we’re not in c/vegan, our divergence occurs way before that question has coherent meaning.
all i can do is repeat myself that the chuds who call it that are doing so because they don’t take sexual violence against human women seriously, not because they’re using a vegan lense and uplifting the status of food.
Then I’m curious where that divergence occurs. Is it that there’s a difference between pet animals and food animals? Is it that animals deserve no consideration? I’m not expecting to change your mind here but I am genuinely interested to know other discourses to contend with when people are open to it.
I feel it validates a certain truth that chuds would call it so while others refer to it in technical terms for sensitive optics and posturing.
sociologically speaking western culture in-groups pets as an exception to the usual status of non-humans, and even then cops will shoot your dog because they don’t care and it’s usually legal to euthanize a pet electively which would be a fucked up thing to do to grandma so it’s not exactly consistent. Children do that kind of in-grouping/callous disregard duality on toys etc as well, it’s not just an animals thing.
idk, the rpe rack* name came from chuds, the people who call it the official name i think aren’t posturing, rather they don’t think animal husbandry is r*pe, and there are probably quite a lot of people who would take great offense to the comparison. I understand the rhetorical purpose of hyperbolic language for agricultural practices (and maybe you do believe in your heart of hearts that it’s exactly the same as someone assaulting another human person; i’m not accusing vegans of lying about their own morals) but I don’t think cows or whatever are people so the framework doesn’t apply.
![[CW: Bestiality, SV] Liberalism](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/376d8b8a-85c2-4447-8a2d-4b2223703259.jpeg){kind=link}
I’m asking what you think about it.
i think they call it that because they think it’s an edgy joke, not because they think the term meaningfully applies to cattle.
they’re misogynists, most people don’t think food animals are also people.
So if I’m understanding right, forced pregnancy isn’t rape if it’s a… “food” animal? What can and cannot animals consent to?
we’re not in c/vegan, our divergence occurs way before that question has coherent meaning.
all i can do is repeat myself that the chuds who call it that are doing so because they don’t take sexual violence against human women seriously, not because they’re using a vegan lense and uplifting the status of food.
Then I’m curious where that divergence occurs. Is it that there’s a difference between pet animals and food animals? Is it that animals deserve no consideration? I’m not expecting to change your mind here but I am genuinely interested to know other discourses to contend with when people are open to it.
I feel it validates a certain truth that chuds would call it so while others refer to it in technical terms for sensitive optics and posturing.
sociologically speaking western culture in-groups pets as an exception to the usual status of non-humans, and even then cops will shoot your dog because they don’t care and it’s usually legal to euthanize a pet electively which would be a fucked up thing to do to grandma so it’s not exactly consistent. Children do that kind of in-grouping/callous disregard duality on toys etc as well, it’s not just an animals thing.
idk, the rpe rack* name came from chuds, the people who call it the official name i think aren’t posturing, rather they don’t think animal husbandry is r*pe, and there are probably quite a lot of people who would take great offense to the comparison. I understand the rhetorical purpose of hyperbolic language for agricultural practices (and maybe you do believe in your heart of hearts that it’s exactly the same as someone assaulting another human person; i’m not accusing vegans of lying about their own morals) but I don’t think cows or whatever are people so the framework doesn’t apply.