Resonosity

@Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dinner is ready! ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  D, hands down. Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, Iranian, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese. Literally my favorite foods

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Shh⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’d be great if more and more companies packaged their foods through EcoEnclose or similar.

  It’d be even better if this was made default by legislation that eliminates the need for good will.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It'S tHe SaMe PiCtUrE!!!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not racist to speak about which parties play the role of the oppressor and the oppressed. It’s reality.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It'S tHe SaMe PiCtUrE!!!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I had a response typed up, but I guess it didn’t send.

  Basically, white people have caused the genocide of Native Americans, and some say the genocide of slaves and black people too, although it’s not clear if what’s going on there is a genocide. There is clearly a race arrow pointing from one group of people towards others.

  The arrival of Europeans and passing of the baton from the British, Spanish, and French to the Americans introduced diseases that Native Americans weren’t prepared for, and this was a major factor in their decline. If you think the Civil War had impacts on civilians and those not participating, then you must recognize the impacts European contact had. It’s so much worse than the Civil War.

  And in the case of European contact, and again Americans’ continued settlement and structural violence against the Native Americans, pretty much only Native Americans were impacted. The diseases and technologies carried over by the whites completely overwhelmed Native Americans. Virtually no impacts to whites, which IMO is a worse outcome. At least in war, people sustain similar casualties and impacts on both sides, and this helps fuel empathy. Not the case when you’re the oppressor.

  There is a hierarchy to evil because there is a hierarchy to violence. Violence can be direct or acute, and then it can be indirect through structural violence (or social murder). Violence just means harm against others. That harm can manifest in many different ways. The ultimate harm is killing people, but there are many other harms to be done towards the outgroup.

  In the case of the Holodomor vs the Trail of Tears, I think we can make a good distinction that one was worse than the other. The Trail of Tears was essentially ethnic cleansing, or the displacement of people from one area or another. The Holodomor involved a famine that may or may not have been intentionally caused by the USSR, but which may or may not have been accelerated once the USSR learned of it. That IMO makes it a genocide. Ethnic cleansing is bad, but people don’t die as a result. With genocide, that is the case. The Holodomor as an event IMO was worse than the Trail of Tears, but there are other events in the history of the genocide of Native Americans that compare to the Holodomor or appear worse.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It'S tHe SaMe PiCtUrE!!!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You tell me how a singular war fought primarily by whites against whites compares the US’s and Western World’s systematic eradication of Native Americans.

  The Trail of Tears might not have involved actual deaths of Native Americans, but it’s the hallmark heinous injustice and US-done marker of their centuries-long genocide (even if it’s considered more ethnic cleansing than genocide).

  Nothing about what you’ve said has refuted my point. More deaths are worse than less deaths.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It'S tHe SaMe PiCtUrE!!!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  There absolutely is. Murder of millions is worse than murder of one.

  Let’s not fucking ethicswash this

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨It'S tHe SaMe PiCtUrE!!!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Genocide the crime of all crimes. So yes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Apparently they are not

  Charlie Kirk wasn’t empathetic himself. Literally look at the posted quote by OP. He was not a tolerant person, but intolerant of others.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Too soon?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Nah, this is the right time

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Good news. :)⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  At the very least they need to hire these doctors and scientists that RFK Jr. fired so their wisdom and knowledge don’t go to waste!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Who could have predicted this?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s why I finally made the switch!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  What do you mean by informed?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Consent is not only informed. There are other forms of consent, like express, implied, informed, substituted, etc.

  I want to say pretty much all of the research I’ve presented so far fall under the idea of implied consent. Females in the animal kingdom do absolutely consent to having sexual relations with males, but only after the males have demonstrated some sort of direct or indirect benefit that the females agree to. Females consent by selecting one mate over others. Literally this can mean that they change their body like in the case of hyenas or ducks, where if they don’t consent males literally cannot fuck them.

  The opposite is when rape does occur in the animal kingdom. Males will chase after females, alone or even in groups, then force themselves onto the females. Females can show signs of escape by trying to resist, or they may submit to avoid further injury. This is literally what legal counsel advises women to do in human rape.

  You’re restricting the idea of consent to make your argument. That isn’t a good argument

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  All of the sources I shared point to animals choosing their sexual mates, or choosing not to - and the consequences of doing that in many species: rape.

  Choice in this matter, and free choice at that, is the basis for consent. It matters not that the species in question understands what consent is for them to still exercise it.

  You’re trying to prove a negative. Where’s your evidence for that?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I didn’t push away people, jackass. Just you!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  All I can say is that you have a super naive idea of the veganism movement, and your prescriptions for doing “good” activism can go paint my taint.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  We all have to pitch in sometimes!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  You aren’t shutting down the conversation. I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, idiot.

  You want me to voice my opinion in ways that are more palatable to your sensibilities. Ain’t doin’ shit for you bro.

  Good! Maybe you should date more vegans. Hell, even make more vegan friends. You’ll get over this hump of having your feelings hurt

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  They aren’t my farmers. I’m vegan.

  I sure do want them to stop their industrialized, subsidized rape work though

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Sure thing, bud

  Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.

  The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.

  With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the rapists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them so they show less resistance to our violations.

  Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Since this dialogue originally started with discussions on rape, or sexual coercion, we have to start with sexual selection, and then identify its main component, mate choice. This stands in contrast to sexual coercion where mate choice is suspended at often negative impacts to females.

  The main argument I want to draw out from the above, as well as from research syntheses like this or this, or this, is that there is choice of females to select males out of the benefits, direct or indirect, they perceive that copulation grants.

  With domesticated animals like cows where we rob that agency from them, it is forced insemination, which falls under forced penetration or rape. Cows cannot flee to escape forced insemination. They cannot team up with other cows to flee or fight back against the racists, as we humans have thought of ways to isolate cows. We might have also drugged them to they show less resistance to our violations.

  Don’t defend rape dude. You look fucking weird

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  …do you hear yourself? You’re abetting an industry that commits the most violence on Earth. How fucking gross

  If you can’t see how fascism applies to animal abuse today, then I really am speaking with idiots

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Hey idiot, note how I started that sentence with the word “seems”, as in how your comments looked to me. You’re welcome to correct that perception! I don’t see you pushing back on this though.

  Artificial insemination is not rape

  It is.

  I’ve never claimed that animals cannot be raped.

  You actively are by denying that artificial insemination isn’t rape

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  You are a dumbass that knows nothing about biology.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  From humans they can’t. From other animals of their species, yes they can.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  If you can’t see how domesticating animals is a form of fascism, just applied to non-humans, then I can’t save you. You’re reinforcing your pre-existing beliefs by insulating yourself with lies. Do me and all rape victims a favor: learn about the evil and corrupt animal ag industry, and its effects on both humans and animals. You’ll come back with a stronger sense of morality than whatever flimsy shit you call yours now

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Factually incorrect

  Nope, I’m right. Rape is the non-consensual penetration of another animal’s vaginal, anal, or oral orifices. Applies to humans, cows, or any other animal.

  things are different in different situations and contexts.

  But humans and animals are the same in their capacity to experience pain and pleasure (i.e. to be sentient). That capacity may vary according to species, but your lack of recognition for that once again proves to me how egocentric you are. How fucking dull.

  actual rape victims

  You mean cows right? And women? And any other member of a species that experiences rape? You cannot gatekeep this to just humans. Seems to me that you’re the one disrespecting rape victims here by denying how other species can experience the same.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m perfectly keen on continuing to argue my position. You haven’t shown me how I’ve committed any fallacies, and yes I’m very much signalling my moral superiority to you! I hope that came across at some point!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Whether someone reads both of comments is not up to us. There are likely many non-vocal lurkers on this post and on Lemmy in general that have their opinions swayed by the users that are vocal.

  My motivation to voice my opinion is the same as yours in this matter.

  And bud, that ain’t common sense. That’s a reflexive mechanism since people don’t like being told their wrong, bad, or immoral. Doesn’t change the fact that they still are. What IS common sense is recognizing our capacity to do evil in this world, and lessening that. Veganism aims to do just that. Don’t see you providing any alternatives

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨New idea ⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.

  The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.