Of course they can, however artificially inseminating livestock is not rape.
-
Of course they can, however artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Nuance exists.
-
Of course they can, however artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Nuance exists.
There is no nuance.
Rape means no consent was granted. We need communication to receive consent. We cannot communicate with cows.
You're a shill for the dairy industry. You drink rape milk
-
There is no nuance.
Rape means no consent was granted. We need communication to receive consent. We cannot communicate with cows.
You're a shill for the dairy industry. You drink rape milk
doors dont consent for you to jam your keys in them.
-
doors dont consent for you to jam your keys in them.
Does the door bleed when you do that? Does it cry out in fear of rape, or of sadness of losing its child right after birth?
-
Does the door bleed when you do that? Does it cry out in fear of rape, or of sadness of losing its child right after birth?
the issue was consent. are you conceding that consent is absurd from something that we cannot communicate with?
-
the issue was consent. are you conceding that consent is absurd from something that we cannot communicate with?
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
-
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species.
this is a leap of logic.
-
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species.
this is a leap of logic.
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
-
You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.
please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim
-
please cite an animal behavior paper that supports your claim
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don't defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
-
Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.
The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.
With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.
Don't defend rape dude. You look fucking weird
none of these are animal cognative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction
-
none of these are animal cognative behavioral studies showing non human animals can understand and consent to reproduction
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You're trying to prove a negative. Where's your evidence for that?
-
All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.
Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.
You're trying to prove a negative. Where's your evidence for that?
consent is informed. you haven't shown animals can be informed and, therefore, give consent
-
consent is informed. you haven't shown animals can be informed and, therefore, give consent
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I've presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don't consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You're restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn't a good argument
-
Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.
I want to say pretty much all of the research I've presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don't consent males literally cannot fuck them.
The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.
You're restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn't a good argument
I'm restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn't agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can't agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing
-
I'm restricting it because we need an agreeable definition. I wouldn't agree that you can give consent to sex without being informed. so the whole idea of animal consent is absurd. if we can't agree on the definition of consent, there is no point in continuing
What do you mean by informed?