• idiomaddict@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    We decide whom murder and rape apply to. You may decide differently, but an argument based on them not applying is begging the question. This is not to say that the first poster’s argument was sound, but you didn’t really address the argument, just reaffirmed existing definitions where the first poster was looking to expand them.

    It’s like if someone compared aspirin and cannabis, in that many people use them regularly without developing addictions, and the rebuttal was that cannabis is an illegal drug, so it’s a different kind of drug.

    • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do we decide? We have already decided. That is my point. I reaffirm nothing. I only say, the word “murder” doesn’t apply.

      The case has been decided, that non-human animal suffering is just not important. Not to the vast majority.

      Hell, we can’t even agree that human suffering matters.

      • idiomaddict@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Assuming you live in a democracy, then yes, we have decided and do still decide. We can change the laws at any time (I know this is idealistic in a lot of countries) and use a new definition, or we can determine on a jury that something is or is not punished. I’m not comparing slavery to animal husbandry, but the US (I assume other slaveholding countries were similar, but I don’t know) has changed the definition to include or exclude slaves at various points. Murder is a social concept, not an immutable truth about the world.