fchan

>>896

"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?"

Your analogy is false.  If a human truly cannot understand that what they did was wrong, and this can be proven, then he/she is not liable for the crime they comit.  This defense is typicaly used in cases that involve a young child or mentaly handycaped person who is the perpetrator.  It is also used in conjunction with an insanity plea.  It would be immoral to punish those who have no idea what it is that they are doing.

Any human compitent enough to stand trial is fully capable understanding any crime that they may have comitted.

You simply cannot compare apples to apples, can you?  It's always apples to oranges.

"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."

If we can't mention the meat issue (because you guys keep on saying that it is unrelated), then you guys cannot talked about pedophiles anymore, either.  To use your arguments against bringing up the meat issue, this topic is about the moralityh of beastiality, not peadophilia.  Go talk about peadophilia some place else.