Rape and murder are also part of our evolution, but nobody ever makes excuses for those. We can overcome the parts of our nature that are ethically wrong.
Idunno dude, I feel like If you’re against fucking a dead deer on the deer’s account, you should be against raping a living cow on the cow’s account. If you’re ok with raping living cows on the human’s account, you should be ok with fucking a dead deer on the human’s account.
What we evolved to do doesn’t factor into it. Both of those are unnatural.
Many of our stories are cautionary tales about rape and murder, it’s always been aberrant behavior and our species could not survive if everyone was like that. It’s always been opposed, despite being human nature.
But nobody, absolutely nobody ever had anything against hunting and eating animals for the first 99% of our species. Hunting was necessary for survival and is universal behavior, you see everywhere in nature, unlike rape and murder.
I do oppose killing sentient animals for food, I’m also for banning industrial meat production and forcing veganism - simply because climate change mandates it. But I see no purpose in demanding that people “overcome their nature” or to be an asshole about this.
I mean, the animals we’ve been killing and eating might have disagreed. This logic only works in this particular discussion if you take an explicitly anthropocentric view of morality. In which case, the dignity of the animal is not a factor in the first place.
I’m not trying to be an asshole about this, I’m having a discussion about the foundations for our morals, and the justifications for thinking something is morally good or bad. Your initial comment intimated that you think the situation in question is morally bad because you think it’s grotesque and violates the animal’s dignity. If dignity is a factor in the morality of it, then raping cows to produce milk is also bad.
Yeah I’m not surprised that you aren’t concerned with animals’ ability (or lack thereof) to consent. You’re so consistently wrong on everything that being pro-animal-sexual-abuse actually seems right up your alley
Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like rape, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
I’ve never seen someone simultaneously acknowledge that dictionaries are inherently descriptive, while using that as an argument in favor of their own prescriptive definition. I totally support your effort to find new and unique ways to be wrong about literally everything
Rape and murder are also part of our evolution, but nobody ever makes excuses for those. We can overcome the parts of our nature that are ethically wrong.
Idunno dude, I feel like If you’re against fucking a dead deer on the deer’s account, you should be against raping a living cow on the cow’s account. If you’re ok with raping living cows on the human’s account, you should be ok with fucking a dead deer on the human’s account.
What we evolved to do doesn’t factor into it. Both of those are unnatural.
Many of our stories are cautionary tales about rape and murder, it’s always been aberrant behavior and our species could not survive if everyone was like that. It’s always been opposed, despite being human nature.
But nobody, absolutely nobody ever had anything against hunting and eating animals for the first 99% of our species. Hunting was necessary for survival and is universal behavior, you see everywhere in nature, unlike rape and murder.
I do oppose killing sentient animals for food, I’m also for banning industrial meat production and forcing veganism - simply because climate change mandates it. But I see no purpose in demanding that people “overcome their nature” or to be an asshole about this.
I mean, the animals we’ve been killing and eating might have disagreed. This logic only works in this particular discussion if you take an explicitly anthropocentric view of morality. In which case, the dignity of the animal is not a factor in the first place.
I’m not trying to be an asshole about this, I’m having a discussion about the foundations for our morals, and the justifications for thinking something is morally good or bad. Your initial comment intimated that you think the situation in question is morally bad because you think it’s grotesque and violates the animal’s dignity. If dignity is a factor in the morality of it, then raping cows to produce milk is also bad.
no one is raping cows
Hi commie. Cool to see you’re still committed to always being on the wrong side of every possible issue.
Definition of rape.
Unless you think the cows are consenting, forced impregnation is definitionally rape.
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it’s not rape
it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that can’t be informed.
Yeah I’m not surprised that you aren’t concerned with animals’ ability (or lack thereof) to consent. You’re so consistently wrong on everything that being pro-animal-sexual-abuse actually seems right up your alley
I’m not pro animal sexual abuse.
Weird that you’re defending it then
no, I’m not
Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like rape, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.
–
marriam webster
I’ve never seen someone simultaneously acknowledge that dictionaries are inherently descriptive, while using that as an argument in favor of their own prescriptive definition. I totally support your effort to find new and unique ways to be wrong about literally everything
Why did you link to the definition of racism???
I linked the source of the quote.