So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
Whether a dog is “someone” or not is irrelevant when discussing a completely different situation.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable? Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable?
Yes, of course. Societal and cultural context is quite literally what defines morality itself. There is no universal morality. It is not a physical thing. Even things that at first appear universally “wrong”, like violence or theft, are actually justified and morally “right” in some contexts, while not everyone may agree on what all of those contexts are or where the lines can be drawn.
Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Okay.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
For what it’s worth, I am not trying to trap you in a “gotcha”, I’m trying to follow your logic because it doesn’t make any sense to me. The division between OK and not OK seems to me completely arbitrary.
If say, a large enough population of people were to deem a certain subgroup of humans as livestock, would it then be ethically correct to artificially inseminate them and slaughter them for their meat?
My knee-jerk reaction is no, but said knee-jerk reaction extends to all animals.
Similarly, I don’t see why there’s a line drawn between someone artificially inseminating a cow so that you can slaughter and eat the flesh of them and their offspring, and sexually abusing the same cow.
I’m not a vegan. I was born a vegetarian, and haven’t ever eaten flesh on purpose. Unlike vegans I don’t really see a problem with say, caring for sheep as pets, and using their wool to make yarn.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
I don’t know. If someone viewed me as livestock, and stuck an implement in me and squirted me full of semen, I don’t think I’d care that it’s ethical in their eyes.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape.
I don’t think you’re being genuine, but if you really can’t tell the difference between these 4 things or why there are lines drawn between them and actually do find them to be arbitrary distinctions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?
You thought you had me. Your argument is invalid and includes logical fallacies, because you’ve swapped the original situation, which was artificial insemination of livestock, for having sex with a pet. These are not comparable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Whether a dog is “someone” or not is irrelevant when discussing a completely different situation.
Forcibly impregnating someone is rape. Artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Having sex with a pet animal is rape. Having sex with a consenting adult is not rape. Different things actually are, in fact, different.
So it is the societal and cultural context that dictates whether it is okay or not, and not something actually tangible and measurable? Then I hope we may shift that context a bit to perhaps treat animals a bit less like robots overall, and individual living creatures with their own emotional lives and complexities.
Tradition, and personal satisfaction is a poor excuse to continue something abusive.
Yes, of course. Societal and cultural context is quite literally what defines morality itself. There is no universal morality. It is not a physical thing. Even things that at first appear universally “wrong”, like violence or theft, are actually justified and morally “right” in some contexts, while not everyone may agree on what all of those contexts are or where the lines can be drawn.
Okay.
Yes, which is why it is good that we aren’t doing anything abusive by artificially inseminating livestock.
For what it’s worth, I am not trying to trap you in a “gotcha”, I’m trying to follow your logic because it doesn’t make any sense to me. The division between OK and not OK seems to me completely arbitrary.
If say, a large enough population of people were to deem a certain subgroup of humans as livestock, would it then be ethically correct to artificially inseminate them and slaughter them for their meat?
My knee-jerk reaction is no, but said knee-jerk reaction extends to all animals.
Similarly, I don’t see why there’s a line drawn between someone artificially inseminating a cow so that you can slaughter and eat the flesh of them and their offspring, and sexually abusing the same cow.
I’m not a vegan. I was born a vegetarian, and haven’t ever eaten flesh on purpose. Unlike vegans I don’t really see a problem with say, caring for sheep as pets, and using their wool to make yarn.
I don’t know. If someone viewed me as livestock, and stuck an implement in me and squirted me full of semen, I don’t think I’d care that it’s ethical in their eyes.
I don’t think you’re being genuine, but if you really can’t tell the difference between these 4 things or why there are lines drawn between them and actually do find them to be arbitrary distinctions, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Yeah, I’m sorry but I don’t really see the difference.