• Greddan@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Natural” or “unnatural” isn’t a thing, unless you believe in ghosts. Same as “humans are meant/built/made to X”, unless you’re one of those delusional cultists who think some deity designed us all.

    Whatever we do, it’s “natural” and can most often be found elsewhere in nature. There are ants that farm aphids for fuck’s sake and other animals that do even weirder shit.

  • da_cow (she/her)@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    OK, so first of all, what they are doing in this picture is checking if the cows are pregnant. I have never seen someone being table to impregnate cows by sticking their arm up their ass.

    Second thing you should remember: In nature the bull literally does not fucking care. If a cow is ovulating (bulls and cows are able to detect when this is the case), he will literally try to fuck the specific cow the entire fucking day. IRS not like he fucks the cow once and then its done, we are talking about the bull following the cow the whole day and continuously (trying to) fucking her.

    I would argue, that a single small metal rod is less tiring than a horny bull trying to fuck you the whole day.

    And before people are going to throw shit at me: No, this does not mean, that industrial grade factory farming is in any form or shape a good system. I have seen it all and I know how incredibly bad it can be. However, I Am not a fan of throwing the word rape (even if the exact word has not been used here) around, simply because you could somewhat classify the natural process as rape too.

  • dasrael@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I came across a vidya on the interwebs many hears ago where a monkey grabbed a frog and used it as a fleshlight… Ever since then Ive had a different relationship with the word “unnatural”. The truth is that shoving your arm up a cows ass and eating vegan fervantly and being a hater ass bitch are all perfect examples of natural human behaviour…and im well past thinking theyre not.

  • JuliaSuraez@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    Discussions like this usually get heated fast. At the end of the day, people make food choices for different ethical, cultural, and practical reasons — it’s probably more productive to talk about systems and standards than attack each other.

  • Worstdriver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I mean… it is.

    Looking at this directly from a viewpoint of what is “natural” for the human body, being vegan is unnatural.

    Being an omnivore is. Our entire digestive system is such that the natural diet of the human body is an omnivorous one and it does best when treated as such. And that means a small amount of animal fats, proteins, trace minerals, and amino acids in one’s diet.

    I’m not going to argue morals or ethics, because that wasn’t what the post was about. It’s what’s about what is “natural.”

    Yes, you may disagree with me. Strenuously, and just know that I respect you and hope that you and yours have an excellent day wherever you happen to be on this flaming cannonball of a planet we call home.

  • TheSeveralJourneysOfReemus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    You know, i used to have more heated discussions about this, but now i feel like I matured a different view on this, at all. I conceive the freedom to chose on a personal ethical base above the idea of punching down ideas just because. Ideally, being vegan is just that, being vegan. You can be whatever… It’s not mandatory to be either.

    I eventually found out that any amount of rage or hate for that was only projection of my special insecurities.

  • A23167@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I tried it for 8 years and my body started to fall to pieces in rather remarkable ways

  • remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    247
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    3 days ago

    I mean, it’s not really bestiality if it isn’t sexual. A gynocological exam also isn’t fingering.

    • nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      145
      arrow-down
      71
      ·
      3 days ago

      A gynaecologist “treats” the patient, benefitting the patient.

      Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.

        • _tasten_tiger@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          103
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will with the explicit intention then yes it is a medical treatment.

          • ryannathans@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            72
            arrow-down
            47
            ·
            3 days ago

            Ah yes so when I give my dog antibiotics for an infection against his will it’s definitely not medical treatment

          • remon@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            With humans yes, but in the case of non-human animals these decisions are up to the owner.

            edit: clarification for the ultra-dense.

              • Arcadeep@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…

                Uh… So the differentiation between ‘cow’ and ‘chicken’ is also artificial and made up, as well as the differentiation between ‘rock’ and ‘jetplane.’

                What’s your point?

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                The differentiation “human” is artificial and made up…

                You share 25% of your DNA with a tree, is it slavery to own four apple trees?

          • snowdriftissue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            If the recipient asked for it and the donor is giving it out of free will

            …and it’s medically indicated

        • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Artificial insemination without consent is rape. Natural insemination without consent is rape.

          Cows cannot give consent to humans. No animal can. Hell, even if we discovered another human-like species but couldn’t have meaningful communication with them, it’d still be rape.

          • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Exactly, this is basically finding excuses to justify these actions. A treatment treats a condition, yet what does this treat - an ego of an person apparently.

        • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          it is not a needed treatment for the health and well being of the cow, it is a unecessary treatment forced upon the animal

            • Baŝto@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              a) we don’t b) they can happily fuck on their own, it just makes it harder to exploit them for their body fluids. Nobody cares about the calves, they are just needed for the mothers to lactate

              • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply induce lactation than go through the whole rigmarole of artificial insemination and then having to dispose of the unwanted calves?

                • Apparently not, otherwise that’s what farmers would do. Milk production is not an on-off thing either. There is milk for newborns (colostrum) for older babies, there is less fatty and more fatty milk, milk production is a wondrous thing that is regulated by the babies saliva, the moms hormones, how much milk got eaten, how the baby looks even. You can be breastfeeding two kids, if you consistently feed breast A to kid A and breast B to kid B the milk they produce will be different!

                  And that’s what the farmer is taking away from the mom. Using prolactin to induce milk production is also very error prone and not reliable. At least in humans afaik but I don’t see why it should be that different for cows.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              You can find cows that fuck, no need to insert yourself into the reproductive cycle of cows.

        • GreatWhite_Shark_EarthAndBeingsRightsPerson@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          3 days ago

          It is rape!

          Remember there have been at least one-doctor that did this to women, not in his offices to become pregnant (warning, SP?). A famous case was a doctor that raped/impregnanted (SP?) a lot of women looking to become mothers, with his own sperm. The obvious results/proof came after birth,

            • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              3 days ago

              Arguing with vegans is like arguing with antivaxxers, they are positions based on emotions and they have their own version of reality they use to reinforce their believes. They often claim they have studies to back up their claims but the most shallow dive shows them to be bullshit.

              It’s literally evident as they try to reframe this as rape. Their need to lean on rhetoric shows they have a strong basis for their believes.

              • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                What do we call a sexual act with a being that did not consent?

                Does it matter if the being is human? And what if the being is a neanderthal?

                Or say we find a lady on the street and DNA test her, find out she’s technically not human. What would we call sexually acting upon her without her consent?

                If defining this action triggers you emotionally this much, that’s a reflection of your ability to have level-headed conversations. It’s not your interlocutor as much as you’d like to claim.

                • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  My criticism here isn’t about any specific group or topic. It’s about this aggravating debate pattern where rhetoric is used to paint the opponent’s argument into a morally charged form rather than addressing the actual claim being made.

                  That style of engagement is not something that ever leads to meaningful discussions.

                  A similar dynamic occurs in other highly polarized subjects where participants are more focused on signaling moral positions than resolving the underlying question.

                  This sort of shit has been going on since at least the times of Artistole who championed logic over emotion.

                • Jumi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Neanderthals don’t exist anymore so your argumentation already falls apart. And also you’re moving the goalpost

          • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            3 days ago

            That’s correct, yes.

            However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.

              • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                28
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                3 days ago

                Anti-vegans will go to any depths of depravity in order to deal with their cognitive dissonance. Once, on Reddit, I got a commenter to agree that he would be fine if someone had a dog in a cage they tortured for entertainment, rather than agree that it’s kinda fucked up that we slaughter animals because their flesh tastes nice.

                • Senal@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.

                  Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?

                • FishFace@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  So let me get this straight, you were arguing with someone, tried to lead them to a contradiction, but they actually had a consistent view on it that you didn’t like, and your conclusion is that they have cognitive dissonance?

                  My friend, I do not think that means what you think it means.

                • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  “I lead someone who disagrees with me into saying something stupid once, therefore everyone who disagrees with me must have cognitive dissonance.”

                  Lol

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              So you’re aware, that’s a really fucked up thing to think. Let alone say.

              But maybe we disagree only on terminology?

              What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?

              • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                What would you call the act of nonconsensually sticking your dick into your dog, and do you think it’s horrible?

                Raping a dog is bad, yes.

                • Leon@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Raping a dog is bad, yes.

                  So a dog is someone and that’s what makes it rape? Where do you draw the line for someone? Is it the act of rape itself that’s bad, or is it the perpetrator getting sexual satisfaction from it? What if they don’t do it for that purpose, but some other more abstract reason? Is it okay then?

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Idk there’s two schools of thought on this. One is that you can own another creature with a mind. I find this attitude leads to a lot of very unsettling situations and possibly weird shit.

              The other is that you treat them like a child that is in your custody where you can order them what to do and where to go and what to eat but society expects you to follow certain rules while they’re in your custody.

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Ah the tried and tested “it’s ok if it’s my property” which historically(and currently) is a universal guideline for what is and isn’t ok.

            • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?

              If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?

              • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                If I own a human slave

                If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human

                Uh… what are they, then?

                I don’t think these absurd hypotheticals are helping your argument.

                • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.

                  You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.

            • bluefootedbooby@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              3 days ago

              Like, what a fucking stupid answer that can apply to anything and nothing at the same time.

              Animals are animals, and humans are animals. Kangaroos are not cows, but both are also animals - different things ARE different, but at the same time, in some aspects, they are not.

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 days ago

                Why doesn’t my dog have a right to vote? Why can a snake eat eggs but I can’t? Why is it OK for ants to farm aphids but not for humans to farm cows?

                Different things are, in fact, different. There are lots of dead simple and airtight arguments for veganism without counterproductive emotional appeals. Talk about economics or ecology or health and not about sad puppy dog eyes.

                • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Hell yeah! Morals are just a suggestion, lions eat their young, but I can’t? That’s bullshit and we all know it. If you wanna argue against eating our young (just the disabled ones, of course), please keep that melodramatic stuff out of here.

        • bearboiblake@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          3 days ago

          If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do, then animals can be raped. If slavery was still legal, would you write “it’s pretty fucked up to equate slave husbandry with rape”? Just because we have historically done something, that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing is in any way moral.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            Animals can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.

            I don’t even think that statement is anthropocentric hubris. If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse.

            Cows get more rights than trees or crops because they have an ability to express pain and convey emotion. They don’t have the same rights as humans because they could never give a passionate argument for suffrage to a jury.

            And to be clear: there are plenty of real, tangible reasons to end animal husbandry and make everyone vegan without even touching philosophy.

            • merdaverse@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              If ultra-advanced aliens showed up tomorrow and started domesticating humans for food or some other purpose, I would have the default expectation of them having the same or similar morals. Maybe we’d get access to decent healthcare and good libraries before we went to the slaughterhouse

              I can’t believe you said this with a straight face. This is the depths of depravity and mental gymnastics that a non vegan philosophical position leads to. I’m also sure that if this actually happened, you would throw your logic in the trash, where it belongs, and you would fight for the liberation of the slaughtered race.

              Do you want to extend the argument to a person who is in a permanent comatose state? By your definition, they are without “higher levels of thought and expression”. Is it cool to eat them?

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.

                Your coma example is laughable. They’re a human. A medical procedure (even if we don’t have the technology to perform it) could return them to normal function. Turning a cow into a human-like creature is a different discussion altogether, it would be a transformation at such a fundamental level that we might as well be discussing artificial personhood instead of the ethics of diet.

                If we invented a procedure that could make corn moo would it no longer be vegan?

                • merdaverse@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  If the advanced aliens had the control over us that we exert over animals then I wouldn’t have a choice. And whether I fight or not isn’t relevant to their choice to farm me. If anything it’s in their best interest to keep me healthy and content until I’m harvested.

                  You keep avoiding the moral implications here because you know the argument is bs. If some groups of people mass bred and slaughtered monkeys or dogs on an industrial scale would you not care, because they don’t have a choice? It would be the same as your example, without the alien hypotheticals.

                  A medical procedure could return them to normal function

                  The disconnect between the logical, robotical analysis in the first case and the childish, optimistic look here really just highlights the compartmentalization you have to go through for a “coherent” position.

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              3 days ago

              Slaves can have rights and be protected from unnecessary cruelty without anthropomophizing them and granting full human rights. You’re equating full, sapient humans with a species specifically bred for a base purpose without higher levels of thought and expression.

              Your ancestors, probably

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                This is a ludicrous argument. If you truly believe that all animals have the same rights then the only internally consistent conclusion is the virtual extermination of the human species.

                Life is a zero sum game. Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources. Optimizing for the minimum harm to earth’s ecosystem is always going to be the end of agriculture, housing, hunting, industry and basically everything other human institution. We’re the most insidious invasive species ever and the world would be healthier without us mucking around.

                So unless you’re stumping for that, don’t pretend to have the moral high ground. If you are, stop wasting your time shaming people and skip right to culling them.

                • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Something lives by consuming something else or displacing it for access to limited resources.

                  True, but no one gives a shit when the consumed life is a plant.

                  People say the “plants feel pain” thing rhetorically, but it isn’t a serious argument. And if they were somehow actually being serious, then this would actually strengthen the case to only consume plants due the efficiency of doing so vs consuming animal products.

                • ageedizzle@piefed.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Bro would rather exterminate all humans than admit that he should just go vegan

                • bearboiblake@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  I advocate for humanity to live in harmony and balance with our environment, that is why I am anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist as well as vegan. Our history is plagued with exploitation, that can’t be denied, but I am trying to change it and you are arguing that it cannot be changed and that we shouldn’t even try.

                  Humanity’s relationship with animals and nature has historically been exploitative but it doesn’t need to be that way.

                  We have vastly increased our ability to produce food. There are ample resources available on the planet for all of us to share and live in abundance. Human greed and selfishness is rewarded by our society. That means our society needs to change.

                  I reject your argument that life is a zero-sum game. My happiness does not need to come at the expense of another’s unhappiness. We can all work together to create a better future for all living things on our planet.

          • goedel@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you believe that animals should have rights like humans do

            no one believes that. not even vegans

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            Wow, comparing actual human slavery to cattle production. That’s certainly a take

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              I am, the comparison is extremely apt. An entire group of thinking, feeling, sentient, living creatures, exploited for profit. We look down on them as being beneath us, and a culture that normalizes beating, raping and killing them. Living beings, treated as property. They are slaves. Lots of people like to believe that if they had lived during slavery, they would have been against it. This is the modern equivelent.

              • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                Dude we did not eat slaves the fuck. That’s quite possibly the second most disingenuous comparison I’ve read in a while. Bravo.

    • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      3 days ago

      It is sexual, it sounds like they jack them off to acquire genetic material to impregnate the female livestock with

      • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Trying to be “facts forward” so make of this what you will. Source: I was in FFA in highschool in a beef intense-ish area.

        The method of collecting semen I’m most familiar with is when they take a female cow in heat and tie her up, then bring a male bull they want to collect semen from into the same pen. The male will smell the female is in heat, gets erect, and will attempt to mount her.

        As the male is trying to mount the female, people in the pen with the cattle will have a large rubbery “sleeve” on a pole (imagine a cow sized condom on a stick) that they will maneuver around the bull’s penis as it mounts the cow. He does his thing in the condom thinking he’s inside the female (usually less than 30 seconds) dismounts and then the ranchers have their semen for artificial insemination.

        I’ve been out of that area for over a decade now so a new method may have emerged since then, but in my Animal Sciences class, that’s how we were taught semen is harvested for most livestock.

        Edit: I distinctly recall the “artificial vagina” being on a stick (and laughing about it in class), but best video I can find on the quick: https://youtu.be/-4ma3WeOxbo

          • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Eh, I feel like the female cow is still getting a raw deal. Less raw than the classic “breed this bull with this cow” arrangement, but still somewhat not good.

          • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Ew.

            So that is to say, as far as you know, the method I describe above more or less still applies for pigs, sheep, etc?

            • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              yes those methods are pretty universal

              ew? heh, thats not even the worst stuff, look up how artificial semination is done in goats, it is really bad, efectively a surgery has to be done

        • bearboiblake@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 days ago

          You left out the rest, where the calf is seperated from its mother, tortured and killed for veal, while the mother mourns the loss of her child that the milk she produces is actually for, so the milk can be stolen from her for profit.

            • bearboiblake@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Did you know that one of the common methods of turning pigs into pork is to lower them into a chamber filled with carbon dioxide so that the pigs suffocate to death? They scream out in agony while dying. Pigs are as intelligent as dogs, if not moreso.

      • remon@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Unless they are jacking off themselves at the same time, it’s not sexual.

            • Anisette [any/all]@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              3 days ago

              If I were to artificially inseminate a woman with sperm from a spermbank without her consent, would that be sexual assault?

                • Anisette [any/all]@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  right mate, I am sure you can draw any equivalences with bestiality and such yourself, so I won’t explicate on them. I just want to say, you don’t have to defend the man-made horrors within our comprehension of animal product industries if you don’t want to be a vegan. I am not a vegan, because I can’t afford to. You can just say “that shit’s fucked up”.

          • testfactor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            If non-human animals cannot consent, isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?

            If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?

            • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?

              Non-human animals aren’t moral agents and can’t be subjected to the same moral outcomes that humans have. The same way we can’t say a hurricane has done something immoral.

              Non-human animals are moral patients. When moral agents act immorally upon moral patients, the agents are responsible.

            • ageedizzle@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Compare: it’s rape to have sex with someone underage, but two underage people can have sex with each other without it being rape.

            • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 days ago

              isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?

              That’s not why people do it though. It is wrong to make up new justifications for actions after the fact. It exists as an industrial process to get animals pregnant more often than they’d naturally choose to.

              isn’t all sex between any two non-human animals rape?

              And no, not all sex between 2 animals is rape. Animals can consent to sex with other members of their species, animals can’t consent to sex with other species because of communication differences (the big one being any animal with a human).

              If that’s the case, isn’t this preferable to just letting the animals just rape each other indiscriminately?

              The same way that hunting is more moral than farming, letting animals go at it in a natural way is way better than 1. tricking bulls into ejaculating into tubes and 2. forcibly inseminating cows with that genetic material.

              You need to quantify the rate at which animal rape is occuring to justify using this method on the basis of “preventing rape.”

              Also if you sought to prevent any animal rape, you’d have to seperate them all by sex. As far as I know this doesn’t generally happen except for their specific breeding season, and it would be cruel to seperate male and female livestock for their entire existence, just as it’s cruel to deny them their natural sexual intercourse. Humans aren’t supposed to play God with every facet of an animal’s life.

        • FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Veterinary in the sense that “it’s a duty a veterinarian might perform do,” but in this context it’s done to create more animals for us to harvest food from. Because letting them do it at their own rate wasn’t fast enough for this industrialised society’s appetite.

          It’s disingenous to call it a veterinary procedure; we’re under no illusions about why this is being done. The cow didn’t ask for a bloody sperm donor, lol.

    • 9blb@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m not sure on the specific definition of “bestiality” and whether “sexual pleasure of the executing party” or whatever you want to call it is a necessity, but consent should certainly be a part of it.

      Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent. If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.

      • remon@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Animals are, similar to children, students etc, fundamentally incapable of giving consent

        Well … I agree with most of your points. But animals are not humans, so consent works fundamentally different. Domestic animals are owned, so humans act as the legal guardian. Yes, there should be regulation regarding general animal welfare.

        But I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality. It’s a fun meme and shitpost, though.

        • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          I don’t think artificial insemination of livestock falls into the category of bestiality.

          If the perpetrator of the act (or the beneficiaries from the act) derives pleasure from it, isn’t it bestiality?

          • remon@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I think I know where you’re going with this … mh. Depends of what kind of pleasure. If it’s sexual, that would be bestiality, I guess.

            • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              If someone likes doing it because their arm feels good inside the cow’s anus, fisting a cow wouldn’t be bestiality?

              • remon@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 days ago

                Sure, but I think there is only a very small number of people that are in this business for that reason. Most of them just want to get their job done.

                • lalo@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Say Alice fists a dog and films it, let’s say she derived no pleasure from fisting the dog, just wanted to get her job done. But she then posts the video online for many others to derive pleasure from it. Did she commit bestiality?

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        If your gynecologist sticks a finger up your vagina without your consent, then it’s rape.

        So they’re supposed to ask every fucking time you’re spread at the table May i please insert my finger in your vagina to do my fucking job, pretty please?
        And are you sure students can’t consent?

        • Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes to both. Nonconsentual digital penetration isn’t suddenly ok just because the perpetrator works in a specific field. Teachers hold power over students’ lives to such an extent that students might not be able to reasonably refuse consent, ergo, they cannot freely give it. What the actual fuck is wrong with you, you creep???

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I’m a little disappointed that everybody is appealing to ethics and professionalism.

      According to biblical law its fine as long as they’re married.

      And the law of Nature: many plants use “pollinators”. These here are human pollinators for cows. They pull out the bull honey (pollinators) and insert it into cows (flowers). The only part thats weird is unlike bees, the humans aren’t taking a nibble of the honey.

      Edit: I adjusted the language to be more combatible to australian english speakers.

  • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Life eats life. I’m not going to try to convince a lion to not eat a gazelle, and I’m not going to try and convince a human not to eat the thing its been hunting and eating for 10 thousand years.

    I agree that factory farming is terrible. If we are going to eat an animal, its best if we raise it and kill it ourself in the quickest and most painless way possible, to ensure happiness and health during its life and mitigate as much suffering. It also forces us to face the act of death itself, and hopefully be grateful of the animal for the meals it provides.

    All things die. As someone who went through “dying”, I can say with some confidence that dying sucks, and you will suffer when you go through it. Whether its being shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, or dying of the complications of old age. You are going to suffer unless you’re doped to high heaven on morphine or something similar.

    Are vegans going about using opioids to euthanize factory farmed cows in mass? No? Then I guess they’re going to suffer, and I’m not letting them suffer in vain.

    THAT would be unethical.

    /s

  • OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    “This is the police! Hands up you FREAK!”

    “…im a farmer”

    “omg thats so cool, can i bring my kids to watch and maybe they can try?”