Impregnating cattle = rape?

[IbelieveInanarchy]

To force a metal rod up someones reproductive organ to me seems to be rape? In this cattle rape manual you can read what we do to unwilling animals, just so we can after that drink their mammary glands excretions.
http://extension.psu.edu/animals/dairy/health/reproduction/insemination/artificial-insemination-technique

" Developing the skill to thread the insemination rod through the cervix should not be the only objective. AI training programs should also emphasize the importance of sanitation and the perfection of skills to consistently identify the proper site of semen deposition and to accurately deposit the semen."

if anyone disagrees can they explain where i am wrong?

[Antiochus]

The fact that you've gone around and made half a dozen of these brain-dead threads illustrates why you have no business being here. Its obvious you are just a liberal-anarchist. Animals can't be raped, only humans can be raped.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

The fact that you've gone around and made half a dozen of these brain-dead threads illustrates why you have no business being here. Its obvious you are just a liberal-anarchist. Animals can't be raped, only humans can be raped. You reacting here is surprising considering your lack of response to my total annihilation of your arguments in the last thread.

[Antiochus]

LOL Sorry I actually laughed out loud when I read that.

Liberal and delusional.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

LOL Sorry I actually laughed out loud when I read that.

Liberal and delusional. thanks for sharing your well developed and fact-based opinion.

[Antiochus]

Sigh.

Listen kiddo, anyone with a working internet connection can go to the thread, read what you wrote, and laugh at you in the same manner they do in real life.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196200-Veganism/page2?highlight=veganism

As anyone can see from the thread, you were not only humiliated by me, you were humiliated to an even greater degree by other users, relegating you to ask 3rd grade "so I can get to know you" ingratiating questions in order to try to salvage what dignity you think you had. That was the "annihilation" you seem to speak of. Instead the poor little infantile liberal resorts to 3 line comments in order to bring down the level of discourse to his own pathetic level, the level where he is most comfortable with. Not in any way different than the 2 minute "debates" so popular with reactionary filth.

And don't kid yourself. The people on this site, most of them, are actual Marxists and Revolutionary Anarchists, which is why you and that Plutocracy clown get laughed off the stage. The fact that you are arrogant enough to think you've "destroyed" anyone with arguments so facile, so dull and so in line with the shit phrase-mongering used by a 4chan site only shows the extent of your delusion. These type of threads "hur dur can animals be raped hur dur do animals have the morality".

The reason no one replied to your viscerally idiotic last comment wasn't because "OMFG Here comes IbelieveinCapitalism, the next Hegel!!!", its because you are literally posting at the mental level of a 5 year old. What else can be expected from someone who gives us jewels like:


I just pose that they can to feel pain and therefore are moral subjects.

This is something an Anarchist (a real one I mean, obviously not you two clowns) would never say. Since you seem to be so concerned with "the environment", why don't you go join Greenpeace or some other banal organization like that. The very notion that this deformed version of the "left" actually is the left is so laughable as to be beyond sad.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Hermann_Goering_2.jpg

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Sigh.

Listen kiddo, anyone with a working internet connection can go to the thread, read what you wrote, and laugh at you in the same manner they do in real life.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196200-Veganism/page2?highlight=veganism

As anyone can see from the thread, you were not only humiliated by me, you were humiliated to an even greater degree by other users, relegating you to ask 3rd grade "so I can get to know you" ingratiating questions in order to try to salvage what dignity you think you had. That was the "annihilation" you seem to speak of. Instead the poor little infantile liberal resorts to 3 line comments in order to bring down the level of discourse to his own pathetic level, the level where he is most comfortable with. Not in any way different than the 2 minute "debates" so popular with reactionary filth.

And don't kid yourself. The people on this site, most of them, are actual Marxists and Revolutionary Anarchists, which is why you and that Plutocracy clown get laughed off the stage. The fact that you are arrogant enough to think you've "destroyed" anyone with arguments so facile, so dull and so in line with the shit phrase-mongering used by a 4chan site only shows the extent of your delusion. These type of threads "hur dur can animals be raped hur dur do animals have the morality".

The reason no one replied to your viscerally idiotic last comment wasn't because "OMFG Here comes IbelieveinCapitalism, the next Hegel!!!", its because you are literally posting at the mental level of a 5 year old. What else can be expected from someone who gives us jewels like:



This is something an Anarchist (a real one I mean, obviously not you two clowns) would never say. Since you seem to be so concerned with "the environment", why don't you go join Greenpeace or some other banal organization like that. The very notion that this deformed version of the "left" actually is the left is so laughable as to be beyond sad.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Hermann_Goering_2.jpgagain you never adressed any of my arguments in that thread. And here you are just reduced to your same old "call him a nazi". The only thing you do is talk around the subject and use personal attacks, never any actual argument.

And then you claim you are the real marxist/anarchist while supporting capitalist industry and using infantile logic spoon-fed to you by macdonalds commercials.

[John Nada]

Why do you keep posting this shit in the Discrimination forum? This has nothing at all to do with social discrimination. Animals aren't people. You're belittling actual discrimination by equating the two. The concept of "speciesism" is a bunch of shit.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Why do you keep posting this shit in the Discrimination forum? This has nothing at all to do with social discrimination. Animals aren't people. You're belittling actual discrimination by equating the two. The concept of "speciesism" is a bunch of shit. what is the difference between animals and humans on which you base that it is okay to discriminate against them? Or why do you actually think that it isnt dscrimnation at all. if you just say "animals arent humans" then that is circular reasoning which boils down to: you can discriminate against animals because they are animals.

[Antiochus]

What is the difference between a human and a plant on which you base that it is okay to discriminate against them? Or why do you actually think discrimination against plants isn't discrimination at all. If you just say "humans aren't like plants" then that is circular reasoning which boils down to: You can discriminate against plants.

Does a sick person like you think that it is okay to crossbreed plants? That is rape! And taking their seeds away from them?! This is forced abortion. Never mind the industrial level of plant genocide happening in the world.

And this ladies and gentlemen is what "environmentalism" boils down to as John noted (and verified in the next post by IbelieveinCapitalism): To reduce a human to the level of an animal.

Edit: Are you seriously implying you had any arguments to begin with? LOL! What arguments? You literally told Rafiq that you weren't going to address anything he said because its "too long" and you selected 1 line out of my post in that thread to make some banal reply about starvation. As if modern worldwide hunger were caused by what type of food is being grown which is something I won't even dignify with a response because it is the kind of "technology will set us free" garbage that has been peddled for over a century.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

What is the difference between a human and a plant on which you base that it is okay to discriminate against them? Or why do you actually think discrimination against plants isn't discrimination at all. If you just say "humans aren't like plants" then that is circular reasoning which boils down to: You can discriminate against plants.

Does a sick person like you think that it is okay to crossbreed plants? That is rape! And taking their seeds away from them?! This is forced abortion. Never mind the industrial level of plant genocide happening in the world. Plants do not have a central nervous system, which is how we and animals feel pain. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/anatomy_of_the_central_nervous_system/article_em.htm

Since plant thus have no sense of sensation and pain equivalent to ours, it is okay to do with plants as you wish. If you can prove that animals have no CNS or somehow their CNS has a different function, then it is true that you can discriminate against animals. For now your argument is based on nothing and you just scream really loudly that animals cant feel without providing evidence. The balance of scientific evidence is stacked against you and you provide no counter-evidence.

good attempt at a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Too bad you lack basic knowledge about biology.

Before you say "but you dont provide evidence either :(" here are some interesting reads:
-Laughing Rats Are Optimistic, Rafal Rygula.
-Knutson B, Burgdorf J, Panksepp J (2002) Ultrasonic vocalizations as indices of affective states in rats. Psychol Bull 128: 961–977

"I am still searching for People for the Ethical Treatment of Carrots, Last Chance for Broccoli or Apples Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow. People for the Ethical Treatment of Carrots doesn't exist because everyone knows the difference between taking a carrot out of the ground and slicing a pig into pieces. Everyone also knows the difference between mowing a lawn and tossing a live baby male chick (egg industry) into a rendering machine. If one does not understand the difference, then that person is disingenuous, irrational and illogical. The fact that some people compare carrots to cows proves how muck-deep in oppressive thought meat, dairy and egg-eaters truly are. - gary yourofsky

[Antiochus]

Actually chap, I have a B.S in Biological Sciences. But this was never about some meaningless discussion with a moron about the physiological composition of organic matter. This argument is far beyond that. The very fact that you think pain somehow elucidates towards some "morality" or cognizance shows the gutter level of reasoning being employed. What makes pain, an autonomic neurological response separated from sapient thought completely, the axiomatic "hur dur they deserve rights!"? If we are going to make up arbitrary categories, why not "having light-sensitive cells"? Or maybe just having cells at all since cells respond to outside stimuli and even to things like protein-mediated extracellular responses, like SMADs. Here, I can play ALL DAY at stupid games like these: Flies have in their repertoire a full range of pheromones and visual communicative cues, Oh, I guess they posses language since language is nothing more than communication. Why is it that something as meaningless as "pain" now your point of departure?

Could it be because this cordons off the fluffy and cute animals, which humans only care about because:

1) Their use to us, as we devour them or use them for beasts of burden
2) Project unto them anthropomorphic traits that DO NOT and WILL NEVER exist in them.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Actually chap, I have a B.S in Biological Sciences. But this was never about some meaningless discussion with a moron about the physiological composition of organic matter. This argument is far beyond that. The very fact that you think pain somehow elucidates towards some "morality" or cognizance shows the gutter level of reasoning being employed. What makes pain, an autonomic neurological response separated from sapient thought completely, the axiomatic "hur dur they deserve rights!"? If we are going to make up arbitrary categories, why not "having light-sensitive cells"? Or maybe just having cells at all since cells respond to outside stimuli and even to things like protein-mediated extracellular responses, like SMADs. Here, I can play ALL DAY at stupid games like these: Flies have in their repertoire a full range of pheromones and visual communicative cues, Oh, I guess they posses language since language is nothing more than communication. Why is it that something as meaningless as "pain" now your point of departure?

Could it be because this cordons off the fluffy and cute animals, which humans only care about because:

1) Their use to us, as we devour them or use them for beasts of burden
2) Project unto them anthropomorphic traits that DO NOT and WILL NEVER exist in them. Considering your B.S in Biological Sciences i find your lack of scientific references to anything you say quite surprising. Im not saying you are lying about your B.S, but you don't really carry it with much conviction.

Now you explain to me what else constitutes a moral subject. Do you think its okay to hurt humans if they can not feel pain? If somebody is in a car accident and loses some of the more developed aspects of their brain function but still feels pain, apparently you think its then okay to senselessly hurt them?

Apparently the level of intelligence is of importance to you if we speak about morality. If you had to choose to slap Einstein or someone with down syndrome, you would undoubtedly choose the down syndrome person because their intelligence is lower?

You always come up with bullshit like "plants have feelings to!" or "why dont light receptors matter" while you dont actually believe this shit yourself. Just come up with your own arguments on WHY do you think its wrong to hurt a human?

edit: oh btw SMADs respond to "extracellular stimuli" and are not "extracellular responses". the latter is impossible, but im gonna assume its a typo on your part:)

[Alet]

again you never adressed any of my arguments in that thread.

And the only reason you believe this shit is that you have no notion of the actual profundity (as compared to your meager "arguments") of the points put forward. You keep insisting on your pathetic ignorance and claim to have "annihilated" something while in fact you don't even realize that your "arguments" have already been respected and how far beyond them we actually are already. It's precisely this kind of arrogance, which keeps me away from Revleft. Every fucking week people come to this board and degrade the standards that have been fought for. Now I'm not saying that new users are "dangerous" or "bad" generally, and this should go without saying. The point is rather that they (that is, people like IbelieveInanarchy) refuse to accept the level of intellectual sophistication that Revleft is capable of by virtue of various users, inclined Communists. They think that every intellectual controversy, every difficult subject is reducible to and can be explained in terms of their own stupidity, and when they are confronted with profound, though elementary arguments, these emotionally instable infants start crying about "da insults, ya'll too emotional, although I'm so rational and so fact-based". And because we consciously refuse to be so dishonest so as to suppress our outright hatred against reactionary ecologists, they actually think this disqualifies the intellectual destruction they are experiencing. Jesus fucking Christ. Please, either do everyone, including yourself, a favor and fuck off or shut up and use your brain cells. No, we are not "exchanging opinions", we are not at the same level. You are so fucking unaware of the fact that we know exactly where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, you are unaware of the fact that our position already subsumed and went far beyond your ridiculous "arguments". For example? You keep saying shit like:


thanks for sharing your well developed and fact-based opinion.

although the controversy is not an empirical one, as has been stressed explicitly thousands of times. The question whether humans, not in the taxonomical sense but as active, conscious subjects, are animals, whether human life-practice is positively determined, whether the "self" is an illusion is not a fucking empirical one. No data, no "fact" will ever suffice to give an answer to such questions. We do not oppose pseudo-sciences like evo-pyschology on an empirical level, in the sense that we deny the banal facts they bring up; that is to say, we don't deny that physiological processes are actually real. However, the conclusions they draw from their approach to these processes are ideological. Saying that humans are determined by their physiology is not a given, it's not self-evident when one investigates the physiological basis of men and women's life practice, which amounts to pure tautologies. This is what you fail to understand, and this is why we refuse to provide "facts". It's not that we have no respect for the empirical, but we refuse to fall back upon it when it is not only not necessary but even totally unwarranted. This is a controversy which requires the use of conscious reason. And you can keep prattling and believe that the consciousness is an illusion, as it is merely the sum-total of empirical processes. But we inclined Communists will do it anyway because we can, we know that we are capable of making use of our consciousness because the only proof we need is that we ourselves have attained social/historical consciousness, that we ourselves have subordinated the empirical domain to our consciousness. The only proof we need is not one that is accessible to anyone as a neutral observer, our proof is our own ethical life-practice.


what is the difference between animals and humans on which you base that it is okay to discriminate against them?

And this is a false question because your "discrimination" is an abstraction. It is not possible to "discriminate against" animals in any meaningful way, to begin with, because discrimination implies social relations of power. Animals lack this social domain. Certain animals may have a sophisticated degree of sociality but it remains animalistic insofar as they lack consciousness. As opposed to animals, humans have subjectivity and that's why they are capable of making history, of subordinating nature to their consciousness, of ruthlessly manipulating nature (including their genetic/physiological constitution) and their environment according to their conscious will. Animals have a definite, stable relation to their environment and their whole sociality, no matter how sophisticated, revolves around this definite relation. Animals are like robots: You can have a group of robots and make them look like animals, make them being able to reproduce themselves in a given environment, make them even "learn" from each other and so on. But they will never be on the same levels as humans, even if a red bulb lights up when you hit them with enough pressure ("hurt them"), because this is a purely physical reflex. "Discrimination" against animals is just as meaningful as calling Siri a slut.

[Antiochus]

Debating baboons is so utterly pointless, its just an endless cycle of swatting down some comment only for another comment to be made by the same idiot who then pretends they never made it in the first place.


Considering your B.S in Biological Sciences i find your lack of scientific references to anything you say quite surprising. Im not saying you are lying about your B.S, but you don't really carry it with much conviction.

Bahahahahaha. Do you honestly think googling some research paper you have almost certainly not read beyond the abstract about "pain" somehow conveys such "knowledge"? Like I said, this "argument" and the whole ecological fetishism garbage has nothing to do biological processes.


Now you explain to me what else constitutes a moral subject. Do you think its okay to hurt humans if they can not feel pain? If somebody is in a car accident and loses some of the more developed aspects of their brain function but still feels pain, apparently you think its then okay to senselessly hurt them?

There is no moral subject and I think its perfectly acceptable to hurt people to achieve Communism.


You always come up with bullshit like "plants have feelings to!" or "why dont light receptors matter" while you dont actually believe this shit yourself. Just come up with your own arguments on WHY do you think its wrong to hurt a human?

Don't you get it? When I posted that drivel I was SATIRIZING you. We all feel the same way towards the garbage you write about how a cow is getting raped. Don't you understand or are you too stupid to grasp it?

And its not "wrong to hurt a human". Again, meaningless liberal pacifist phrase mongering.


oh btw SMADs respond to "extracellular stimuli" and are not not "extracellular responses". the latter is impossible, but im gonna assume its a typo on your part

*yawn* Cute, you read the Wikipedia page. SMADs are triggered by extracellular receptors which then relay an intracellular signal for the activation of transcription within the cell. So yes, its an "extracellular response". Or as a hippie scum would say, a "sentient" process, no doubt.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

[COLOR=#4E4E4E]Debating baboons is so utterly pointless, its just an endless cycle of swatting down some comment only for another comment to be made by the same idiot who then pretends they never made it in the first place.



Bahahahahaha. Do you honestly think googling some research paper you have almost certainly not read beyond the abstract about "pain" somehow conveys such "knowledge"? Like I said, this "argument" and the whole ecological fetishism garbage has nothing to do biological processes.



There is no moral subject and I think its perfectly acceptable to hurt people to achieve Communism.



Don't you get it? When I posted that drivel I was SATIRIZING you. We all feel the same way towards the garbage you write about how a cow is getting raped. Don't you understand or are you too stupid to grasp it?

And its not "wrong to hurt a human". Again, meaningless liberal pacifist phrase mongering.



*yawn* Cute, you read the Wikipedia page. SMADs are triggered by extracellular receptors which then relay an intracellular signal for the activation of transcription within the cell. So yes, its an "extracellular response". Or as a hippie scum would say, a "sentient" process, no doubt. okay so since your a nihilist who doesn't believe in morality why comment on threads regarding morality?

And no simpleton, its a response to extracellular stimuli, not an extracellular respons. Extracellular response would imply that the response takes place outside of the cell which transcription obviously does not. So it is obvious your B.S of Biological Sciences was just some vague attempt at overbluffing people by lying. But by all means if youre such an expert on this topic, correct me with an actual source.

also good luck at achieving communism by being a conformist who defends capitalist industry with such conviction.

[Antiochus]

And no simpleton, its a response to extracellular stimuli, not an extracellular respons. Extracellular response would imply that the response takes place outside of the cell which transcription obviously does not. So it is obvious your B.S of Biological Sciences was just some vague attempt at overbluffing people by lying. But by all means if youre such an expert on this topic, correct me with an actual source.

Someone give me a gun. I am sorry genius, what exactly do you think the "transcription" is for? Do you know how SMADs were studied, originally? They were studied in Drosophilla (no doubt moral subjects). Do you know their 'purpose' in these moral subjects? To pattern their bodies during embryonic development and establishing a gradient for such patterning:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160699992825

Now I don't want to spend a single more second "talking" with such a dumb little kid on the subject.


okay so since your a nihilist who doesn't believe in morality why comment on threads regarding morality?

lmao. Someone smack him in the face. RAPE isn't a "moral" problem you FUCKING IDIOT. Racism isn't a moral problem. Mass starvation is not a moral problem. Humans aren't getting raped because their rapists are "not moral enough". And this abomination of a thread is a testament to the sheer level of dissonance employed by scum like you. As if a COW could get raped. As if "RAPE" of a Cow had the social coordinates, the shame, the misogyny, the social alienation and reproduction of ruling ideology that the rape of a woman does. Just fuck off you worthless chimp.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Someone give me a gun. I am sorry genius, what exactly do you think the "transcription" is for? Do you know how SMADs were studied, originally? They were studied in Drosophilla (no doubt moral subjects). Do you know their 'purpose' in these moral subjects? To pattern their bodies during embryonic development and establishing a gradient for such patterning:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160699992825

Now I don't want to spend a single more second "talking" with such a dumb little kid on the subject.



lmao. Someone smack him in the face. RAPE isn't a "moral" problem you FUCKING IDIOT. Racism isn't a moral problem. Mass starvation is not a moral problem. Humans aren't getting raped because their rapists are "not moral enough". And this abomination of a thread is a testament to the sheer level of dissonance employed by scum like you. As if a COW could get raped. As if "RAPE" of a Cow had the social coordinates, the shame, the misogyny, the social alienation and reproduction of ruling ideology that the rape of a woman does. Just fuck off you worthless chimp. From your source: "in which activation of receptor serine–threonine kinase activity leads to phosphorylation of specific Smad proteins and translocation of heteromeric Smad protein complexes to the nucleus. Once in the nucleus Smad proteins interact with other DNA binding proteins to regulate transcription of specific target genes." The transcription is to cause a cellular response to the external stimuli which trigger the receptor. These cellular responses in concert cause the body to be mapped properly. So stop crying over your stupid typo, you typed extracellular response when you meant extracellular stimuli. not a big problem buddy, just admit your mistake. Or dont and stop talking about it.

Also your straw man fallacy again, i never said Drosophila are moral subjects or that they can feel pain equivalent to how we experience pain. I get its hard for you to actually adress my points but at least try.

And you already told me your a moral nihilist, stop using more nihilist arguments. Do you or do you not think its wrong to rape a human, and why? if you can answer this(which you probably wont answer and just start hurling more personal insults and straw man arguments) then maybe we could have a sensible discussion. If you are not interested in any serious discourse, stop commenting.