The thread was somebody defending insemination of livestock, or at least trying to draw a distinction between bestiality and insemination because it is done to farm them rather than for sexual pleasure. My argument is that your intentions do not matter. Is the harm mitigated because you weren’t horny while doing it? Why is it more important to view the crime through the lens of the perpetrator rather than through the lens of the victim in this scenario? It’s a distinction without a difference.
I’m asking you what the fuck you’re talking about. You keep saying “these arguments are online, this parallel doesn’t match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism” but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what’s being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said “This makes no sense”. But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don’t want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
No, a real position is just a ban, especially if it doesn’t match vulgar ideology like the ones shown in these comments.
But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don’t want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
It literally doesn’t make sense. The example you just randomly magikked into existence to mock didn’t even reflect a real situation. Farmers do not get sexual gratification from their work, they slaughter and move on. Its a malformation of an argument designed to do nothing but bring moral scorn upon the subject.
I do not want to truly engage with an entity that has the opinion that people are one step from having sexual intercourse with animals because they eat thanksgiving turkey. Most people either don’t care or don’t think about where it comes from. Educate them there, don’t make up some ‘moral’ nonsense to browbeat them over. This isn’t class, this isn’t marxism, this is veganism. An important matter but far less so than others of gender, sexual, and worker liberation.
![[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/f26b2dce-7254-4537-acd1-5de623b591e0.png){kind=link}
The thread was somebody defending insemination of livestock, or at least trying to draw a distinction between bestiality and insemination because it is done to farm them rather than for sexual pleasure. My argument is that your intentions do not matter. Is the harm mitigated because you weren’t horny while doing it? Why is it more important to view the crime through the lens of the perpetrator rather than through the lens of the victim in this scenario? It’s a distinction without a difference.
I don’t see a single person defending that at all, even the banned dude.
So intention means nothing? You have jumped from vulgar ideology to vulgar materialism.
These are extremely online arguments. And using parallels that just don’t match. Again, find an argument worth having.
Do you often hide like this, behind a phrase critique or emojis, or is this a special sort of backtracking
I’m asking you what the fuck you’re talking about. You keep saying “these arguments are online, this parallel doesn’t match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism” but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what’s being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said “This makes no sense”. But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don’t want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain
No, a real position is just a ban, especially if it doesn’t match vulgar ideology like the ones shown in these comments.
It literally doesn’t make sense. The example you just randomly magikked into existence to mock didn’t even reflect a real situation. Farmers do not get sexual gratification from their work, they slaughter and move on. Its a malformation of an argument designed to do nothing but bring moral scorn upon the subject.
I do not want to truly engage with an entity that has the opinion that people are one step from having sexual intercourse with animals because they eat thanksgiving turkey. Most people either don’t care or don’t think about where it comes from. Educate them there, don’t make up some ‘moral’ nonsense to browbeat them over. This isn’t class, this isn’t marxism, this is veganism. An important matter but far less so than others of gender, sexual, and worker liberation.
What does this even mean? You could just not give a reason, it’d look less problematic.
deleted by creator