off a table leg carries the same moral weight as slicing through a cow’s throat; or that animals can’t have preferences or are unable to dislike being confined or abused. just unhinged shit that gives away that the last thing you’re capable of is having an honest look at your habits. unless you actually think that shit, in which case you should be kept away from animals, children, and any other vulnerable person.
I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.
Like I said, I disagree that it’s an absurd starting point. Animal research applies animal assent rules as a consent analog all the time as part of ethical research.
If you want to get into an argument about whether or not it’s absurd, we can do that. But we’re both clear where we stand and we can agree to disagree as well.
If we can’t agree on the meaning of “animal consent” in this context, I think there will too much semantic friction to have a fruitful discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering.