I see such a distinct divide between how much I knowledge I can gain from your debates/discussions with people. This stream was really good in that aspect. Clear questions and clear answers all in a good faith argument
I didn't watch one second of this so far but my list of videos I'm subbed to shows a solid red bar as if I've already seen it. Not the first time this has happened. Any ideas? CIA, FBI, NSA, MOSSAD, UA-cam Censor Bots? ....
tw: discussion of sexual assualt Hey pp, this is only slightly related and a bit of a weird question but do you think it's appropriate to term what we do to animals under the guise of 'artificial insemination' r*pe? There's a decent amount of literature I find very convincing for calling animal ag. a genocide and holocaust, and also comparing animal ag and experiments to slavery, but I can't find anything about sexual assault. Is s.a. a uniquely human thing because of how deeply we value sexuality? Does sexual assault make animals uncomfortable in a similar way? Do you know of any good resources on this topic and do you have any thoughts about it? My instinct says it's completely appropriate but I can't articulate why.
A case could be made by the offender that the motivation for the assault is not pleasure* motivated so I'd stick with the objective fact that the forced impregnation of any being is the r word especially given the fact they need to be restrained during the act because the innocent being is obviously actively trying to escape from the actions of the human perpetrator. *though rational people know the ultimate motivation of human consumption of animals IS pleasure (taste). Herbivores not only do not require it but it harms us. So yes, it is pleasure motivated r word but going there is muddying the waters. Peace 🐣
Artificial insemination is opposed by religion so I'd use both words and just not argue when they say animals were put here for us and therefore it isnt blah blah.
He's mentioned this before saying that it doesn't cause the same psychological harm to animals as it does to humans, and that could be a relevant distinction. But apart from that, the physical harm still exists, so I think an assault is still a relevant term to be used. And again, the words being used are for getting an emotional response which might motivate the person to reconsider their choices, so if using a word doesn't generate such an outcome, I would avoid using it in that scenario.
I see such a distinct divide between how much I knowledge I can gain from your debates/discussions with people. This stream was really good in that aspect. Clear questions and clear answers all in a good faith argument
I didn't watch one second of this so far but my list of videos I'm subbed to shows a solid red bar as if I've already seen it. Not the first time this has happened. Any ideas? CIA, FBI, NSA, MOSSAD, UA-cam Censor Bots? ....
tw: discussion of sexual assualt
Hey pp, this is only slightly related and a bit of a weird question but do you think it's appropriate to term what we do to animals under the guise of 'artificial insemination' r*pe? There's a decent amount of literature I find very convincing for calling animal ag. a genocide and holocaust, and also comparing animal ag and experiments to slavery, but I can't find anything about sexual assault. Is s.a. a uniquely human thing because of how deeply we value sexuality? Does sexual assault make animals uncomfortable in a similar way? Do you know of any good resources on this topic and do you have any thoughts about it? My instinct says it's completely appropriate but I can't articulate why.
A case could be made by the offender that the motivation for the assault is not pleasure* motivated so I'd stick with the objective fact that the forced impregnation of any being is the r word especially given the fact they need to be restrained during the act because the innocent being is obviously actively trying to escape from the actions of the human perpetrator.
*though rational people know the ultimate motivation of human consumption of animals IS pleasure (taste). Herbivores not only do not require it but it harms us. So yes, it is pleasure motivated r word but going there is muddying the waters.
Peace 🐣
Artificial insemination is opposed by religion so I'd use both words and just not argue when they say animals were put here for us and therefore it isnt blah blah.
He's mentioned this before saying that it doesn't cause the same psychological harm to animals as it does to humans, and that could be a relevant distinction. But apart from that, the physical harm still exists, so I think an assault is still a relevant term to be used. And again, the words being used are for getting an emotional response which might motivate the person to reconsider their choices, so if using a word doesn't generate such an outcome, I would avoid using it in that scenario.
@@planetvegan7843I understand that you mean humans when you say herbivores, is that correct? Or did I misunderstand the sentence