8

Should we be using the word "rape" when talking about artificial insemination of animals?

Submitted by theblackcat in Vegan

It probably makes us look like assholes when people compare that to rape. The same goes for 'meat is murder'. I mean, carnivores are technically murdering animals, but the word murder specifically refers to a human killing a human. If a bear mauls someone, we don't call it murder. It's kinda like using the word assassinate when referring to a car crash.

I think using strong words that are usually used to describe violence towards humans makes non-vegans have a knee jerk reaction and not want to relate to us, and just smothers the intention behind the message. Let people take baby steps into understand speciesist oppression and that animals have feelings before you start talking about them feeling deep emotions like being emotionally disturbed by being raped.

People don't think animals feel at all, let alone think they would care about being "raped".

People get defensive, and any chance you had of convincing them is lost; or You will end up in an argument about semantics, when you want to talk about oppression of animals.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

12

DeathToAmerica wrote

Yes. To pretend otherwise would be straight up speciesism. A bear mauling someone is survival instinct. Humans building machines to fuck cows so we can eat their babies is deliberate and perverse. Especially since humans don't need to eat meat.

8

ziq wrote

Especially since humans don't need to eat meat.

That's really the root of the issue. Most people in the world eat meat out of indulgence, not need.

2

theblackcat wrote

Are there really any exceptions? Who NEEDS to eat meat in this day and age?

7

zod wrote

People that live in harsh climates where other food edible to humans doesn't grow, like places covered in snow and ice most of the year.

5

Calistoga wrote

I don't like this argument. You can't apply that to everyone, everywhere. THings like environmental/climate factors alone will affect what food is locally available or reasonably produced, not to mention socioeconomic factors that put good, non-animal product foods out of reach or accessibility to cash poor people.

-2

nicholai wrote

I'm sorry, but if you live in a place that can't sustain nourishing foods, you are an idiot and you are destined to be malnourished. There is no such thing as " socioeconomic factors that put good, non-animal product foods out of reach or accessibility to cash poor people" - plants goes into animals too, and will always be the cheaper option, unless you literally live in arctic climates and rely on hunting primarily aquatic animals, but then please refer to my first sentence.

2

sleepeejack wrote

I wouldn't be so quick to say that a bear mauling someone is survival instinct. It implies that animals cannot plan things, and have no sense of morality whatsoever, even one that is different from humans'. But animals can certainly plan even pretty complicated things, and many animals are capable of social/moral emotions like shame and empathy.

Have you ever seen the documentary Grizzly Man? spoilers One thing that stuck with me about it was that the man-eating bear had a very different malevolent reputation from the other bears. Even the grizzled old park ranger -- far from the hippie type -- said he believed that the bear in question was "bad".

2

theblackcat wrote

But don't you see how all you're doing is alienating human rape survivors? They don't want their experience to be compared to a factory farm.

4

DeathToAmerica wrote

I can see how it would do that and it's why I don't use the analogy myself, but I've been in slaughterhouses and in farms and I still have nightmares about the things I saw. Pretending that abuse is only abuse when it's done to humans isn't something that sits well with me.

6

ziq wrote

I think it depends who you're talking to. If it's a liberal, then you should probably be more tactful, but if it's another radical, they've got no excuse for their ignorance.

4

DeathToAmerica wrote

Did you see that thread on r/anarchism? Even mods were freaking out and attacking the OP for recognizing the fucked up abuses that go on in the meat industry.

4

ziq wrote

Yeah but that was linking to a video that called eating meat 'rape' with no context. Even radicals can stubbornly hide their heads in the sand when it comes to this issue if they want to justify their oppression of other animals to themselves. It needs to be explained to them - the full horrific process of getting meat on their table. It always begins by strapping a cow into a rape machine.

3

theblackcat wrote

The negative reaction to that awful video was completely justified.

4

DeathToAmerica wrote

As cringy and in poor taste as that video was, it doesn't change the fact that millions of cows have robotic dildo machines inserting semen in them so they can make babies that are then snatched from them and slaughtered for the enjoyment of people. Have you ever seen a cow cry?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zBnZPJJ2QG4

It's horrible.

3

tanattyn wrote

TIL even food can be turned into a chance for the system to commit massive, atrocious male-on-female rape.

4

theblackcat wrote

I mean, just because someone is keyed in to economic and social issues, doesn't mean they know the first thing about animal abuse.

6

Calistoga wrote

and on that note, just because someone eats vegan doesn't mean they understand radical veganism, ethics, etc. Liberal vegans are some of the most tedious and irritating mother fuckers.

5

DeathToAmerica wrote

I know, right? r/vegan is overflowing with annoying little turds that want everything to stay the same except for vegan burritos being on every menu.

5

unk wrote

I don't know, it maybe depends on the person I'm talking to. If it's a sensitive person I'm not gonna throw words at them, but if it's someone who can take it I go for it. I see how it could throw people off and make them get defensive. On the other hand some people might be shocked about the phrasing and after calming down go and look if what I said was true? I just generally don't like sugarcoating stuff, especially if it's important to me.

4

tanattyn wrote

It's unthinkable to me, just reading the comments, that human women's liberation can occur without [edit: also] ending nonhuman women's oppression. Zero possibility that factory-farming does not itself result in more rape of human women.

4

autonomous_hippopotamus wrote

that objectively is what it is... Any discussion of killing, sexual assault etc. is going to be triggering, so obviously it's necessary to give disclaimers/content warnings before discussing factory farms for examples. but there reallly is no nice way to describe it.