you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.

Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn't have meaningful communication with them, it'd still be rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You can get consent from the cows owner. Definitely don't inseminate some else's cow without asking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Consent from the owner?

    And what if chattel slavery still existed? Would you be free to rape a black woman if her "owner" said yes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    No, because owning humans is wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Same reason anything subjective "is" wrong, because it feels wrong. Just my opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Something that might feel wrong to you might feel good for someone else.

    Is it right for a serial killer to kill humans because they get enjoyment out of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Is it right for a serial killer to kill humans because they get enjoyment out of it?

    Well, not in my opinion. But there is probably some serial killers that do think that they are right in doing so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Should we allow serial killers to kill other humans for fun even if they think they are right in doing so?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Absolutely not. And I'm quite happy that we live in a society where the vast majority of people agree that they shouldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Well, the broad consensus allows society to adopt laws and actually enforce them, which is really cutting down on murders being committed. So that's good for anyone that is living in a society.

    Also I personally don't get the appeal of murdering people, so I don't feel a need to accommodate people that do. Feels detrimental to myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What if broad consensus changes and we allow murdering, like The Purge?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So murder to you is good or not because of the law? If there was no law, you'd be fine murdering people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is lemmy ... and if there were no consequences I'd probably murder a billionaire or two. But yeah, it's not a power I should think should be granted to the general population. I'd probably abuse it after a while ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What if someone were to use that power and kill you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    If owning humans were ok, nothing else would be stopping you from going into your slaves?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I can't really answer that because I'm apparently having different moral values in this hypothetical scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So the only thing stopping you from raping your own slaves would be that you think owning humans is wrong. Otherwise you would be ok with raping your own slaves, is that correct?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Again, I can't answer the question, because I do not think owning slaves is ok and I can't imagine how somebody that does think is ok, thinks about rape, because that person is not me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Just to make a bit more clear:

    If someone was accused of enslaving and raping a woman and you were in the jury, the defense says "it's not rape, it's artificial insemination of my property".

    You would verdit them as guilty of enslaving, but not rape because artificial insemination of his property is not rape. Did I get it right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So artificially inseminating your property without consent is rape when it's a human, but not when it's a cow. What's the difference between a cow and a human that grants this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yes. The difference is that we are humans in a human society and cows are our food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Tomorrow we discover there's an amount of (what we thought were) human population that is not really human. There's a vote and all countries decide to classify them as non-human animals, not part of our society anymore and now standard to farm them as food. Woud you classify artificially inseminating this human-simile without consent as rape?

    If yes, what's the difference between this human-simile and cows that grants considering one being raped and not the other?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Well, it would depend on how good the evidence for that classification is, but I find it quite hard to fathom how that could work out. How can they be a "human population" but than turn out not to be? Either they are humans or they aren't. We have like taxonomic definitions backed up by DNA data for that.

    But trying to just run with it, I'd say if a population can pass as fellow humans and we only single them out because of a technicality, then I'd probably still consider them human, so I wouldn't agree with the governments decision. Passing a IRL turing test has to count for something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Ok, now let's equalize the trait that justifies the difference in treatment between cows and these beings: passing a turing test.

    Say these human-similes are mentally handicapped and have the intellect equivalent of a cow. Would you now verdit as guilty someone who artificially inseminated one of them without consent?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think it really depends on what these "human-similes" actually are. Are they just humans with maybe a genetic defect or people affected some environmental poison that causes neurological damage? In that case, they're still clearly human in my opinion.

    Or are they basically dumb monkeys that just look similar to humans (which of course means, they never were human to begin with, so this no longer fit's into the premise of the previous comment)?

    I don't think that "intelligence" is that important of a factor when it comes to deciding which animals you can eat. It's really about if they are human or not. Like, personally I wouldn't eat the closely related monkeys, both, because I think they are kind of endangered and it feels a bit weird that they are so closely relate to us. But if there is a way to reasonably/legally eat monkey somewhere and people do it, I won't condemn them too hard for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think it really depends on what these “human-similes” actually are.

    Would there be a difference if they were an alien species or a species related to us but not Homo sapiens, when either woud still feel and have a will to live?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Haha, I actually typed out a version of my comment with alien shapeshifters as a solution. And then it really depends on what their intentions are. Still, if you managed to fool humans into being humans, they're obviously a species that is beyond just being livestock.

  • source
  • parent