Forcibly impregnating someone is also called rape.
Also agreed with:
It’s not rape if it’s your dog
And clarified:
However, my dog is my property, and someone can only artificially inseminate my property with my permission.
With these, we can derive your proposition: “Forcibly impregnating a dog that is your property is not rape”.
I then made the first question:
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
Which is directly related, I just substituted “dog” with “human slave”. No mention of “dog” or “livestock” in the above question, so there’s no comparison nor equating as you said “Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves”. (If you disagree, please explicitly point out what is being compared and bring quotes).
Then I posed another question:
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
Which is still completely relevant to your proposition, I just added a qualifier to the being that’s being artificially inseminated.
If your logic worked in real life […] then prove it by sticking to reality.
You are commiting a modal fallacy by saying “real life” and “sticking to reality”, as if had posed a physical hypothetical, which would mean “possible in this world”.
I am posing you a logical hypothetical, which means “true in a possible world”. If your proposition holds up to logic and reason (i.e. is a resonable proposition), you should be able to answer my logical hypotheticals and stop avoiding them like they’d hurt you.
Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because I don’t know what your imaginary “hooman” is (neither do you. As a matter of fact, it isn’t even one thing because it will change and become anything you need it to be try to “catch” me in a false gotcha).
My original response still stands: “Uh… what are they, then?” It’s a fake thing that you make up and change at will. My logic is never inconsistent, but your subject will be, in an attempt to make it appear that my logic doesn’t work. We’re talking about apples or oranges, and you’re trying to make up a non-defined fruit that is an apple when it suits you and an orange when you need it to be one, so that you can disguise a false equivalency of comparing apples to oranges.
Nice try though. Stick to reality if you want to have a productive discussion. Logical arguments don’t actually work the way you think they do. A valid hypothetical argument would require real subjects that are well defined. Perhaps you’d benefit from a 101 class on logic or debate.
You asked for clarification on the second question, yet could at least have answered the first one. Seem like you are avoiding answering the first question.
I don’t know what your imaginary “hooman” is. Imagine a random human you don’t know. It’s that human, they have every human characteristic but it’s discovered they aren’t from the species Homo sapiens.
I didn’t answer it because equating slaves to livestock is reprehensble and disgusting. Of course artificially inseminating any person, no matter free or enslaved, is rape.
Of course they don’t, that’s why I used the word “but”. Now you also realized why I named them “hoomans” instead of “humans”. Good one!
Kinda like we can say “odd numbers are the integers but the multiples of 2”. “But” meaning “removed”, “without”.
Are you gonna answer any of my questions? I don’t want other people to have the impression that you avoid questions, but I’m afraid this deep in the thread they might feel like you’re avoiding answering.
I have already answered all of them. No one can answer the “question” (invalid due to the flaws I’ve identified that haven’t been addressed) that concerns the “hooman”. I would answer it if it could be answered.
And yeah I’m really not worried about that being the impression folks take away from this conversation 🤣
If the scenarios you’ve proposed cannot be compared or equated to the topic at hand, then they aren’t relevant.
If your logic worked in real life or with the topic we are actually discussing, then prove it by sticking to reality.
You also don’t seem to have a correct understanding of how false equivalency or modality works, so that’s not a great start.
You agreed with:
Also agreed with:
And clarified:
With these, we can derive your proposition: “Forcibly impregnating a dog that is your property is not rape”.
I then made the first question:
Which is directly related, I just substituted “dog” with “human slave”. No mention of “dog” or “livestock” in the above question, so there’s no comparison nor equating as you said “Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves”. (If you disagree, please explicitly point out what is being compared and bring quotes).
Then I posed another question:
I am posing you a logical hypothetical, which means “true in a possible world”. If your proposition holds up to logic and reason (i.e. is a resonable proposition), you should be able to answer my logical hypotheticals and stop avoiding them like they’d hurt you.
Your question is fundamentally unanswerable because I don’t know what your imaginary “hooman” is (neither do you. As a matter of fact, it isn’t even one thing because it will change and become anything you need it to be try to “catch” me in a false gotcha).
My original response still stands: “Uh… what are they, then?” It’s a fake thing that you make up and change at will. My logic is never inconsistent, but your subject will be, in an attempt to make it appear that my logic doesn’t work. We’re talking about apples or oranges, and you’re trying to make up a non-defined fruit that is an apple when it suits you and an orange when you need it to be one, so that you can disguise a false equivalency of comparing apples to oranges.
Nice try though. Stick to reality if you want to have a productive discussion. Logical arguments don’t actually work the way you think they do. A valid hypothetical argument would require real subjects that are well defined. Perhaps you’d benefit from a 101 class on logic or debate.
You asked for clarification on the second question, yet could at least have answered the first one. Seem like you are avoiding answering the first question.
I don’t know what your imaginary “hooman” is. Imagine a random human you don’t know. It’s that human, they have every human characteristic but it’s discovered they aren’t from the species Homo sapiens.I didn’t answer it because equating slaves to livestock is reprehensble and disgusting. Of course artificially inseminating any person, no matter free or enslaved, is rape.
So they don’t then, do they?
Of course they don’t, that’s why I used the word “but”. Now you also realized why I named them “hoomans” instead of “humans”. Good one!
Kinda like we can say “odd numbers are the integers but the multiples of 2”. “But” meaning “removed”, “without”.
Are you gonna answer any of my questions? I don’t want other people to have the impression that you avoid questions, but I’m afraid this deep in the thread they might feel like you’re avoiding answering.
I have already answered all of them. No one can answer the “question” (invalid due to the flaws I’ve identified that haven’t been addressed) that concerns the “hooman”. I would answer it if it could be answered.
And yeah I’m really not worried about that being the impression folks take away from this conversation 🤣
I grant you that.
Now please remind me what was your answer to “If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?”.
Also please point out the concern with the second question that went unaddressed.
Scroll up