They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They’re absurd because they’re a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What’s it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to attempt to force an inconsistency?
Pay attention and read what I’ve said once more, In no moment I equated nor compared animal livestock to human slaves (btw, even if I would have compared, a comparison is not an equivalency and therefore not false equivalency fallacy).
Now you claiming my logic does not work in real life scenarios is a modal fallacy. My hypotheticals are in the logical scope (true in a possible world), not the physical scope (true in our possible world). You clearly can’t answer my hypotheticals because they expose your flaw in reasoning.
Will you answer my questions now or keep avoiding them like fire so you don’t burn yourself?
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.
They are a nonhuman animal that has sentience, property of mine. Let’s call them hooman.
You know hypotheticals are used to test consistency in someone’s logic and answering these will end up in you admitting absurdities. If I wasn’t interested in the truth, I would avoid answering them as well.
They’re absurd because they’re a false equivalency, which is a logical fallacy. Animal livestock are not comparable to human slaves.
What’s it say when your logic does not work for real life scenarios, so you have to make up nonsense fantasy scenarios to attempt to force an inconsistency?
Pay attention and read what I’ve said once more, In no moment I equated nor compared animal livestock to human slaves (btw, even if I would have compared, a comparison is not an equivalency and therefore not false equivalency fallacy).
Now you claiming my logic does not work in real life scenarios is a modal fallacy. My hypotheticals are in the logical scope (true in a possible world), not the physical scope (true in our possible world). You clearly can’t answer my hypotheticals because they expose your flaw in reasoning.
Will you answer my questions now or keep avoiding them like fire so you don’t burn yourself?
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.