What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.
That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.
A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.
This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.
A: I’m a giving person.
B: What would you do if you had a million dollars in your bank account?
A: I don’t have a million dollars in my bank so your argumentation falls apart.
Was B unjustified in providing a hypothetical because A doesn’t have a million dollars in their account? How else would B understand the reasoning of A in a specific scenario without bringing hypotheticals?
And also you’re moving the goalpost
OP posted animals getting fisted without consent. I’m asking what we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent. Can’t get more on topic than that.
What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?
Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?
Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?
If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.
My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.
That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.
A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.
This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.
Neanderthals don’t exist anymore so your argumentation already falls apart. And also you’re moving the goalpost
A: I’m a giving person. B: What would you do if you had a million dollars in your bank account? A: I don’t have a million dollars in my bank so your argumentation falls apart.
Was B unjustified in providing a hypothetical because A doesn’t have a million dollars in their account? How else would B understand the reasoning of A in a specific scenario without bringing hypotheticals?
OP posted animals getting fisted without consent. I’m asking what we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent. Can’t get more on topic than that.