fchan

>>487

Domestic animals a pretty docile, or else and such.  Why bring up a "new and good point" that's already been discussed and disputed.

>>486
I thought you needed an advanced temporal lobe (or whatever it's called) to learn a language.  I know some monkeys have it, which was a big deal for years.  I also heard that dolphins have it, but the people who tell me that are crazy zealots, so I'm waiting on a more reasonable source.

And, you're saying a lot of "I know this" and "in my experience".  Well... in my experience, animals don't talk, and their body language is kinda random.  We'll never reach a consensus on anything as long as we appeal to personal experience.

>>489
If they can't consent and you have sex with them, it's rape.  That's the whole point right?  Rape is, on a technical level, sex.  To us humans though, it's a bad thing, and if you do it, you're a bad person.  Animals don't sweat things like morality (except a few that really haven't been up for discussion), so it isn't an issue for them, but it is for people.

This whole discussion seems to be one group of animals rights advocates saying "Raping animals is bad", and the other advocates saying "It isn't rape".  I'm pretty sure it is rape, because there are situations that don't cause physical and psycological harm that are still rape.  You need to obtain consent, and I'm not sure that what people are calling consent is really consent.  I drive pass the feed lot at a meat packing plant on the way to work.  Those cows don't seem to be worried that they're about to die. Does that mean they're consenting to it, or does that mean they just don't understand what's happening to them?

Since both sides are effectively speaking for the animal, I gotta say that its a safer bet to just not have sex with animals in case they aren't consenting. To do otherwise just seems really selfish at the least.