Why isn’t it clear that DID exists? I thought it was accepted as a scientific consensus that “enacted” identities were genuinely perceived by the individuals experiencing & reporting them, which is why DID is still included in the DSM to this day.🤔

Yes it is actually, thank you!

Maybe the pronoun “they” works? “I’m wondering if they can…”

I use “they/them” for any animal/sentient being (whether or not they’re human) rather than “it” in order to avoid objectifying them, but I recognise this is not standard English. I also use “who” instead of “which” (A monkey/dolphin/dog/goat who (…) rather than a monkey which (…), etc) and basically any of the personal pronouns or words you would use for a human rather than an object (or I guess typically nonhuman animals). It’s a deliberate deviation from grammatical rules/traditional language for the sake of aligning with my personal beliefs & ethics about animal rights/vegan stuff. You can just ignore that part though because it’s just a force of habit, I actually forgot that would seem weird since it’s normal to me, the real confusion I had was with the overall sentence structure & how to phrase it; it still doesn’t sound right to me whether you use “it” or “they”.

I use “they/them” for any animal/sentient being (whether or not they’re human) rather than “it” in order to avoid objectifying them, but I recognise this is not standard English. I also use “who” instead of “which” (A monkey/dolphin/dog/goat who (…) rather than a monkey which (…), etc) and basically any of the personal pronouns or words you would use for a human rather than an object (or I guess typically nonhuman animals). It’s a deliberate deviation from grammatical rules/traditional language for the sake of aligning with my personal beliefs & ethics about animal rights/vegan stuff. You can just ignore that part though because it’s just a force of habit, I actually forgot that would seem weird since it’s normal to me, the real confusion I had was with the overall sentence structure & how to phrase it; it still doesn’t sound right to me whether you use “it” or “they”.

We are capable if we stop being selfish and go vegan

Is there Life on Maaaaaaarrrrrrrr-a-Lago… ((song)[https://youtu.be/AZKcl4-tcuo?si=0JktuCh_EH-T0T5w])

I misread the question.

By everyone, I mean nonhumans (nonhuman animals).

By playing beatbox music and making everyone stay away from me while I grew corn and ate it slowly in front of them while they watched me cautiously from a distance.

Not necessarily (you may or may not) but you shouldn’t be because Dairy is Scary (It’s a joke calm down)

I like that.

You’re right technically… but i should have said “fictional story” and “plays multiple characters”

And I’ll paste my other example here:

Another example might involve arguing that the disposal of hazardous waste is necessary because it’s a byproduct of a particular manufacturing process, while ignoring the question of whether that manufacturing process itself is essential or necessary. This fallacy occurs when one justifies an undesirable or harmful element as a necessary component of a larger practice or system without questioning the necessity of the entire system or practice.

Thanks, that’s almost what I mean, but I might modify your examples slightly. They’re good examples to work from lol (I’m pretty bad at coming up with scenarios that fit what I’m talking about). Sorry if this sounds kind of crazy:

Jess wants to draw a picture of a bird. For this, since Jess is completely broke and homeless, she would need to rob an art store to get art supplies. (Let’s say for sake of example that there is genuinely no other way for her to obtain art supplies to draw the picture). Jess justifies this act of robbing the store in order to draw her bird picture because there’s no other way she can make the picture otherwise. She makes the claim that robbing the art store is necessary in absolute terms, while overlooking or ignoring the fact that drawing the picture of the bird isn’t necessary in the first place (even though she might desire to draw it, she doesn’t need to, and therefore doesn’t need to rob the art store, either).

Or…

When Alan plays tennis, his knee hurts. Alan has a strange condition that his knee only hurts after he plays tennis. When his knee hurts, he has to put ice on it, which requires an expensive refrigerator with an ice machine since that’s the only way he can possibly get a good supply of ice in his situation (hypothetically). Alan then decides to buy the expensive refrigerator with stolen money from his grandma, and claims that it’s an absolute requirement for him to, without considering the fact that he doesn’t actually need to play tennis, though he might want to.

In both cases, someone is claiming that something (an action, state, etc) is necessary overall, because it’s part of a larger goal/endeavour; without addressing the reality that it would only be necessary as a component of that larger goal that it would be in service of, if that larger goal was necessary, which in fact it isn’t (and therefore neither are any components that would be required to achieve it).

I hope this makes sense :)

An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn’t need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.

I literally never said it was rape. I previously said it was a sexual violation, but I genuinely used the example of raping a human for a different reason, as an example of a practice that is unethical despite the fact it may not be intended to cause suffering (but does, and is unnecessary) If you can’t cop that, that’s your problem.

Removed by mod

That’s funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that’s something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it’s not a veterinary procedure, it’s a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.

I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn’t the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn’t unethical if suffering isn’t the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it’s unethical, regardless of the intention.

No, we’re talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn’t necessary. Kicking a dog isn’t necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.