I only mention this because I have the same rhetorical tendency and people always somehow seem to think I’m equating the two: it’s not a statement that milk equals rape. It’s highlighting (with a stark example, arguably an unnecessary one) that a person deriving pleasure from an act doesn’t make the act immediately good (I dunno, stealing candy from a baby? For a less “vivid” counter example; I admit, I tend to use super obviously morally bad counter examples too, thinking it’ll make things more overly clear, and, instead, causing someone to think I think they’re the same thing rather than just operating under the same principle, of differing degrees).
(all that said, their argument doesn’t hold water, to begin with, as it’s not cruel or painful to the cow unless under factory farming and cows have no sense of ownership and don’t feel like their property is being “stolen”; a meal isn’t a proper meal if dairy isn’t involved, as far as I’m concerned)
I wouldn’t even know where to buy milk that doesn’t come from factory farming.
I mean, that’s fair – I expect a lot of people don’t or don’t bother to do the research – but that’s still, definitionally, a contextual framework and isn’t universal. The premise that dairy consumption is universally (in all possible circumstances) evil assumes these arguments always apply; and they don’t.
You can get milk from a cow without harming the cow or violently ripping away her calf. Maybe it’s difficult, etc. But it’s not impossible. So such a universal argument is simply incorrect.
I mean, – if the answer is I can’t – we probably shouldn’t be framing our arguments universally, then; especially when there are relatively easy counter examples that disapprove the universality.
I would say that moral arguments against killing people aren’t universal, because they don’t apply in cases of self defense. Does that mean that it’s okay to kill people? No. It means that in most cases killing people is wrong.
A cow will continue to produce milk for years after raising a calf so long as someone continues to milk her. The amount and quality of the milk will decrease, but for families in rural areas it’s more than adequate and doesn’t harm the cow. Symbiotic farming techniques are possible; we just choose not to pursue them.
I know what it was saying: it was just weird & poorly explained.
A good analogy should compare subjects
with similarities relevant to the conclusion
lacking relevant dissimilarities that weaken the conclusion’s likelihood
and it should hold up with other subjects featuring the same relevant similarities & lacking the same relevant dissimilarities in satisfying the conclusion.
That milking cows necessarily leads to suffering isn’t obvious, needs to be explained.
The analogy comparing milking to rape seems to break down for those aware that dairy cows are bred to overproduce milk, so they need milking (or a very hungry calf) to prevent pain & mastitis.
Rape seems quite dissimilar in that respect: no amount of it is necessary to ease pain or prevent infection.
It’s harder to conclude that something thought to be needed qualifies as suffering.
Therefore, a clearer argument (that was provided elsewhere) is needed.
There’s also the matter that the comment they were responding to wasn’t arguing about morality, since it wasn’t clear the top comment was stating a moral position, either.
The top comment merely referred to milk as “crazy” (due to lactose intolerance) & “stealing from cows”, which come across as hyperbole for unnecessary when the cows presumably don’t care & lack any concept of property rights.
That’s where unexpected moralization with rape analogy raised the charm of lemmy as
I think that’d make more sense if we’re considering the actual, underlying topic under debate but they were responding to gramie’s comment which didn’t challenge their assertion that the cows were hurt but just went (more or less): “counterpoint: ice cream is yum yum”.
In that context, going “sex is pleasurable, too, but rape is still wrong” isn’t terribly out of left field, to me.
gramie’s comment which didn’t challenge their assertion that the cows were hurt but just went (more or less)
I edited my earlier comment too late: it wasn’t effectively asserted either.
late edit
There’s also the matter that the comment they were responding to wasn’t arguing about morality, since it wasn’t clear the top comment was stating a moral position, either.
The top comment merely referred to milk as “crazy” (due to lactose intolerance) & “stealing from cows”, which come across as hyperbole for unnecessary when the cows presumably don’t care & lack any concept of property rights.
That’s where unexpected moralization with rape analogy raised the charm of lemmy as
I only mention this because I have the same rhetorical tendency and people always somehow seem to think I’m equating the two: it’s not a statement that milk equals rape. It’s highlighting (with a stark example, arguably an unnecessary one) that a person deriving pleasure from an act doesn’t make the act immediately good (I dunno, stealing candy from a baby? For a less “vivid” counter example; I admit, I tend to use super obviously morally bad counter examples too, thinking it’ll make things more overly clear, and, instead, causing someone to think I think they’re the same thing rather than just operating under the same principle, of differing degrees).
(all that said, their argument doesn’t hold water, to begin with, as it’s not cruel or painful to the cow unless under factory farming and cows have no sense of ownership and don’t feel like their property is being “stolen”; a meal isn’t a proper meal if dairy isn’t involved, as far as I’m concerned)
When their calf gets taken away so that you can get their milk, you bet that cow has an emotional reaction to having their baby stolen.
The vast majority of milk comes from factory farming. I wouldn’t even know where to buy milk that doesn’t come from factory farming.
I mean, that’s fair – I expect a lot of people don’t or don’t bother to do the research – but that’s still, definitionally, a contextual framework and isn’t universal. The premise that dairy consumption is universally (in all possible circumstances) evil assumes these arguments always apply; and they don’t.
You can get milk from a cow without harming the cow or violently ripping away her calf. Maybe it’s difficult, etc. But it’s not impossible. So such a universal argument is simply incorrect.
Can you give an example of an argument which is universal?
I mean, – if the answer is I can’t – we probably shouldn’t be framing our arguments universally, then; especially when there are relatively easy counter examples that disapprove the universality.
I would say that moral arguments against killing people aren’t universal, because they don’t apply in cases of self defense. Does that mean that it’s okay to kill people? No. It means that in most cases killing people is wrong.
A cow will continue to produce milk for years after raising a calf so long as someone continues to milk her. The amount and quality of the milk will decrease, but for families in rural areas it’s more than adequate and doesn’t harm the cow. Symbiotic farming techniques are possible; we just choose not to pursue them.
I know what it was saying: it was just weird & poorly explained.
A good analogy should compare subjects
and it should hold up with other subjects featuring the same relevant similarities & lacking the same relevant dissimilarities in satisfying the conclusion.
That milking cows necessarily leads to suffering isn’t obvious, needs to be explained. The analogy comparing milking to rape seems to break down for those aware that dairy cows are bred to overproduce milk, so they need milking (or a very hungry calf) to prevent pain & mastitis. Rape seems quite dissimilar in that respect: no amount of it is necessary to ease pain or prevent infection. It’s harder to conclude that something thought to be needed qualifies as suffering.
Therefore, a clearer argument (that was provided elsewhere) is needed.
There’s also the matter that the comment they were responding to wasn’t arguing about morality, since it wasn’t clear the top comment was stating a moral position, either. The top comment merely referred to milk as “crazy” (due to lactose intolerance) & “stealing from cows”, which come across as hyperbole for unnecessary when the cows presumably don’t care & lack any concept of property rights. That’s where unexpected moralization with rape analogy raised the charm of lemmy as
to new, exciting heights.
I think that’d make more sense if we’re considering the actual, underlying topic under debate but they were responding to
gramie’s comment which didn’t challenge their assertion that the cows were hurt but just went (more or less): “counterpoint: ice cream is yum yum”.In that context, going “sex is pleasurable, too, but rape is still wrong” isn’t terribly out of left field, to me.
But I get what you mean, for sure.
I edited my earlier comment too late: it wasn’t effectively asserted either.
late edit
Haha; I hate when that happens.
Mmm; that’s a really good point. I could definitely buy that; fair.