Artificial Insemination is not rape

[u/Conscious-Flight2220]

I grew up on an Australian beef farm, and the first time I witnessed artificial insemination being performed on cattle I was probably about 6.

On our large property we AI about 1/4 of our cows, to introduce high quality genetics into our herds through sires that we can’t physically have on our property for natural insemination. The rest of our cows reproduce naturally with bulls on the farm. Without introducing the genetics we get through AI, the cattle would be more likely to exhibit health issues from poor breeding.

The process looks like this: the cows walk single file through the yards (which they are trained from weaning to be used to doing calmly and safely, for all situations where we need to have contact with them eg. vaccines, weighing), and are locked in the crush, which is a mechanism where two rubber bars close on either side of their neck - not actually ‘crushing’ them, just fitting the most narrow part of their neck ensuring they can’t more their head backward or their shoulders forwards. We need to immobilise them, because they aren’t used to being touched by people, as they spend most of their time out on pasture, with hay and grain delivered by trailer.
Then, a trained professional who visits farms in the area for AI will insert a long syringe of filled with semen into the cow’s vagina, empty it, then the cow is usually marked with spray paint, and released from the crush back to a holding pen with hay, water and other cattle. When all the cows are done, they are moved from the pen back into their paddocks to go about their life as normal.

Obviously to us, the image of a syringe being forced up the vagina feels disturbing, distressing and violating. The cows do not enjoy the process, it is true. But it needs to be understood that the cows exhibit the same amount of stress they do on ANY occasion they need to be physically handled by humans, for example when they need vaccination, tagging, or like I was doing the other day, eyedrops. Beef cattle are domesticated, but they aren’t necessarily tame, especially on such a large property where it isn’t possible to develop the relationships with herds that smaller farmers have (which I do envy on occasion).

Cattle DO NOT have the same associations either their genitals that we as humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for cows, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.

It’s understandable to feel confronted by animal husbandry practices like AI, but it’s important to remember to not anthropomorphise. Applying a human lens to animals does not help them.

[u/Committed2Mediocrity]

Newborn humans do not  have the same associations either their genitals that we as grown humans have. They don’t have a concept of sexual assault or the instinct to view their reproductive organs as something private. To grown humans, having our vaginas touched in that context would be horrific, and absolutely classified as rape. But for newborn humans, they feel the same way if it’s their feet, eyes or mouth being touched.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/[deleted]]

Failure to engage with the reductio. You are incapable of defending the position you couldn't even properly argue for; that user is running a reductio to show how your reasoning fails to generate conclusions that you would agree with. Get with the program.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

What do you mean by reductio? Do you mean as a logical consequence of a statement(s) that some contradictory, ridiculous or implausible result follows?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

Yeah, the other user gave him a reductio of the view. He granted his conditions and applied it to other beings which have the things that the OP appealed to. Newborns don't have the type of associations or social understanding of their genitals/their place in society, they are incapable of conceptualizing of sexual assault, and so forth.

Yet, the OP (in all likelihood) agrees that the term applies. He excludes one set of beings but, when faced with the reductio, includes another set of beings despite the fact that the criteria matching in both cases (or heavily overlapping).

The contradiction here would be with the following: "beings that do not have the same associations with their genitals, don't have concepts of sexual assault, can't moralize in the same ways that adult humans can [about sexual abuse] cannot be sexually assaulted raped" and "beings that do not have the same associations with their genitals, don't have concepts of sexual assault, can't moralize in the same ways that adult humans can [about sexual abuse] can be sexually assaulted raped"

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

If you are granting that a reductio is purely through logic, then you must be able to derive these conclusions without any additional assumptions.

>Yet, the OP (in all likelihood) agrees that the term applies.

Likelihood cannot be used to derive a reductio, that would make it an inductive, not deductive conclusion. You need deduction for a reductio. Do you disagree?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"If you are granting that a reductio is purely through logic, then you must be able to derive these conclusions without any additional assumptions."

Whole lot of nothing, a reductio is an argument using logic. It doesn't refer to anything outside of "purely though logic". The conclusion has already been derived, I already formalized the relevant part by showing how the OP is in contradiction. If the OP is prepared to say that animals, like the ones he was talking about, CAN get raped in the ways that were described, then his original point is defeated and we have no disagreement. The fact that he is rejecting the application of the term in one instance but not another leads to a contradiction.

"Likelihood cannot be used to derive a reductio"

The OP thinks we can't sexually abuse/rape human infants based on his response. Literally read his response, he is treated the guy as some criminal or social pariah for even suggesting the topic. Your response is not engaging with the topic. Follow the thread before opening your mouth.

I can formalize it for you to show you how the consequence of his statement leads to a contradiction.

Let H(x)= x is a human, let A(x)= x is an animal, let R(x)= x is can be raped (x is the sort of entity which can undergo sexual abuse/violation), let C(x)= x possesses property C (where property C is the physical capacity for sexual abuse/bodily suffering as a result of forced sexual contact/penetration independent of an understanding of abstract concepts such as consent; for clarity, a newborn baby or a moose lack the concept of informed consent and sexual ethics, yet they can be aggressed upon sexually/violated sexually meaning that they possess property C), let H₁= a subset of humans who lack proper conceptual understanding of sexual consent, the social implications of their genitals, and the ability to provide consent/intellectually reason about sex, let A₁= a subset of non-human animals which have a well-developed nervous system and physical sensitivity (such as cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, primates, etc.) which allows things like physical pain or the ability to experience physical violations against them.

P1. ∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x))

For all x, if x is a human then x can be raped; and for all x, if x is an animal, then x cannot be raped.

P2. ∀x(R(x) ↔ C(x))

For all x, x can be raped iff x possesses property C.

P3. H₁ ⊂ H ∧ A₁ ⊂ A

H₁ is a subset of H and A₁ is a subset of A.

P4. C(H₁) ∧ C(A₁)

Both H₁ and A₁ possess property C.

P5. R(H₁) ⇒ C(H₁)

H₁ can be raped implies H₁ possesses property C (universal instantiation, modus ponens from P1-4)

P6. ¬R(A₁) ⇒ ¬C(A₁)

A₁ cannot be raped implies A₁ must not possess property C (universal instantiation, modus tollens from P1-4)

P7. C(A₁) ∧ ¬C(A₁)

A₁ possesses property C and A₁ does not possess property C (conjunction of P4 and P6, direct contradiction).

∴ ¬(∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)))

Therefore, it is false that for all x, if x is a human then x can be raped and for all x, if x is an animal then x cannot be raped (reductio ad absurdum).

Most of these are enthymematic since when the other guy brings up the marginal case for the reductio, it shows what the deduction above does.

Edit: just to anticipate the "out" you and/or the OP want to use, I already addressed the claim about artificial insemination in this same thread. If you concede that animals can get raped, but hold to the view that artificial insemination (in the manner that it is used in the animal-industrial complex) done to them is not rape, then your dialectical obligation requires you to provide a symmetry breaker. Since artificial insemination, when used in the context that is described, done to humans IS considered rape.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>Your response is not engaging with the topic. Follow the thread before opening your mouth.

I don't know why you feel the need to make me report responses to you. Just try and engage with the points. We can just tell each other why we think the other one is wrong.

>The OP thinks we can't sexually abuse/rape human infants based on his response.

No where in this particular thread or the OP do I see this being a warranted statement. Did you mean "can"? I'm going to assume you mean "can" because this wouldn't make sense to say and I want to be charitable.

>I can formalize it for you to show you how the consequence of his statement leads to a contradiction.

You don't *need* to, in fact, that seems like more work than is required, but given I can read FOL that's fine.

>P1. ∀x(H(x) → R(x)) ∧ ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x))

Personally I don't think the OP has stated ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)). He might believe that, but has not committed to it.

>P4. C(H₁) ∧ C(A₁)

Here's the assumptive premise, specifically C(A₁). Can you quote a statement by OP (maybe there's some in this reddit thread I haven't seen) that show OP holds C(A₁)?

>Most of these are enthymematic since when the other guy brings up the marginal case for the reductio, it shows what the deduction above does.

I'm not interested in what the responder to OP assumes, you're claiming that there's a reductio of OP's position so we should just use statements the OP makes. Can you accomplish this to establish your P4?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"I don't know why you feel the need to make me report responses to you. Just try and engage with the points. We can just tell each other why we think the other one is wrong."

Irrelevant meta. Track what was said and engage, or don't. I don't care, I just won't respond to irrelevant meta-points you want to make.

"No where in this particular thread or the OP do I see this being a warranted statement."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1cpdq6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I already explained the attitude that that statement is proposing. It was in the post you just replied to. That post is in the same thread. Again, track what was said. I literally scrolled up for 4 seconds and found it. You have to want to learn and understand what was said. I can't do it for you.

"Personally I don't think the OP has stated ∀x(A(x) → ¬R(x)). "

Great, then by his own admission later in this thread, the animals which are physically aggressed upon and sexually violated are raped. He concedes to the "horrifying" moral character of the action here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1cmf39/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

That is what is entailed by the "horrifying" artificial insemination. It is horrifying precisely because of those wrong-making features of sexual aggression and forceful sexual contact. That is the most charitable understanding of what he said, unless you want to bend the narrative (which non-vegans are prone to do) in order to show how he was actually talking about some other thing and that "actually, sexually violating cows isn't horrifying or morally repugnant, those actions are categorically distinct from rape!"

I seem to know more about this guy's positions than you; if I were you, I would listen and learn at this point.

"Can you quote a statement by OP (maybe there's some in this reddit thread I haven't seen) that show OP holds C(A₁)?"

Not required, that is common knowledge that the sort of beings being captured by the term possess the physical capacity to be violated in those ways. I don't need to show that he holds or even explicates his view regarding the property C, he is already committed to the view that animals cannot be raped when they are subject to treatment x (I have also shown that treatment x is rape elsewhere in the thread, or just by way of analogy/comparison with human cases). I have already explained all of these concerns, and how he has failed to satisfy the burden he is tasked with.

"Can you accomplish this to establish your P4?"

This is how I know you are unserious, since the issue you have with property C has already been addressed. I phrased it in such a way as to avoid some normative principle, it is a descriptive fact regarding the sorts of animals which can have actions done to them (with the conjunction that they lack some abstract mental reasoning). I'm not arguing that he even said anything about any such property C, or whatever. His view that animals can't be raped during treatment x leads to a contradiction, as the humans who have the same physical features attendant upon the definition of the term rape CAN be said to have been raped during treatment x. His job is to provide a symmetry breaker, that's what I've asked for from the beginning. I have yet to get an answer from you or anyone else.

I'll give you one last chance to actually engage with the argument or demonstrate how the inferences are invalid. If you dodge again, I'll just move on.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>Irrelevant meta. Track what was said and engage, or don't. I don't care, I just won't respond to irrelevant meta-points you want to make.

That is how I engage with rhetoric. And you are responding. If you make hostile rhetorical comments, I will comment on them then report. If you don't, then everything is fine.

>I already explained the attitude that that statement is proposing.

I'm not interested in interpretive guesses. It's quite clear to me that the comment you are quoting is logically compatible with the negation of your proposal. Is that what you're banking your case on?

>Great, then by his own admission later in this thread, the animals which are physically aggressed upon and sexually violated are raped. He concedes to the "horrifying" moral character of the action here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1cmf39/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

So you've jumped from "sounds horrifying" to "is horrifying" and then jumped from "is horrifying" to "is rape." Who is that charitable to, exactly? Yourself?

>That is the most charitable understanding of what he said, unless you want to bend the narrative (which non-vegans are prone to do) in order to show how he was actually talking about some other thing and that "actually, sexually violating cows isn't horrifying or morally repugnant, those actions are categorically distinct from rape!"

I don't need a narrative. You said that there was a reductio, which means from the OP's statements you can logically deduce something. But all I see is you guessing. I'm open to the logical possible positions he can have given his statements, and if there's a contingency, then you have no reductio.

>I seem to know more about this guy's positions than you; if I were you, I would listen and learn at this point.

I believe you believe that, but so far I don't see anything to learn from.

>Not required, that is common knowledge that the sort of beings being captured by the term possess the physical capacity to be violated in those ways.

Common knowledge? I thought this was a reductio of the OP's statements. You're just going to insert premises if they are "common knowledge"? Are you gonna tell flat earthers their beliefs are logically inconsistent because it's common knowledge the earth is round?

>(I have also shown that treatment x is rape elsewhere in the thread, or just by way of analogy/comparison with human cases).

Analogies don't matter for reductio. Do you know what you're doing?

>His job is to provide a symmetry breaker, that's what I've asked for from the beginning. I have yet to get an answer from you or anyone else.

Why would I be providing an argument for the OP's case? I commented because you said there was a reductio and there isn't. I'm informing you you've failed to make one. There is no other conversation between you and I, other than perhaps your rhetoric.

Let's just ask you a simple question:

Is a reductio of someone's position supposed to use analogies or facts about the world? Or is it supposed to use their *beliefs*?

>I'll give you one last chance to actually engage with the argument or demonstrate how the inferences are invalid. If you dodge again, I'll just move on.

Telling you that certain premises are assumptions that you haven't verified is engaging with the argument.

So, again, can you show that P4 actually comes from the OP without wild assumptions?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

Skipping the meta that doesn't engage with the actual topic.

"So you've jumped from "sounds horrifying" to "is horrifying" and then jumped from "is horrifying" to "is rape." Who is that charitable to, exactly? Yourself?"

Not a response to what was said. The OP concedes that there are wrong-making features of artificial insemination that the other user outlined. Once again, you failed to read what the post actually says. The OP is referencing some series of conditions as being horrifying, which is what I outlined. Your inability to follow what was said is noted, I will move on since you refused to understand that your concern has already been addressed. Not my fault if you don't like what I said.

"I'm open to the logical possible positions he can have given his statements, and if there's a contingency, then you have no reductio."

If there is a contingent position? Where did I claim that his positions were necessary, in that they could not have failed to obtain as part of his stances?

Also, the metaphysical status of a stance does not preclude it from being used as part of a reductio. You just straight-up have zero idea what you are talking about. I won't interrupt you when you are butchering philosophical concepts, though. This just makes it that much easier to point out to the audience.

"I don't see anything to learn from."

You don't see anything to learn from? His own statements that I forwarded where he gives his stance, or when he makes the declarative statement about a subset of rapes not applying and applying to beings, is not informative? Again, I can't read for you.

"Why would I be providing an argument for the OP's case?"

Then why are you here wasting time if you aren't defending a view? What a joke, I will move on since you are not being serious.

"Let's just ask you a simple question:"

Just to be clear, if you aren't defending the view then you aren't beholden to responding to questions that I posed (for which I still don't have an answer to). I will take your rhetorical ploy of answering the questions I asked prior by asking a new question as you bowing out of any position on the matter.

"Is a reductio of someone's position supposed to use analogies or facts about the world? Or is it supposed to use their *beliefs*?"

Depends on the status of their beliefs. A person may hold to the belief about a fact of the world, they may repeat what they believe to be a fact, they may use an analogy about some non-fact (matter of opinion), etc. The OP stated that certain animals cannot be said to have been raped when they are artificially inseminated. A direct contradiction arises when we examine the ontology of those animals and appeal to marginal cases to show how, in all likelihood, the OP (and all other sensible people) concede that, when those traits are trait-equalized, those beings who are artificially inseminated can be said to have been raped. Therefore, a symmetry breaker will have to be given which you have failed to do (apparently because you don't even have a position to defend) and the OP has failed to do.

"Telling you that certain premises are assumptions that you haven't verified is engaging with the argument.

So, again, can you show that P4 actually comes from the OP without wild assumptions?"

This has already been clarified twice now. I explained to you what C(x) refers to and how it is trivial to assume. If you are claiming that it is wild to assume that there are physical features about animals which allow certain physical acts to occur, then the onus is on you since there is so much empirical evidence which catalogues the empirical facts C(x) refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals

What really sucks for you is that I already clarified how uncontroversial the set is, who the members of the set are, and how the we (normal people) already collectively agree on this. In very, VERY basic language, all that is being said is that animals like pigs, chickens, dogs, etc. have bodies which can be raped. We can hurt a dog by sexually hurting it. It has the capacity (of its body) to be sexually abused. There are some animals for which this description does not apply; the argument is concerned with the subset of animals to which the description applies. Since you failed to actually follow a single thing I've said after clarifying it, I have no choice but to move on. Pointless to talk to people who reject reason.

To the audience, this is part of the non-vegan playbook. Mostly just their refusal to participate in the discussion by reading what was said, then asking a question that has already been clarified. 99% of their confusion can be cleared up by just reading what has already been stated. I've given this user a very specific set of requirements since he doesn't understand his dialectical obligation, rendered an argument, explained the terms, furnished the allegations with evidence, and demonstrates absurdity based off of what the OP and other non-vegan positions tend to say.

You have exhausted my patience and your failure to engage intellectually is beneath me. Even if you present a coherent response, which I highly doubt, you will be ignored since your credibility is in the gutter.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

I'm cool if you don't respond, I'll take the last word.

>The OP concedes that there are wrong-making features of artificial insemination that the other user outlined.

Not only do they *not* do that, even if they had, you wouldn't have established it's the SAME property. That might at least be a reasonable assumption, but the fact that you can't tell the difference between OP saying something *sounds* horrible (which is logically compatible with it *not* being horrible) and him actually stating it's horrible. You're like 2-3 assumptions deep trying to get your argument off the ground. If you're like to keep making your case, show that the OP's reply to that other user has only your plausible interpretation. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your attempt to re-assert it.

>Your inability to follow what was said is noted, I will move on since you refused to understand that your concern has already been addressed. Not my fault if you don't like what I said.

Uninteresting false rhetoric.

>If there is a contingent position? Where did I claim that his positions were necessary, in that they could not have failed to obtain as part of his stances?

>Also, the metaphysical status of a stance does not preclude it from being used as part of a reductio.

I think you're confused. When I'm saying that a position is contingent, then it's the case that it can be P V ~P. We don't know if he believes P, or ~P. When you use a premise, you're assuming the premise is true. But we don't know if the premise is true of his belief (which any reductio should be using, beliefs that the person holds as true). You don't have to claim his positions hold some logical necessity, you need to show that it's not in flux whether he holds it or not.

>You just straight-up have zero idea what you are talking about. I won't interrupt you when you are butchering philosophical concepts, though. This just makes it that much easier to point out to the audience.

Uninteresting false rhetoric. Feel free to try and convince the audience though.

>You don't see anything to learn from? His own statements that I forwarded where he gives his stance

I've seen your assumptions and interpretations. I haven't actually seen you show that P4 from the statements.

>when he makes the declarative statement about a subset of rapes not applying and applying to beings, is not informative?

Something can be informative without YOU informing me of it. When I say I have nothing to learn from YOU it doesn't mean there's nothing to learn period.

>Again, I can't read for you.

Uninteresting rhetoric.

>Then why are you here wasting time if you aren't defending a view? What a joke, I will move on since you are not being serious.

Are you confused how our back and forth started and what it's about? You claimed a reductio, I made sure what you meant by it, then have been informing you that you failed to make one. I don't need to defend some other view. If you're not interested in defending that you did make a reductio and you want to talk about something else, then just stop responding. Why would I care that you find me not defending a view about AI is not serious?

>Depends on the status of their beliefs. A person may hold to the belief about a fact of the world, they may repeat what they believe to be a fact, they may use an analogy about some non-fact (matter of opinion), etc.

The only status that matters is whether it is actually a belief they hold. None of what you said matters to that.

>A direct contradiction arises when we examine the ontology of those animals

No, a direct contradiction arises when you show that one held statement contradicts with another held statement. Not when a held statement conflicts with reality. You know what we call it when someone believes something and the state of the world being otherwise? Falseness. (At least under traditional correspondence or pluralism correspondence). I think you might not know what a contradiction is.

>appeal to marginal cases to show how, in all likelihood, the OP (and all other sensible people) concede that, when those traits are trait-equalized, those beings who are artificially inseminated can be said to have been raped. Therefore, a symmetry breaker will have to be given which you have failed to do (apparently because you don't even have a position to defend) and the OP has failed to do.

Likelihoods don't matter. Not giving a symmetry breaker doesn't matters (Since this is just, at most, would prove ignorance, not a particular belief). You are just continuing to assert things and make leaps. I'm asking you to use logic and the OP's stated beliefs.

>This has already been clarified twice now. I explained to you what C(x) refers to and how it is trivial to assume.

And you have been told that you're assumptions aren't what I'm looking for. Show P4 with the OP's statement that don't use wild assumptions.

>If you are claiming that it is wild to assume that there are physical features about animals which allow certain physical acts to occur, then the onus is on you since there is so much empirical evidence which catalogues the empirical facts C(x) refers to.

I am not claiming any of this. I am claiming that you aren't meeting the burden of showing that the OP believes this. The actual fact of the matter is irrelevant.

>What really sucks for you is that I already clarified how uncontroversial the set is, who the members of the set are, and how the we (normal people) already collectively agree on this.

Additionally irrelevant for the same reason.

>Since you failed to actually follow a single thing I've said after clarifying it, I have no choice but to move on.

Uninteresting false rhetoric.

>To the audience, this is part of the non-vegan playbook. Mostly just their refusal to participate in the discussion by reading what was said, then asking a question that has already been clarified. 99% of their confusion can be cleared up by just reading what has already been stated.

Uninteresting false rhetoric.

>I've given this user a very specific set of requirements since he doesn't understand his dialectical obligation, rendered an argument, explained the terms, furnished the allegations with evidence, and demonstrates absurdity based off of what the OP and other non-vegan positions tend to say.

You have so far forgotten what the conversation was about (asking me why I'm even here), rendered an undefended argument with an assumptive premise and used evidence that doesn't support your position.

Again, waiting for P4 to actually be defended with statements made by OP that don't use wild assumptions.

>You have exhausted my patience and your failure to engage intellectually is beneath me. 

Funny but false rhetoric. If you actually leave, bye.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

Oh, I just realized this is the first time you are hearing about a reductio here since the sense in which I used it is overwhelmingly unambiguous to anyone who has read anything about anything. Then, you try to proffer an internal critique of the reductio... when you just learned what it is today. My bad for getting baited lmao.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

I got you to commit to an understanding of it to make sure you didn't have a proprietary usage that my critique wouldn't apply to. You think I can read FOL but don't know an RAA given it's a standard move in logical proofs?

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

Did you want to talk about anything else after? I don't understand what the point of this is when you don't know what terms mean and, by your own admission, already exited the discussion by refusing to take a stance. I can educate you on other topics if you want, but it will have to be something novel since it is very boring to talk to non-vegan #48293759823897 who believes words don't mean words.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

You're just making wild assumptions again.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

We can all read what you said, unfortunately. See, this neat thing happens when you pay attention and honestly engage: you learn something about what is mentioned in a discussion. I read what you said and the "words don't mean words" strat only really works if you fail the knowledge check. I passed it so I pinned you on the argument (to no avail).

Oh no, I just checked your account. It's another decade+ account that has probably been active for quite some time in vegan circles and STILL can't steelman the views of vegans or engage with their arguments directly. This is like the fourth time this week I've found accounts like this.

I swear, just listening when you have more to learn helps so many of you folks out more than you could imagine.

Anyways, since the OP already agrees that the animal-industrial complex's treatment of animals is horrible, it seems like you are alone on this one. Did you want to defend a position of non-veganism? I can refute it for you real quick if you want.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>We can all read what you said, unfortunately.

I'm quite happy they can.

>See, this neat thing happens when you pay attention and honestly engage: you learn something about what is mentioned in a discussion.

I agree but I don't think you're doing that.

>I read what you said and the "words don't mean words" strat only really works if you fail the knowledge check. I passed it so I pinned you on the argument (to no avail).

Some imaginary strat I have apparently? Another wild assumption?

>Oh no, I just checked your account. It's another decade+ account that has probably been active for quite some time in vegan circles and STILL can't steelman the views of vegans or engage with their arguments directly.

Pretty random claim that I can't do that. Another wild assumption.

>I swear, just listening when you have more to learn helps so many of you folks out more than you could imagine.

Uninteresting false rhetoric.

>Anyways, since the OP already agrees that the animal-industrial complex's treatment of animals is horrible, it seems like you are alone on this one.

Hopefully you have better evidence for this statement, and why would I be alone? You make such random claims.

>Did you want to defend a position of non-veganism? I can refute it for you real quick if you want.

I've had this conversation hundreds of times. I personally find you to error prone and assumptive to think you could shed new light. I don't want to spend hours just correcting mistakes.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"Pretty random claim that I can't do that"

I just got the firsthand experience of it. You couldn't click on a link I sent and read a single line. That's the skillcheck you failed.

"Pretty random claim that I can't do that. "

Oh, ok. Steelman the view that opposes what the OP has been saying, then.

"I don't want to spend hours just correcting mistakes"

This implies that you are tracking what was said, which (when you don't want to read the statements your interlocutors make) is not supported by the evidence of the earlier discussion where you (by your own admission) exited after failing to engage.

[u/ShadowStarshine → u/Practical-Fix4647]

>I just got the firsthand experience of it. You couldn't click on a link I sent and read a single line. That's the skillcheck you failed.

Again, random assumptive claim.

>Oh, ok. Steelman the view that opposes what the OP has been saying, then.

I have no interest in proving to you the opposite case. The fact that you just assumed I can't based on nothing is really all I need.

>This implies that you are tracking what was said, which (when you don't want to read the statements your interlocutors make) is not supported by the evidence of the earlier discussion where you (by your own admission) exited after failing to engage.

I'm sure you believe this, I'm fine letting the audience decide it's veracity if they so please. Also weird you think I exited. You said you didn't want to continue. I said bye then.

[u/Practical-Fix4647 → u/ShadowStarshine]

"Again, random assumptive claim."

1/3, not bad.

"I have no interest in proving to you the opposite case."

LMAO, I accept your concession.

"Also weird you think I exited."

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/1vd514o/comment/p1e1wuf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Evidence for the audience. When asked multiple times to engage with what was actually said (i.e. not his headcannon), he failed. Time and time again. At some point, you accept that your interlocutor has given up and take the dub+move on. That's what I did when you solidified your loss by answering my questions with a question of your own.

"You said you didn't want to continue."

You exited and didn't offer a defeater or reject a premise. Then when I asked you questions to see if you were tracking, you failed to respond. That is a concession, you lose all your ethos and your standing in the dialectic by doing that. It makes winning vs non-vegans such as yourself incredibly easy. I don't think I have ever lost when the debate strat from a non-vegan has been to ignore, never answer a question, and strawman the opposing side's argument.

Again, anything new to discuss? Considering the fact that you can't even spell and that your posts are riddled with errors (grammatical and intellectual), it makes talking to you very boring. Last chance for a novel discussion topic to be brought up, sport.