fchan

>>410

Look man, you're talking about animals that have been bred for total domestication. The kind of consent you're talking about isn't good enough. By your definition, cows consent to being slaughtered. They aren't smart enough to consent. Maybe dolphins and apes are, but dogs and horses aren't, and cows definately aren't.

Anyhow, though you continuously reject it, it all comes down to being wrong for the same reason that pedophilia is wrong. Yes, the animal can consent, but they don't know any better, so their consent doesn't matter. The average child is vastly more intelligent than an animal, and boys and girls as young as 11 can technically be "mature" in a sexual sense. Yet, they can't give sexual consent, because they don't fully grasp the gravity of what they are agreeing to. No matter how harmless the "fun", it's molestation to engage a child in sexual acts. Same goes for animals, except they won't EVER attain the wit to properly consent. They can't talk, nor learn to talk, including sign language and the like. Sure, they get off on it, but the animal isn't the one doing anything wrong. You're the one who makes it about sex, and you choose to interpret a pavlovian response as consent and love. Animals don't feel romantic love. As you keep saying, they see it as a form of petting, so why don't you just pet them. Why did you start diddling them in the first place?

Anyhow, as for your comments in 400, no, animals don't consent to being slaughtered or pulling sleds, etc. It's not very nice that we make them do that is it? We constantly use animals for our own ends. You, just happen to add sexual usery on top of a big pile of shit that animals have to go through when dealing with us. You take advantage of their bred trust and compliance, and you use them as a living sex toy for your ends.

Again this can be linked to children though, if the morality becomes clouded. Children can't consent, yet things are done to them all the time. Adults choose what they wear, make them go to school, make them eat food they don't necessarily want, etc. The point is, the adult consents FOR them, and, because we're adults, we're expected to make decisions that are benign for the child, otherwise you're a bad parent. So if you make a kid eat vegetables and go to school, you're a good parent. If you let your kid eat nothing but candy and keep him home from school to play a few "private games", then you are a terrible parent and human being. This seems obvious to most.

Now, animals are a bit more complicated, but basically the same principals apply. A good owner will make decisions for the good of the animal, including the respect of the animals limitations. Exploitive owners will take the young, bugger them for insemination, etc. I think it's fitting that you compare yourself to them as a "lesser version" of what they do... but when they do it, they're trying to make a living, feed humanity, etc. When you do it, you're trying to get your rocks off, and apparently masturbation isn't enough for you, so you've got to involve your animals.

So you're using an animal for personal pleasure. That puts you in a category more along the lines of the abusive. No animal has given consent as we humans recognize it, because they can't, because in order to do so, they'd need to be at least intelligent enough to learn a language. Speech, sign language, whatever, they need to be able to somehow articulate their consent. Now, to reiterate before you pull the pleasure card again, children as young as 11 can become sexually mature, and according to my proffessor, even infants feel pleasure from genital stimulation (Freud's stages). Just because they like it, doesn't mean you're right to do it, nor does it make it "not wrong" to do it. You're still exploiting them, you're still molesting them, and that's wrong, especially since you pose as some sort of activist.