this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
130 points (92.8% liked)
Asklemmy
50106 readers
609 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FYI you can't be a feminist if you pay for the SA and murder of other women.
What is this referring to?
How dairy cows need to be pregnant in order to produce milk, so they're artificially inseminated and kept pregnant throughout most of their lives?
Yes. They can't consent and they are used like objects, only seen as a means of making milk and more cows.
women aren't cows. cows aren't women. and artificial insemination isn't SA, it's a veterinary procedure.
Well cows wouldn't call themselves "women" no, but I'm sure they do have some gender expression that is apart from just their sex. I could have said females, but I don't really like using that word.
These cows cannot consent to having someone shove a fist inside them, it is very much SA. I'm sure colonizers had the same mentality as you when they were SA Women of colour and indigenous women.
comparing indigenous people to animals is gross
Thinking just because someone has a different shaped body than you and isn't as intelligent gives someone the right to SA them is gross.
The problem is you being so brainwashed to think it's okay to abuse others that you forget indigenous people are animals. We all are.
kindly, leave me alone
That you think other animals are below you is the problem here. Don't blame me for your human supremacy.
I haven't made any such statements. please leave me alone
You essentially did when you considered it gross that Indigenous people are animals. As if other non-human animals are inherently gross.
please leave me alone, and stop calling indigenous people animals
doors can't consent to have your keys jammed in them either. the very concept of consent can't be applied to cows or doors.
Cows are sentient, you comparing them to objects is exactly the kind of shit feminism fights against.
If a human had the same intelligence as a cow do you think it would be okay to SA them?
I haven't said anything about intelligence, or suggested sa is ever ok.
sentience has nothing to do with consent.
Sentience has to do with among many other things, the ability to suffer. These cows suffer because they are SA, have their kids stolen from them and have their lives cut short only to end in some place worse than hell.
So no sentience does have something to do with consent because only with sentience does consent matter. I don't need to ask a tree consent to cut it down because it does not feel anything. I do need to ask other individuals for consent because they can suffer.
consent and sentience are totally unrelated concepts. your response only continues to muddy the waters.
Sentience plus communication is literally the recipe for consent. So, yes, it does have a lot to do with it.
Cows are sentient and can suffer. They are nothing like doors. It upsets me that you even compare them to inanimate objects. It's disgusting that you think we can use them, and compare the SA that happens to them like putting a key in a door.
They don't want some random human forcibly shoving their fist inside of them. They're as smart as human toddlers, and have just as much capacity to suffer.
they are exactly like doors in the ways that matter for this conversation. it's absurd to discuss consent from them.
Explain how they are like doors.
itβs absurd to discuss consent from them.
Why is it absurd?
they cannot be informed any more than a door can.
So its okay to SA humans that cant be informed any more than a door can?
no. it's reasonable to discuss consent from humans, since humans can be informed. if the circumstances preclude them from being informed, that doesn't change whether consent should still be required.
You just said a bunch of words without answering what makes it wrong to SA a human that can't be informed vs a cow that cant be informed.
The answer is there is none, other than speciesist bs. The answer is they suffer. They suffer just as much as some humans. They have just as much ability to consent as some humans(which is none) yet you consider them the same as you would consider a fucking door.
They are not a door. Again they can suffer and doors CANNOT suffer. They are sentient and have desires like not getting SA or not dying or on and on, where as a door is not sentient and does not have desires.
The whole idea behind consent is to not go against someone's desires (If they do not consent) and to go with someone's desires (if they do consent). Just because cows can't communicate consent doesn't mean they don't have those desires that are at the root of why were even have consent in the first place.
Here are some facts about cows and how smart they are. Please read up on them before comparing them to a door again. https://vegfaqs.com/how-intelligent-is-a-cow/
it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to pretend I haven't given a sufficient explanation.