Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
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
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.