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
![[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}
Find a better argument other than "Torturing and exploiting animals is okay as long as you're not horny while doing it"
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
Removed by mod