Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
When someone is intoxicated to the point that they can’t make informed consent to have relations with another person, does that give the other person the right to just declare that consent plays no role and is absurd? No, the correct response to someone being unable to consent, is that it’s an automatic no. The same should apply for non-human animals.
A chicken can’t consent to their eggs being taken, so they should be left alone. A cow can’t consent to being artificially inseminated, so they shouldn’t be forcibly impregnated just so their milk can be stolen (another thing they can’t consent to).
Oh and btw, I’m reticent to even mention this because it was only an appeal to authority in the first place, but the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
i have never dug for those but i’m fascinated by what arguments they present.
it was only an appeal to authority in the first place
i think most vegans say that the vegan society’s definition is the one tehy use. it’s pointless to argue without clear definitions, so i chose one i thought would be acceptable. do you have another definition you would prefer?
why? if something categorically can’t consent, that is not the same as a person, which categorically is capable of consent even if the particular circumstances preclude that capability. why should we treat plants, fungi, animas, machines, or other artifacts as though they might be able to consent? our standards for behavior should be the same for all of the vis-a-vis consent.
I would say that in their own way most animals can communicate their desires, and to at least some degree we can infer consent or non-consent from that. Chickens tend to be protective of their eggs, so it’s reasonable to conclude that they wouldn’t consent to us taking them. Same with bees and honey. And certainly the same with cows and the entire process of producing dairy. In addition to the sexual assault that people do to get cows pregnant, it’s well known that when baby cows are separated from their mothers, the mothers cry out loudly for their children for several days.
But again, I do agree that consent is not the only criteria. We should seek a point where our societies no longer see sentient living beings as products or commodities full stop. And I think that this commodification of thinking, living beings bleeds out and serves as the archetype of our commodification of each other, like in the way that the capitalist sees their “workers” as a form of “capital”.
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it’s not sexual assault.
I still think every mention of consent is absurd. I don’t solicit consent from my lawn before mowing it or my phone before charging it or my car before putting my whole self inside of it and thrusting a key in the ignition. and for the same reason I wouldn’t think of soliciting consent from a chicken: it makes no sense
what aboutism is a form of tu quoque. I’m not making any kind of accusation, I’m making an argument from analogy.
Can you demonstrate an example of animal exploitation where consent does not play a role?
since no animal can be informed, consent never plays a role. it’s absurd.
When someone is intoxicated to the point that they can’t make informed consent to have relations with another person, does that give the other person the right to just declare that consent plays no role and is absurd? No, the correct response to someone being unable to consent, is that it’s an automatic no. The same should apply for non-human animals.
A chicken can’t consent to their eggs being taken, so they should be left alone. A cow can’t consent to being artificially inseminated, so they shouldn’t be forcibly impregnated just so their milk can be stolen (another thing they can’t consent to).
Oh and btw, I’m reticent to even mention this because it was only an appeal to authority in the first place, but the Vegan Society has materials on their site where they talk about why raising animals for their products is unethical - and the animals being unable to consent is part of that discussion.
i have never dug for those but i’m fascinated by what arguments they present.
i think most vegans say that the vegan society’s definition is the one tehy use. it’s pointless to argue without clear definitions, so i chose one i thought would be acceptable. do you have another definition you would prefer?
No that was a good call, I do also refer back to the Vegan Society’s definition.
why? if something categorically can’t consent, that is not the same as a person, which categorically is capable of consent even if the particular circumstances preclude that capability. why should we treat plants, fungi, animas, machines, or other artifacts as though they might be able to consent? our standards for behavior should be the same for all of the vis-a-vis consent.
I would say that in their own way most animals can communicate their desires, and to at least some degree we can infer consent or non-consent from that. Chickens tend to be protective of their eggs, so it’s reasonable to conclude that they wouldn’t consent to us taking them. Same with bees and honey. And certainly the same with cows and the entire process of producing dairy. In addition to the sexual assault that people do to get cows pregnant, it’s well known that when baby cows are separated from their mothers, the mothers cry out loudly for their children for several days.
But again, I do agree that consent is not the only criteria. We should seek a point where our societies no longer see sentient living beings as products or commodities full stop. And I think that this commodification of thinking, living beings bleeds out and serves as the archetype of our commodification of each other, like in the way that the capitalist sees their “workers” as a form of “capital”.
this seems to be a completely separate argument, and one that might have merit, but you have not actually given me any reason to believe it.
artificial insemination is a veterinary procedure. it’s not sexual assault.
I still think every mention of consent is absurd. I don’t solicit consent from my lawn before mowing it or my phone before charging it or my car before putting my whole self inside of it and thrusting a key in the ignition. and for the same reason I wouldn’t think of soliciting consent from a chicken: it makes no sense
You keep comparing animals to inanimate objects. What exactly makes a chicken more like your car, and less like a person?
they are identical to a car in their ability to participate with informed consent.