you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago* (15 children)

I'd be willing to bet 90% of the people in this comment section wouldn't find it disgusting to drain that deer's blood, skin it, flay it, cook it, and eat it. Personally I don't see how one of these things violates the deer's dignity while the other doesn't.

Not to mention the fact that the milk and cheese we consume necessitates the manual impregnation of living cows, and the slaughter of those cows' babies. Oops, I mentioned it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    I don't disagree that it's unethical to eat sentient creatures, but there is a difference. It's part of our evolution. We evolved as hunter gatherers and like many other animals evolved to do pretty brutal things. This becomes nature and is part of "human nature". Hunting, killing, preparing and consuming meat is something that will always be part of us. It's unethical and unnecessary today so we shouldn't do it, but you can't argue it away. Hunting is not against our human or the animals "dignity", it's not a violation because it's part of our brutal mother nature.

    It's why I play video games and still my bloodthirsty urges to slaughter my prey there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    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

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

    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???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    it's absurd to discuss consent from something that can't be informed.

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

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments