Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 18:53
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.
Zoos argue that since the animal cannot understand consent, it isn't relevant, what they are doing is not rape. Pedophiles commonly use the exact same logic. Both groups are considered to be "taking advantage" of something/someone.
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).
I, personally, said that we have a different, more complicated definiton of consent.
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.
By that logic, animal-level consent is only relevant to animals.
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.
The only thing that matters to animals is animal level consent, which is all that we should care about.
And this is something *I* want explained. After all, there's still a human in the relationship. Replace "animal" with "A" and "human" with "B", and the entire argument starts to look silly. If the animal can't understand "human-level" consent, why are we dropping down to their level? Because they don't understand it? So if a guy kills his wifes lover in an elaborate deathtrap, and doesn't understand he was wrong, we should let him off, right? We should go by his "murderer-level" definition of "murder", right?