I’m questioning your support for psychopathic opinions. Because it is psychopathic to think of animals as lesser beings compared to humans that deserve less dignity, respect, and moral consideration.
That is what both you and theunknownmuncher are defending. Disgusting.
You’re telling me to be civil while theunknownmuncher’s beliefs are allowed room to breathe.
You take a side when you do this because these types of belief should be silenced. Genocidal, violent, psychopathic beliefs should not be given platforms to fester online.
Telling me to be civil is muting the response needed to counter these horrific ideas. This type of apologia and these kinds of ideas contribute to furthering domestication and slavery of animals.
You are being the equivalent of a US Liberal telling Leftwingers to follows rules and procedures to counter Right-wing fascism. Ideas of oppression, no matter the group of people or species of life, need to be shunned.
No, I never make personal attacks or ad hominem. The fact that you’ve stooped to this level shows that your argument has failed and you cannot use logic or reasoning to back it up.
What does it say that you’ve downvoted the message “Personal attacks are not welcome here”. I think everyone should support that message.
Theunknownmuncher said that I trivialize the experience of human rape victims. I never said anything that would trivialize their experiences. I advocated for broadening the scope of what we call rape to more than just humans. It’s anthropocentric to think that only humans can be raped.
Does this sub encourage bad faith discussions? That seems to be against the principle of civility.
Then why won’t you say that artificial insemination IS rape?
Because that’s my whole argument. It has been my whole argument, and will continue to be my whole argument, regardless of how much you try to derail the conversation.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
Interesting to hear this perspective when theunknownmuncher has been doing the same throughout my thread with them and this entire post.
the other user hasn’t said anything that rises to the level of these statements from you.
try to be civil.
Meet psychopathy with civility? Interesting response.
you’re just doubling down. try some selfcrit
I’m questioning your support for psychopathic opinions. Because it is psychopathic to think of animals as lesser beings compared to humans that deserve less dignity, respect, and moral consideration.
That is what both you and theunknownmuncher are defending. Disgusting.
i haven’t supported any opinions at all.
You’re telling me to be civil while theunknownmuncher’s beliefs are allowed room to breathe.
You take a side when you do this because these types of belief should be silenced. Genocidal, violent, psychopathic beliefs should not be given platforms to fester online.
Telling me to be civil is muting the response needed to counter these horrific ideas. This type of apologia and these kinds of ideas contribute to furthering domestication and slavery of animals.
You are being the equivalent of a US Liberal telling Leftwingers to follows rules and procedures to counter Right-wing fascism. Ideas of oppression, no matter the group of people or species of life, need to be shunned.
your not countering them, you’re just being mean.
I haven’t said they’re lesser. I don’t think they did either, but it’s possible I missed it.
Both of you admitted animals are lesser when you negated artificial insemination with rape. There’s no going back now.
now who is putting words in others’ mouths?
No, I never make personal attacks or ad hominem. The fact that you’ve stooped to this level shows that your argument has failed and you cannot use logic or reasoning to back it up.
What does it say that you’ve downvoted the message “Personal attacks are not welcome here”. I think everyone should support that message.
You made a personal attack when you put words in my mouth and forced me to take a position I never held.
I’m defending myself accordingly.
no, they didn’t.
Theunknownmuncher said that I trivialize the experience of human rape victims. I never said anything that would trivialize their experiences. I advocated for broadening the scope of what we call rape to more than just humans. It’s anthropocentric to think that only humans can be raped.
Does this sub encourage bad faith discussions? That seems to be against the principle of civility.
i think it’s reasonable to say that when you compare a veterinary procedure to rape.
Artificial insemination is not a veterinary procedure though. It’s a forced action on a animal that violates their consent.
How the fuck do y’all not recognize this.
it is. denying it doesn’t change reality.
I’ve never contested this. We agree on this point. Continuing to argue it is a strawman.
Then why won’t you say that artificial insemination IS rape?
Because that’s my whole argument. It has been my whole argument, and will continue to be my whole argument, regardless of how much you try to derail the conversation.
Because it is not true.
Actually, I’m the only one who has stayed on topic and avoided strawman arguments here.