You can't specifically point to your answer to my question because you haven't answered it. So I'll pose if for the third time:
If I own a human slave, me artificially inseminating them without consent isn’t rape?
The same way you can't point to a concern that I left unaddressed, because there isn't. So I'll pose it for the third time as well:
If I DNA test the slave from earlier and discover they aren’t human, inseminating them without consent wouldn’t be rape?
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.
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.
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 used "know" in the colloquial sense. Do you think it's unjustified to believe that they will resupply your demand?
You agreed with:
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.
So in the farm they're doing porn stuff whenever they film the cows getting fisted.
You know that others will resupply if you buy this thing. If you didn't knew until now that people resupply what you buy, now you know. Making you definitely are responsible from now on.
Imagine I throw candy at the floor an this kid always picks it up. Then I throw candy at the train tracks and the kid gets ran over. Am I not responsible for the kids actions?
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?
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.
You buy dead animal, they kill animal to put on shelf because you bought dead animal.
I did not use the word "know" in the question "Do you think it’s unjustified to believe that they will resupply your demand?". Notably, I asked if it is unjustified to believe so.