Is physically resisting not an expression of not consenting to something being done to you? Also, abinals absolutely can express that they like something being done to them, which would be an expression of consent for the respective behavior. We don’t need them to be able to talk to draw the conclusion that artificial insemination isn’t ethical.
consent is informed. cows aren’t people. expressing that they don’t like something doesn’t indicate that they understand it. they are no more able to consent then an inanimate object. discussing consent from them is just as absurd. if artificial insemination has an ethical issue, it can’t be consent from cows. it must be something else.
Is full understanding necessary? If they find it unpleasant, then resist because of it, and you continue anyways, you’re violating their bodily autonomy.
What I’m reading as your position here is that it’s not needed to consider an animals feelings on it’s body in regards to how we treat that animal.
Which I frankly see as downright inhumane.
we don’t consider their feelings when we spay or neuter cats and dogs. we don’t consider their feelings when we fence out rabbits. we don’t consider their feelings when we poison rats.
so the issue can’t be consideration of their feelings. we can say cruelty is bad without creating this mess about considering unknowable animal feelings.
You’re right, we don’t consider their feelings when we do those things. We’re especially cruel towards other animals and there’s a reason most of them fear us. That’s not a good thing.
This is a casual conversation, not an academic one. Clearly people are using terms like consent and autonomy more loosely, conflated with animal assent and instinctual drive–which is totally fine in context. The crux of the argument is around the suffering of sentient beings, even non-sapient ones like humans.
In order to properly communicate using a language such an English, it’s often necessary in casual conversation for both sender and receiver to be a bit more generous with interpreting others’meaning beyond strict field-specific definitions. This is because such languages are organic and evolve in many directions. Therefore, slight differences between intended meanings and understood meanings are to be expected.
I mean it sounds like you are being willfully obtuse about the concept of colloquial language vs jargon for the sake of being a dick on the internet to strangers
I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.
this doesn’t change whether it’s meaningful to discuss consent from something fundamentally incapable of consenting.
the whole discussion is absurd. it’s like debating the maximum height that a pig can fly.
Is physically resisting not an expression of not consenting to something being done to you? Also, abinals absolutely can express that they like something being done to them, which would be an expression of consent for the respective behavior. We don’t need them to be able to talk to draw the conclusion that artificial insemination isn’t ethical.
consent is informed. cows aren’t people. expressing that they don’t like something doesn’t indicate that they understand it. they are no more able to consent then an inanimate object. discussing consent from them is just as absurd. if artificial insemination has an ethical issue, it can’t be consent from cows. it must be something else.
Is full understanding necessary? If they find it unpleasant, then resist because of it, and you continue anyways, you’re violating their bodily autonomy.
understanding is necessary for consent to be meaningful.
I don’t believe livestock have bodily autonomy at all.
What I’m reading as your position here is that it’s not needed to consider an animals feelings on it’s body in regards to how we treat that animal. Which I frankly see as downright inhumane.
we don’t consider their feelings when we spay or neuter cats and dogs. we don’t consider their feelings when we fence out rabbits. we don’t consider their feelings when we poison rats.
so the issue can’t be consideration of their feelings. we can say cruelty is bad without creating this mess about considering unknowable animal feelings.
You’re right, we don’t consider their feelings when we do those things. We’re especially cruel towards other animals and there’s a reason most of them fear us. That’s not a good thing.
This is a casual conversation, not an academic one. Clearly people are using terms like consent and autonomy more loosely, conflated with animal assent and instinctual drive–which is totally fine in context. The crux of the argument is around the suffering of sentient beings, even non-sapient ones like humans.
In order to properly communicate using a language such an English, it’s often necessary in casual conversation for both sender and receiver to be a bit more generous with interpreting others’meaning beyond strict field-specific definitions. This is because such languages are organic and evolve in many directions. Therefore, slight differences between intended meanings and understood meanings are to be expected.
it sounds like you know I’m right, but want to defend the people who are wrong
I mean it sounds like you are being willfully obtuse about the concept of colloquial language vs jargon for the sake of being a dick on the internet to strangers
still sounds like you know I’m right.
I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.