fchan

>>887

"WTF? Seriously dude, courts go by that definition too. It's not Juberu's theory, it's the currently accepted theory. That's how they decide things like date rape, fraud, etc."

In a court of law, if a woman has not been drugged, is not under coercion and fails to say "no" to a man's advances, and is over the age of 18, she cannot press rape charges.

In a court of law, NOT saying "no" to sex is the same as saying "yes" to it.  Not expressly saying "yes" to sex is not required for consent.  Consent is allowing something to happen.

>>889

"The comparison of "How we treat animals?" is valid, whether it is a sexual situation or not."

Exactly!  Why should two parallel issues be separated just because they are not exaclty the same?  Many of the tenants surrounding issues of animal use in other areas are basically the same.  The only difference is that sex is involved and, like you said, sex is stigmatized in western culture.  Thus, sex makes all the difference in the world.  Strange how the resultant condition of the animal bears no relevance to any issue surrounding the treatment of animals. 

To them:
Meat is okay because we need to eat food (never mind the fact that there are substitutes that are cheaper and even healthier for you like eggs and soy beans).  The fact that animals die horrible deaths and get treated like shit has no bearing on the morality of eating meat to them.  Some anti-zoos have even gone so far as to say that not eating meat is immoral because it hurts all the hard workers in that industry.  Frankly, I don't have to eat meat and I don't owe those ignorant simpletons a damn thing.  Frankly, I don't give a damn if they loose there jobs because people quit eating meat.  An't capitalism a bitch?

Riding horses is not immoral to them because it doesn't involve sex.  For some odd reason, sex is the only thing you need consent from an animal for.  For everything else (other than mindless cruelty) consent is never required.

Having sex with an animal is immoral to them, not because it brings animals harm, but because an animal is not able to consent as humans can consent.  Do they ever mention that beastiality is immoral because it hurts the animal?  No, they never did.

My conclusion?  Anti-Zoos care more about human behavior than about animal welfare.  This is empirically proven by there attitudes towards meat.  The don't give a damn about animal pain, cruelty or suffering, just as long as it can be rationalized away with the majority’s paradigm. 

The ideal zoophile has cares more about animals and has more empathy for them than any anti-zoo ever could.  The ideal zoos love and cherish there companions and probably would even give there lives for them.  Could you say the same thing about a typical, or even the ideal factory farm worker? 

The only real reason they don't want meat discussed is because it forces them to confront the morality of eating meat, and they don't want to give up there consumption of flesh.  If bestiality is wrong, so is eating meat because these issues are parallel.  If they proclaim eating meat is okay, then they must conclude that bestiality is okay.  The meat issues boxes them into a corner, so they make unfounded statements about how the meat issue and zoophilia are perpendicular issues, rather than parallel ones.  Ignoring the comparison keeps them from feeling personal moral conflict, which they do not want to deal with.

I can't wait to see Juberu call this a straw man, when he should be calling it a spade.

>>890

The best anti-zoos can hope for is an argument that having sex with an animal is no different than statutory rape.  But you could just as easily say that this is a separate issues and not relevant to the discussion because that’s people and not animals.  They are, thus separate issues.  It’s the same logic the anti-zoos use when they refuse to discuss the meat issue.

The ani-zoos have yet to explain how animals are like minors without dancing around vague comparisons or without focusing on how they view zoophiles are like pedophiles.  Don’t you see there logic.  Because zoophiles are like pedophiles (which they never proved empirically or observationally), animals are thusly like children.  It’s an analogy argument.  But, again, they never focus on the animal, just the human.  Only the human is relevant to there argument, and never the animal.

Also, anti-zoos have yet to explain what human consent is.  They keep dancing around the word, but if the word is not clearly defined, it is impossible to prove that animals can or cannot consent.  Zoophiles define consent with adult animals as not receiving any signal from the animal that the activity is undesired by them.

Anti-zoos then say that, because humans are so much more elevated than animals, we have a duty to obtain human level consent (not animal level consent).  WHY THIS IS HAS YET TO BE EXPLAINED. (caps for emphasis, not yelling)  Human level consent is the key anti-zoos have given the pro-zoos in order to have sex with animals.  But guess what?  It’s a key that does not fit the lock!  Why?  Because human level consent is only relevant to humans.  That is why we are calling it human level consent, duh!  It is beyond there sphere of relevance.  Animals don’t care about human level consent.  It matters not to them.  Because it doesn’t matter to them, it should not matter to us.  In order to be fair, the animal is the one who must obtain human level of consent with human, while the human must seek out animal level consent from the animal.  The only thing that matters to animals is animal level consent, which is all that we should care about.