You’re not willing to define rape, which is convenient for your argument because you get to worm your way out of being pinned down with good arguments. You have an inconsistent world view that undermines your qualifications to speak on this topic.
At least we didn’t waste ALL of everyone’s time getting you to reveal this.
Keep pretending that you don’t know the difference between artificial insemination of livestock and rape of a person. You do know the difference, but admitting it would prove your worldview false.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
You’re losing the argument btw because you’re falling into reactionary contrarianism without providing positive meaning yourself. Keep digging your own hole.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
Yeah, agreed. Go ahead and quote me where I stated that an animal cannot be raped. Artificial insemination of an animal is not rape though.
We’re trying to get to the bottom of why you think forcible impregnation of someone is rape while of a cow isn’t.
You said that dogs can be raped, and specifically pet dogs.
I pointed out that there are no differences between pet dogs and stray dogs, and likewise between pet cows and stray cows.
I called you out for holding a subjectivist world view because the outcome of raping a pet dog and a stray dog, or pet cows and stray cow is the same. Something happens to them that they would’ve have sought out for in the first place if it wasn’t forced on them. That is the objective reality.
Subjective views of reality where empathy doesn’t apply by virtue of no personal connection sends society back into barbarism. Your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Plain and simple: your world view is wrong and morally indefensible. If you like it that way, so be it. But you’re sick and twisted if so.
your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Imagine thinking you have the moral high ground while trivializing and using the suffering of actual rape victims and slavery by falsely equating it to something as harmless as artificial insemination of livestock. That’s genuinely disgusting. No self awareness? Just none at all? And I’m allegedly the one with an incorrect and morally indefensible world view…
Do you really think this makes you look good? Get help.
How do we know that artificial insemination isn’t traumatizing to cows? Where is your evidence of that? You claiming that rape to cows is harmless is trivializing.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation. Don’t fucking put words in my mouth.
That’s the exact issue we’re talking about in this thread actually.
Intercourse does not have to involve a penis, vagina, and rectum. It can involve many more things, human related and other.
Do you think that it isn’t rape if you do it to someone with, say, a hand/fist/arm? How about a bottle?
Good to know we’re at the end of the line here.
You’re not willing to define rape, which is convenient for your argument because you get to worm your way out of being pinned down with good arguments. You have an inconsistent world view that undermines your qualifications to speak on this topic.
At least we didn’t waste ALL of everyone’s time getting you to reveal this.
Keep pretending that you don’t know the difference between artificial insemination of livestock and rape of a person. You do know the difference, but admitting it would prove your worldview false.
Because you don’t have a response.
Rape doesn’t have to involve a person. Rape must involve a sentient being that can communicate its wants and desires. Humans and cows are both of those things.
You’re losing the argument btw because you’re falling into reactionary contrarianism without providing positive meaning yourself. Keep digging your own hole.
Yeah, agreed. Go ahead and quote me where I stated that an animal cannot be raped. Artificial insemination of an animal is not rape though.
You’re not floundering at all.
We’re trying to get to the bottom of why you think forcible impregnation of someone is rape while of a cow isn’t.
You said that dogs can be raped, and specifically pet dogs.
I pointed out that there are no differences between pet dogs and stray dogs, and likewise between pet cows and stray cows.
I called you out for holding a subjectivist world view because the outcome of raping a pet dog and a stray dog, or pet cows and stray cow is the same. Something happens to them that they would’ve have sought out for in the first place if it wasn’t forced on them. That is the objective reality.
Subjective views of reality where empathy doesn’t apply by virtue of no personal connection sends society back into barbarism. Your world view is compatible with allowing black women to be raped in a world with chattel slavery because slaves were once though to be property of a white male.
Plain and simple: your world view is wrong and morally indefensible. If you like it that way, so be it. But you’re sick and twisted if so.
Imagine thinking you have the moral high ground while trivializing and using the suffering of actual rape victims and slavery by falsely equating it to something as harmless as artificial insemination of livestock. That’s genuinely disgusting. No self awareness? Just none at all? And I’m allegedly the one with an incorrect and morally indefensible world view…
Do you really think this makes you look good? Get help.
How do we know that artificial insemination isn’t traumatizing to cows? Where is your evidence of that? You claiming that rape to cows is harmless is trivializing.
Comparison doesn’t mean perfect equation. Don’t fucking put words in my mouth.