[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency?
Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
131
Comments270
Would it be okay if it was with a grotesque human-animal chimera capable of superintelligence asking for a friend
Those same people do not actually kill animals. They eat meat, there is a disconnect here. I would wager if everyone had to kill and process the meat they eat that consumption would go down considerably.
Because ~90% of people don't actually think about morality deeper than 'gross, icky.' If that seems high I'm also including in that people who start with the reaction and work backwards looking for justifications.
Zoophilia imparts trauma.
Death relieves a being of trauma. There ain’t more trauma when you are dead. And when done correctly, death in an abattoir is largely instantaneous.
Of the two, the former is more immoral when focusing on lingering or ongoing trauma.
Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it's non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.
Everybody's gotta eat, but not everyone's gotta fuck a dog
No one has to eat meat, in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
Cool idea: don't presuppose what literally every human needs based on your narrow worldview. Without significant animal fat and protein I wouldn't be able live.
No, I'm not going to get into specifics, but also, no, I cannot get my current nutritional needs (and still desire to eat) by cutting animal products and biproducts in my diet.
People with crohn's or colostomy bags would disagree.
The space used for animals is grassland and doesn't have the right soil to be cropland. i.e. if all animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn't get any more cropland at all.
With one exception being the animals that are fed with crops.
We wouldn't grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
The bulk of animal food from crops isn't human edible. Cows have an amazing ruminant digestive system that can process plant food that humans can't!
Then who has to fuck a dog? Didn't you mean noone has to fuck a dog?
Paging lemmy.world/u/noone
what do you have to say for yourself?
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
Are there more people then having sex with dogs than there are those who eat them?
False premise. Zoophilia isn't condemned because animal rights etc. It's condemned because 'ew WTF we don't want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.'
It's the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I'm not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It's only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.
I'd argue it's also the fact that because of the low genetic diversity of the parents children born from incest have a higher chance of developing genetical diseases.
The chance is lower than most people presume but at the same time: why gamble?
Yes but that is also a rationalization after the fact. First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
Well, actually, it's the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the "ew" evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.
This seems like a strange argument, because "the primate social adaptation system" is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don't think that's what you're saying).
Also, I don't see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I'd say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can't directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that's good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that's what evolution went with.
I'm sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don't like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn't only about preference, it's also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don't think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
i don't know how you could possibly prove this, but i would love to see you try.
You can't really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I'm no biologist so I'm not an expert by any means, but we can't go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.
That said, such an "ew" response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There's nothing "inherently disgusting" about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.
And btw this isn't restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.
It's been the norm in many countries for centuries, so can't have been seen as EW as you claim
Those laws and customs predates knowledge of genetics significantly.
Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans.
AllSome animals avoid incest, it's not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It's pre-programmed in us, so to speak.That isn't even remotely true.
Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.
That's a great justification for the EW
What about same sex incest, or where one or both partners are sterile, or between adopted siblings who aren't related genetically? That would still be considered wrong, right? Even though there wouldn't be genetic consequences
Personally? IDGF about what two consenting adults do in bed. My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
Don't know where you from but AFAIK that's perfectly legal in Germany.
But that's still not a 100% consistent argument and it leans into another morally complex topic: eugenics.
Because, if you argue that way, you'd have to clarify your stance towards people with genetic diseases/disabilities in general.
And if you follow the logic, we would also have to shun/abolish sexual relations between people with genetic disease or who carry the respective alleles, so that their offspring have a higher chance of inheriting a disease (in some cases way higher than with random siblings).
It might be the root cause, why there seem to be marriage rules in most human societies, that exclude intermarrying of siblings (especially considering that the risks increase drastically if you keep procreating that way for generations), but the current taboo is not entirely rational and seems more based on cultural tradition than current understanding.
Again, personally: As I have one confirmed genetically transmitted condition and one suspected genetically transmitted condition this is a dilemma close to my heart and TBF I haven't reached a final conclusion for myself yet. On one hand I think it is unethical to conceive a child knowing full well, that they have a considerable higher risk of disease, and yet I don't think GATTACA was meant as an instruction manual. As so often in life the answer is somewhere in the middle.
I don't think this is right. We have laws against incest, because we were programmed by evolution to think incest is bad. The causal chain is:
Homosexuality is not like that at all, if I understand correctly (which I may not, tbf). Homosexuality may in fact be a evolutionary trait that is selected for in a certain sense, or it may just be a side-effect of other evolutionary efforts. For instance, having a homosexual uncle could be beneficial to you, as he would spend less time taking care of his own kids (obviously won't have any) and more time taking care of you. The uncle's genes would have no incentive to do this and evolution would not pressure the uncle to become homosexual, but your common ancestor (your grandparents on one side) would benefit as your genes would be helped along by your uncle, and so evolution could have caused homosexuality to occur ever so often, to produce one of these "helpful uncles".
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
Can I not also thank a squirrel after sex?
Why a squirrel specifically? 🤣 dear Lord, you're an evil spirit 😅
Predisposed to consuming nuts
(I’m gonna regret this one later)
From what I've been told by rape victims, I'd much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal's perspective. So we can't include disingenuous human arguments like "They died a noble death for our survival".)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
Through Animal's perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can't be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal's perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.
Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother's milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don't need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn't true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.
There's no special moral reason because we didn't decide. It's just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.
Most people don't use critical reasoning to make their decisions, hence why most people live their lives in a state of constant contradictions.
My old philosophy professor once told us that the most effective way to expose somebody's lack of critical reasoning about an issue is to just respond with, "who says?"
Basically the Socratic method, ask them to justify the statements they make, and see how they respond. The vast majority of the time, you'll quickly find out that they don't have any good reasons to support their statements. They haven't given them much thought at all, nor much thought to differing views/positions. They live their lives in ways that feel generally "correct" or pleasurable to them, and that's it.
Why do they think it's alright to eat factory farmed meat? Because they like the taste, the thought of billions of animals living short, miserable lives, then being slaughtered and processed for us to consume doesn't horrify or disgust them, so they keep doing it.
Most people when challenged on it will put up some vague attempt to support their actions, "Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?" "Animals don't have sophisticated minds, so it doesn't actually cause them real suffering." "Humans need animal protein to be healthy." etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted. But most people don't care, because most societies normalize meat consumption and factory farming. They grew up eating meat with other people eating meat all around them, and they never gave it any thought.
Hence why most pet owners who eat meat would be absolutely horrified and disgusted if their dog or cat had a litter and somebody bought all of the puppies/kittens, only to torture, slaughter, and eat them. A completely inconsistent reaction given the fact that the pet owner happily eats other animals that are treated in the same way. But again, they didn't reason themselves into their viewpoint, so they don't worry about being consistent.
This is further confirmed by anecdotes from vegetarians/vegans, who will tell you about all the awkward, unprompted reactions from meat-eaters when they find out they don't eat meat. Many people get very defensive, often making snide or accusatory remarks about vegetarianism/veganism. They don't like the idea that eating factory meat is morally wrong, because they like the taste and don't want to make to effort to change their lifestyle to confirm with that moral principle. So they mock, tease, or try to "expose" inconsistencies in the vegetarian/vegan's own worldview as a defense mechanism.
If they can make the vegetarian/vegan look foolish, then that feels like a win psychologically to them, which provides mental and emotional comfort and allows them to slip back into their lifestyle without needing to confront their own moral failings.
if you care to articulate these refutations, i'd be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.
If you eat 100% plant based you will need to supplement which contradicts the first sentence.
Reading on this a bit more, it looks like I was off on B12 specifically. Vegetarians can get this from eggs and milk, but full vegans need to either eat plant-based foods that are fortified with B12, or directly take a B12 supplement.
So my first sentence should actually be, "All essential nutrients humans need can be provided by a plant-based diet." That is accurate because it includes fortified plant-based foods, plant-based direct suppliments, and vegetarians.
the distinction between food and supplements is purely regulatory and semantic. at what point does something become a food or a supplement? if i lack vitamin c and i eat an orange, have i supplemented with vitamin c? b12 supplements are made through microbial fermentation, like alcohol or vinegar or lactic acid. if i need iron and i take a pill, i've supplemented with iron, but if need sodium and i eat salt, have i supplemented? starch and sugar are simple chemicals extracted from whole foods, yet they are still considered foods. my point is that there is no true objective distinction between food and supplements, it's just a vague label like "natural/unnatural"
People raping and killing for their own enjoyment is sick. Someone else doing the dirty work for our enjoyment (i.e. eating meat), well that's different. If somehow zoophilia were proven to enhance meat flavor, we'd probably be OK with it
Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.
If you need for survival to hunt and eat an animal you are just part of the ecosystem, a predator.
Do you need to have sex with another species? In the wild it happens and even rape is natural, but the question could be "would you like to live in a human society like that?".
That said, animal farming is unethical and completely unnecessary nowadays. Most people would agree that killing an animal just for pleasure would be ethically wrong, but then we as a society rape to breed, grow in terrible conditions and kill in nightmarish ways farm animals just because "meat is good".
This puts it best. Zoophillia and eating meat (what I assume they mean) are not morally comparable. Eating animals was a necessity for a long time, that has continued into modern life (because our brains are wired to LOVE meat). Nobody actually enjoys the process of killing animals, I'm sure if you had a butcher shop where you slaughtered live animals at the counter people would be horrified. We just like meat, we are literally wired to, and the process to obtain it is cruel and ugly.
Zoophillia is completely different, there is zero material gain from it, and it's done purely for the joy of the human initiating it.
It's about squick.
Think about how they call sex with animals "bestiality". It's not "oh it's because it hurts the animals!", it's because "ew, gross, you're stooping to the level of an ANIMAL!".
I don't think it's about consent, either. If you were somehow able to communicate well enough to actually get consent (which, to be clear, is pretty iffy what with the whole language barrier and such), people would still be squicked.
(also I'm pretty sure "zoophilia" is more about being into animals rather than actual sex with them, which is the whole "bestiality" thing. You can be into someone/a group of people without wanting to rape them.)
It's probably because most of society fundamentally doesn't see other animals as people, and therefore killing them is totally fine ("what? they're not people!"), but having sex with them is Evil and Bad ("why would you want to have sex with them? they're not even a person!").
Yeah it makes no sense.
I wasn't sure about this, due to the common link with sexuality - but it looks like - at a semantic level - you're right.
From the original Greek via Aristotle;
Continued today with Bibliophilia, Dendrophilia, Thalassophilia etc (Books, trees, the sea) - all non-sexual, and there are hundreds of other examples "used in everyday language to describe completely normal, passionate hobbies and aesthetic appreciation"
Is there any historical evidence that relates zoophilia to decreasing the domesticated animals' population thus causing food scarcity? Is there a material basis for the condemnation? [Some religious scriptures suggest to kill the animal after performing copulation.] I never thought that way.
I can't imagine that it would ever have enough impact to reduce their population significantly
I'm sure you would hear more than a few say something along the lines of 1) ending their life can be done relatively humanely. And it serves a fundamental purpose, for sustenance. While meat for sustenance is not actually necessary, it is considered a basic staple of our diets and generally acceptable. 2) Having sex with animals, though, harms them in a way and leaves them to live with that harm. It can traumatize the animal. It is inherently inhumane. And it serves no purpose but to satisfy a carnal desire, a morbid curiosity, or a sadistic appetite.
I'm not saying that it is an altogether consistent or sound argument. It is something some can rationalize though. But, frankly, I would call either explanation at least a little bit bullshit.
The answer to either their desire for meat or their revulsion to animal molestation is that their instincts give them those feelings. It is evolution. Animal meats and fats are a calorie dense and nutritionally valuable food source that our ancestors have eaten since before humans existed, and we're mostly wired to enjoy the taste and crave it. A revulsion for sex outside of species helps make sure that we continue to make babies. It's as simple as that.
Some very few people don't have one, the other or both of these instincts, but the vast majority do. Most of those people will happily rationalize the feeling that isn't based in rationality, like above. Some will examine those feelings and rationalize themselves into changing/recontextualizing their feelings or choosing to not act upon them in light of their viewpoint or some virtue they've applied to the question. But most just do what feels right and is normalized and don't ever really truly question it.
And even if you are one of those people who has rationalized themselves into a rationally/morally superior position regarding meat eating, or maybe you never even had an instinctual desire for it, you almost certainly have other habits, values, opinions, etc. that go against every rationality too that just come with human nature.
We're people. We're animals. We have intelligence. We have primal drives. Nobody is morally perfect. Nobody can even agree on what moral perfection is. Morality is both subjective on the whole, and objective for each and every one of us. We just gotta get along.
Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don't benefit from having sex with animals (they don't enjoy having sex with animals).
Speak for your self buddy!
In the Bible they had to make a law against it
So they did about eating Pork, but Christians like the taste so eat it anyway.
"Leviticus 11:7-8 that pigs are considered unclean and should not be eaten."
That sentence is from the old covenant, which also requires animal sacrifice among other things. The entire old covenant is not binding for Christians anymore, since Jesus replaced it with the new covenant.
Funny enough initially in the Bible people weren't supposed to eat meat at all, then they loosened the restrictions but had rules for certain species (although I don't recall if animal sacrifices started before or after this). Then in the new testament they did away with a bunch of rules but in a very vague way so Christians get to cherry pick what they want and when then argue about it with other Christians. Although there was also a story about a blanket or something with a ton of "bad" meat where god said to eat so I guess that counts as justification
In a perfect utopian society I would hope we wouldn't be doing either.
Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.
A number of US states agree with op here, some it's legal to have sex with animals within limits, anything over 20 pounds rings a bell for one, alabama maybe. They might have changed those laws because they were getting made fun of idk.
Most of the states that were ok with it changed after Washington State, which use to have the most permissive laws about this for whatever reason, really buckled down after that guy “Mr Hands” died from a horse
I think I remember that case, a kid that was on probation for banging a horse on camera and trying to like sell it online, got busted doing it again. Maybe ten years ago or less idk.
Really enjoyed this thread.
This is one of the threads of all time!
While klling an animal for food is sure destructive for the animal, it is constructive for the humanity. It allows us to get all those proteins "for free" instead of producing them ourselves from plants like herbivores do and invest the saved energy in our intelligence to create beautiful and complex things. Whereas copulating with an animal is pure destruction. It harms the living being and leads to no babies and no emotional bond strengthening (contrary to human sex).
Eating animal is still a contradiction, because destruction is there. So I think this problem does need to be somehow overcome. But at least it's outweighed by its positive effects, unlike zoophilia.
This bit is nonsense. I'll give you a point for meat consumption being an easy source of protein that allowed for some developments during the evolution of humans, that are unlikely to have happened without it. But that is more a question of availability than nutritious properties. In todays surplus society, where we have industrialized agriculture and optimized crops, there is abundant access to plant protein.
And meat is not a unique source of protein either. First of all, you don't even have to eat meat to obtain animal protein. Eggs and dairy have it too. And when it comes to the constitution of protein, eggs were even considered the gold standard for a long time.
Read the following wikipedia article to learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_digestibility_corrected_amino_acid_score
The listed examples should be interesting to you.
While meats are indeed easily digestable and contain useful protein for the human body, so do many plant sources. Soy protein is even on par with eggs, while meats don't reach the same score.
And of course we usually don't eat a single source of protein, and combining different sources, their amino acid profiles can complement each other to form a complete source of protein.
This might've been a bit of a ramble on a side-note when it comes to discussing the ethics of fucking animals, but I'm sure the discussion benefits from getting the facts straight.
You talked about a DIAAS (digestable indispensable amino acid score!) - you are my favorite person today.
But let's contextualize plant proteins by how much food you need to eat, an 68kg adult needs about 110g of protein per day - Eating steak that is 350g of food, eating tofu is 650g of food, lentils is 1600g of food.
As the amount of plant based protein increases so does carbohydrate burden - a significant factor people need to be aware of, as most (94%) western adults have impaired metabolism and thus impaired insulin sensitivity - increased carbohydrate loads need to be carefully considered in their diet.
As a contrived example 1.6kg of lentils is 1900 calories.
:::spoiler graph i whipped up last week :::
Actually, I didn't. I just realized, that I linked to PDCAAS, which is a slightly different method. But it didn't really matter, as I just wanted to illustrate the concept. And I'm not too involved in the topic. I don't know what you're doing, that you're whipping up tables about this stuff, but I'm just a layperson with a little knowledge about nutrition.
Allow me a few remarks though:
you're referencing prepared meat, but raw tofu? In my experience, tofu is usually also prepared in some way, and with most preparations, it looses quite a bit of water content.
We don't have to rely on mostly unprocessed plant food. There's stuff like texturized vegetable protein, that delievers a more concentrated source.
While a table like this gives a good overview and reference, it's easy to miss the fact, that we usually don't get our protein from a single source. As I mentioned in my last comment, combining different sources can be a good way to enhance the overall protein quality.
To reflect that, we'd need DIAAS data for prepared dishes, meal plans or a whole diet.
Can you even use DIAAS to calculate an amount of single protein source food, that you'd have to eat like that? I don't know if it scales that way, and even if it did, for an incomplete protein source, you'd end up with a lot of excess for the abundant amino acids in that protein source, which I suspect would have to be excreted and I don't know how your kidneys like that.
That table would really benefit from adding references to clarify what you base your assumptions on and where you get your data from.
But I think none of this is all that relevant for the underlying topic in this thread.
Well written! Yes combinations are a great way to complete the liebig amino acid barrel - here is a fun tool that helps do this https://www.diaas-calculator.com/ - but DIAAS cannot be "calculated", we can guess by adding up amino acids in isolation, but you don't get a real DIAAS reading unless you feed the combination to a pig then actually measure the amino acid absorption.
Why are you pretending that every human is a bodybuilder? Your stated protein needs are way above what science says is actually needed
That is a fun turn of phrase
There isn't one person who's opinions encompass "science says" - multiple public health bodies recommend a 1.1-1.6g/kg/day protein intake.
https://mlmym.lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/20900098
We literally grow food to feed to animals. And then we have to spend time hearding the animals moving. Slaughtering is a decently evolved process (I think). They don't give us the meet for free, we have to put effort to take it.
Eh....
The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10009492/
A sufficient majority of people want to eat animals, but not a sufficient majority of people want to fuck them. Morality is indeed completely subjective and defined only by culture
Society condemns one and accepts the other
This is the reason.
I was looking for the logical consistency. They are accepting killing of animals (murder without consent) while condemning the rape (sex without consent) of animals.
People aren't looking at the animal's rights.
They are condemning the humans who act in a disgusting way.
Most people would have the same reaction if you were cohabiting with a lawn mower.
Bonus...
https://youtu.be/B94lP-fZyLk
Gene Wilder makes love to a sheep. SFW
Both groups can emphatically agree on something - that they love the taste of animal meat.
Like some here who have said it before, it's about survival.
There's no survival issue when it comes to zoophilia.
There still is with eating meat.
To say that most people don't need meat is to ignore more than half the planet.
I thought this place was aware that not everyone can afford a diet,
let alone a healthy vegan diet.
I'm not a big fan of pulling the ladder up behind oneself and start demanding
everyone else to follow suit when they're living in either developing nations or
nations that are in a state of collapse or both.
That said, since natural meat production is theoretically more expensive
than growing meat in a lab,
we'll be heading towards the dissolution of eating farm animals soon
and with it, most farm animals themselves.
Some of the countries with the large percentages of vegetarians, vegans or predominantly plant forward diets such as India or South East Asia are not wealthy by Western standards. Eating a 'healthy' plant forward diet does not have to be an expensive affair.
The perception that a plant based diet is a wealthy western modern invention is white washing its unglamorous origins as a traditional eastern diet, especially in Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, etc cultures.
To dismiss a plant forward diet because not everyone can afford to eat impossible burgers 7x a week is disingenuous, as people were eating diets with little to no meat for centuries before faux 'beuf' plant minces were invented.
Vegetarianism in India is more nuanced then that; I personally see it in 4 different facets.
one is that it is the Upper Caste's(who traditionally have more access to wealth) enforcing their values(religious requirement to be a vegetarian) on people who they see as below them.
Many poor people in India disproportionately eat more meat than their richer counter parts.
Animal protein is just cheaper and more dense than plant based protein, and plant based protein is also seasonal as compared to animal based protein.
It also doesn't help that vegetarianism has become a political issue in India, and is part of the ongoing culture wars happening in the country.
I agree. Just a comment on lab-grown meat. I'm not sure if that is going to help in developing markets. Maybe a big lab can produce meat that you can buy for less money than you'd need for a real steak in an advanced economy. That doesn't mean that someone in the Philippines countryside can start their own meat-lab instead of raising chicken.
The wealthier a country becomes, the more meat they eat. The vast majority of the world could survive on a vegan diet. Thrive, even. This isn't about survival, it's about taste.
But zoophilia is not about consent at all!
Scientists use dummy ostriches to collect sperm. Ostriches approach and... use the dummies, by their own volition.
If there was a human in there, it wouldn't be very different from the perspective of the real ostrich. So it'd be technically possible to consensually bottom an ostrich.
But why the fuck would you do it?
This is what people actually despise about bestiality. It's a gut feeling, before any rationalisation
Edit: you could very much argue that the ostrich dummy method is still non-consensual as it involves some form of trickery. But, regardless, I think it's telling that people would treat it differently depending on whether there was a human in it or not, even though from the animal's perspective there is no difference.
You should see what ranchers do with their cows and horses. More strict bestiality laws are usually defeated at their request, because they artificially inseminate their animals, and jerk off their prized bulls and horses, the semen of which is worth more than gold.
Sick fucks, ranchers are the fucking devil. but that's another story.
Exactly! The law doesn't protect animals from sexual abuse, it only cares that humans aren't directly having sex with them
"Animals can't consent" is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.
One is torture.
The other is a means of survival.
It's acceptable to kill for survival.
It's not acceptable to torture and hurt for sexual gratification that can be gained solo with no one else involved.
Modern meat consumption is very disconnected from survival for most people though.
More humans could survive with more food if we reused the land growing food for animals for growing food for humans to eat. We would need so much less land that we could rewild a lot of it, and massively reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere as well.
But people like meat and will react badly to anyone suggesting that eating less is a good idea for everyone.
I do feel like most people I talk to irl seem to agree that eating less meat is good for everyone, but that's very local of course, and agreeing and doing it is also not necessarily connected 😅
I think this is just human nature, you say the socially acceptable thing to move the conversation along even if it wont impact their behavior. In a situation where the topic comes up (even staunch pro-meat doctors) the path of least resistance is to smile nod and "agree".
Animals are raised on grass land, which is different from cropland. Even if all the animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn't have any extra cropland.
That doesn't address grass land vs cropland.
It just complains people are turning forests into cropland.
Nope. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/soy-story
I get what you mean, but as somebody that hasn't eaten meet in 35 years I would argue its not needed for survival.
So shouldn't the same logic dictate that it is not acceptable to kill for culinary satisfaction, if nutrition can be gained without killing a creature? (Which is very possible in most parts of the world)
Valid argument - assuming you live in the woods and hunting and gathering is the only way you can get food.
In both cases we should be considering animal's perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can't just involve human's perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don't think so.
It's like how soldier rapists are bad, but soldier murderers get a medal.
Humans are fundamentally absurd, no exceptions
I guess because animals (eg tigers) eat other animals (e.g deer) and have evolved exactly towards that purpose. That’s how their species survives.
It’s not often that I see a tiger performing sexual assault on a deer. That’s not required for the tiger’s survival.
Now whether humans are “naturally” meat eaters and therefore we should feel “better” about eating animals I don’t know. Nutritionally I think the evidence probably leans towards being omnivore, similar to many other apes and monkeys.
My theory on ethics is that it's survival tools for hunter gatherer societies.
Eat meat, be strong. Good.
Fuck animal? Animal might bite, give you disease, and you are not making baby. Bad.
But if make baby good?
Unga bunga good
If alien species more powerful and smart came to earth i would rather be molested than killed and turned into a sausage.
Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.
The animal isn’t aware of being dead.
Artificial semination is key to commercial animal agriculture, and that too would be unambiguously rape in human standards. Not to mention the horrific living conditions of most animals farmed for meat.
It's really just because one has always been normal, and the other hasn't, aka it's cultural. It's not rational. Though there's also arguably far more benefit in killing for meat vs. having sex with dubious consent, so that can be a consideration that isn't purely cultural.
So that means it's ethical to kill you?
Me personally? Yes
Sure, please do. I'm just a cog in the industrial machine and life insurance payouts will get my family out of debt.
Different taboos in different places, I guess.
uh
Maybe you can get OP into trackballs as a diversion toward a different path?
"It's called 'inter-species erotica', Fuck-o."
Kelly can be a guy's name too! Hooooo
The question is on social acceptance of killing innocent animals while condemning zoophila. How come murder of innocent accepted but rape is considered a sin? Should we not come to an ideal conclusion and stop both?
They weren't replying seriously. It's a reference to the film "Clerks II."
Sexual morality is rooted in consent. Mortal morality is not.
So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn't consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.
The moral standing of a killing is completely unrelated to consent for most people. Most would say murder doesn't become moral because the victim was suicidal. The killing itself is the basis for the moral stance, not the desires of the victim. The act is valued. Consent is neutral.
Sexual interaction is different. It does not necessitate a state change. It can be done to positive effect if done with consent. But animals, much like children, are viewed as insufficiently capable of granting consent. The consent is the basis for the moral stance, not the act itself. Consent is valued. The act is neutral.
Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn't ask for animals' consent before raping or killing them.
Assisted suicide is suicide, performed by the dying individual. Assisting in a suicide is enabling a killing, but is not murder if done correctly. The one performing suicide is the active party, not simply granting consent to the actions of another.
To bring things back to the original point, rape and murder are covered by different ethical principles. Consent has no bearing on murder. Consent is definitive for rape.
In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government's approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don't see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That's not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.
Assisted suicides do not consent to die. They request to die. They initiate the process themselves rather than allow the desire of others to dictate events. There is a subtle but important distinction.
If life is to continue on this planet simultaneously with ethics, there must be an exception for living beings to morally participate in the food chain as their bodies evolved. This does not excuse our modern industrial system or domesticating animals, it excuses carnivory as it evolved only.
Now you might say "but humans are meant to eat plants" or "humans are omnivores meant to eat a large variety". No, you're deluded. No animal on Earth has every evolved to eat a large variety of foods, plant toxins are too numerous and varied too allow this, that's why humans cook and process most (non-fruit) plants before eating them. Animals we call omnivores are really flexible carnivores that would die on an all plant diet that wasn't fortified or selected by humans from plants outside of the animal's habitat.
Most of the plants we eat today did not exist in our specie's early days, we've bred almost the entire produce section at the grocery store, taking toxic barely digestible plants and changing them into broccoli and such. The plants we eat that did exist only existed in their native habitat, which was not necessarily where humans were. A human in Africa was not eating oranges from China 300k years ago.
Animals that evolved to eat plants have digestive systems oriented around providing an environment for bacteria to break down cellulose, they have adaptations to withstand the specific toxins in the specific plants they evolved to eat. Rabbits have to eat their shit and re-digest it get enough nutrition from plants. Cows have a multi-chambered stomach without an acid barrier in front, horses have to eat constantly. Gorillas are "hind gut digesters" that fart constantly and have massive barrel torsos to fit a digestive system large enough to support the rest of their bodies. Human digestive systems are clearly oriented around digestion of meat and using high-energy density fat to provide the massive amount of energy our brain needs.
But why don't we have claws and fangs like other carnivores? Well, first, many carnivorous animals don't fit this mental image. Second, human ancestors were frugivores going back like 5+ million years that started eating meat via scavenging, this explains our stomach acid on par with buzzards and condors, an acidic stomach is an "acid barrier" bacteria cannot pass. Then we evolved to eat large prey with lots of fat that we hunted by group coordination, ability to throw, and ability to create weapons, ability to direct an animal to fall to it's death. Humans didn't evolve to directly chase and kill animals with our hands and teeth, we're tool masters.
Our bodies do poorly with chronic carb intake, this is the cause of most modern maladies. Our bodies evolved to fuel themselves with saturated fat we eat, small animals with little fat are inappropriate human food (e.g. "rabbit starvation"). In fact, almost all animals are "powered by fat", not by sugar as we're told. Cows are powered by short chain fatty acids produced by bacteria eating the plants the cow consumes.
This is really well written!
An idea that species can “be meant to do x” by y has roots in teleological philosophy. Aincent Greeks believed that gods designed and meant us to live a certain way, this approach was adapted by other religions. It cannot be applied to evolution as evolution is a sequence of random events, some more likely than other.
We have evolved to, under certain conditions, when it increases our or our relatives' chances of survival or recreation, kill others of our species or enact violence against them, including the type of violence that increases the expected number of offsprings of the person enacting it, but nobody argues we should build ethics around it.
I argue that we should build ethics around it.
People, even those that understand evolution often speak this way because it's easier, this is Lemmy, not a research paper.
I claim that what we call morality and ethics is human cultural interpretation of what we call game theory. My foundation for morality is respect for consent, except in cases of self/community defense and participation in the food chain as evolution has produced my body in this way due to natural selection to operate at a particular trophic level.
If it were for pure game theory, slavery would still exist in some form (legally, because illegal slavery is still wide-spread IRL). Why would we care to liberate a useful caste of human servants if they would lose all means to rebel against a modern army? Granted, they could kill someone in an uprising, but so does cattle occasionally injure and kill farmers. Any great injustice is justified by game theory at the end.
Morality, whether based on game theory or not, has little to do with law.
You should learn more about game theory.
Game theory is about extracting personal good from cooperation. Game theory has nothing to say against boiling your cat alive as it has no leverage on you.
In societies where things like slavery existed for centuries or even millennias, owners had great evolutionary benefit from owning slaves. Their descendants hold some privileges to this day. Game theory was on their side.
Did you watch “86”? In this show, San-Magnolia was a country populated exclusively with blonde people, referred as “alba”. People with non-white hair (referred as “colorata”) were sent to internment camps outside the state walls and conscripted to fight in a war in a hope to regain at least some rights.
It was later revealed that over 10 million colorata and zero alba were killed in the later stage of the war, and if original prognosis on enemy forces ceasing to operate in a few years would be correct, alba people would totally win the evolutionary race and no game theory would bring justice. Doesn't sound great if your hair happens to be brown or red.
So far every response to be has been straw man args.
Nobody is talking about boiling cats alive, I'm not arguing for the morality of that.
I'm not saying game theory can be used to justify anything, I'm saying it's the basis for morality, it's how morality came to be in our species IMHO. I think agents (things with agency, which are subject to game theory) develop strategies, and morality is based on these strategies. Harming other beings unnecessarily often puts one at risk, therefore harming other beings without need is often bad strategy. I'm not saying that anything that can create benefit is morally OK, this is a straw man, know what that is?
You're speaking as if there's a global, cosmic morality in which harming others is wrong, this is a religious belief, I'm not talking about religion. There are many moralities with different foundations, I explained the basis for mine.
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal's consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It's logically consistent.
If by benefit you mean survival, then yes. Fucking animals is not what humans evolved to do for survival.
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to "innocent victims". Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist's actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
I was talking about food, not rape and murder. I never said killing is right in general. Stop with the straw men.
How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?
You're a crazy one, nobody is talking about raping animals.
Life eats life.
Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don't you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it's a smaller crime than killing.
You are weirdly obsessed with fucking an animal in the same way conservative weirdos are obsessed with children's dicks. Just stop, man. You're creeping everyone the fuck out.
I'm witnessing hypocritical differentiation between two similar crimes related to consent. Where non-consensual killing is accepted but non-consensual sex (rape) is condemned. Are we not able to see both killing and raping being injustice against innocent animals? Are we unable to see the contradiction here, Bill?
So which animal are you tryin' to fuck? Be real.
A person who considers both killing and raping of animals injustice would not do such thing. But a person who can't see injustice in killing can because their moral sense is already twisted.
Maybe it's whatever grosses them out. A lot of unsanitary stuff is just prohibited out of safety. There's like hunter ethics guides for handling game.
It's interesting but to me it seems more of a health concern. Ironically we laugh when dogs dry hump people. Or when horses get turned on and all.
Guess I’ll just leave this here…
emotivism. when i eat burger i say "yay", when you fuck animal i say "boo"
Why such opposite reaction? X commited murder for its benefit and Y commited rape for its benefit. Both have dismissed the "consent of animals" for their respective benefits. You can either condone both or condemn both.
i am not claiming one is right and the other is wrong. i am simply claiming that, for reasons outside of my control, eating meat evokes a positive emotion within me while zoophilia evokes a negative emotion. just like i cannot help it when i find vanilla ice cream more delicious than chocolate ice cream, i cannot help it when i experience a positive emotion when eating meat and a negative emotion when confronted with zoophilia. i am not making a factual statement about reality, i am just expressing my emotions and letting that guide my sense of morality. and i am a mere observer of my emotions, not their author.
Outside the "food for survival" aspect (which I won't touch on because everyone else already has)...Rape vs Murder is essentially the topic here.
I'm in the camp that murder (as in intentional cold blooded murder) is comparatively worse. Culturally, I think the overwhelming majority of people disagree.
I think there are people out there that would much rather be around someone who has killed in cold blood. I think there are far more people willing to accept that a former murderer has reformed. There is a certain degree of sanctity people give sex that they don't even give life itself.
Both are extraordinarily heinous crimes and i am in no way defending either.
Killing an animal and eating it isn't murder.
That's the first, obvious huge flaw in your argument.
Both acts have never been about consensus. They are defined morally and legally by culture and tradition. There are societies where eating meet is illegal and zoophilia is legal.
Zoophilia is banned because it's gross. Killing animals is okay because it's delicious. Lol jk but actually I'd be fine with being more vegetarian. But probably not vegan yet.
Raping animals is illigal, except when you becme a farmer
I agree that it is incoherent. I guess the reasons are complex, but a little peek at these may show us that we have historical attachments for animal consumption. And, then, our moral reasoning was not to end it but to make it as painless as possible (and that's the idea in many places); while you cannot make rape painless, and we don't have a historical reason to defend it either.
So you interviewed those people individually and determined that they are in fact the same people? Excellent work!
Wait... you didn't? Then go away.
Food is necessary for survival, sex isn't
Down voted for correctly answering the question lol
Skipping over the fact that killing animals for food isn't necessary
and pretty much no one does that anyway
It absolutely is necessary for a lot of people to avoid starving currently, and industrial agriculture necessarily kills a shitload of wild animals too so being vegan in a modern setting still puts a non-zero kill count on your diet
EVERY TIME YOU STEP WITH YOUR FOOT YOU CRUSH A ZILLION MICROORGANICISMS SO FUCK YOU I EAT THE BACON FROM THE CREATURE THAT HAS A 5 YEAR OLDS BRAIN
Not helping your credibility
I hope you get what you think is fine for others
Chickenshit moddery
The only way you could have taken that as a threat is if you know deep down how much of a piece of shit you are.
Good :-)
Maybe you should think of a way to fix that. And feel free to interpret that however makes sense to you.
not by fucking you goddamned debate nerd
So, you'd be okay if somebody killed you as long as they ate you afterwards?
Is this a safe space for me to admit smth controversial
Idrc for zoophilia. Humans > animals anyway, why should I care if someone fucks one. I find it disgusting ofc, but just bc I find smth disgusting doesnt mean it's wrong per se
Human exceptionalism is disgusting.
I mean it's the only correct position but whatever
Why is it the only correct position?
Ur right I was being hyperbolic, my bad. But I have found this perspective good and useful for my life
Oh I get it. You personally are disgusted but still find it morally neutral and/or good. Ok sure that's just personal taste. My bad 😅
No you don't, lol.
Without an extensive and biodiverse ecosystem, we wouldn't be here. We're actively destroying that, because we think we're removed from nature.
This is why we should command nature. Being both part of it and smarter than it, we are its masters and must ensure its survival out of necessity for our own.
Hahaha
Exactly.
Only if you don't understand the many differences between fucking and eating?
From Animal's perspective, They are either getting Murdered or Raped without consenting for either. It would not be fair for the victim if we give verdict based on criminal's perspective.
Look up the definition of murder and rape and tell me where it says animal. Last I checked it says person or people.
Why do so many vegans seek conflict instead of educating others? It's pretty clear that this post seeks solely to declare non-vegans hypocrites.
Good idea using your shit-stirring alt for this one though.
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let's AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Your question is clearly dismissive itself. I have no reason to think it's in good faith, especially considering you seem to only post from this account rarely and to stir up shit
Their responses are clear and methodical, giving the impression that OP is genuinely trying to discuss a potentially-tricky subject in a calm, rational manner. If they were here to “stir up shit,” surely they’d be responding in a way that encourages more drama. From the evidence, I don’t believe that’s their intent at all.
Sometimes people want to discuss difficult topics, even if there’s a risk of people taking it the wrong way. I’d say OP’s doing a decent job encouraging civility, and that’s something I wish we could see more of online.
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
Carnists: Murder, rape, torture, slavery
Vegans: Once in a blue moon literally just saying something about it in public
One of these is immoral. You'll be shocked at which this boomer reference username thinks it is!
Hmm I wonder if the definitions of any of those words requires human beings to be involved 🤔.
Sounds like you're stretching.
Isn't it cool how you can do that to, say, Jews or Palestinians? You just label them as not human, and then it stops being murder!
What a handy tool that doesn't demand reflection!
No, no it's not cool at all. And what you're referring to is called dehumanization. Definitely calls for some reflection on your part, lol.
You're the one with the moral framework specifically designed so that you can carry out the acts of murder, rape, torture and slavery and not hold yourself at fault for them because different word. But I'm the one who needs to reflect? Shut up you fucking moron.
Murder rape and slavery all have definitions. Unless all of a sudden were saying cows and chickens are people, you need to adjust your language or nobody will ever take you seriously. Angy li'l vegan, ain't ya?
Everybody takes you seriously because you are getting mad while arguing that you can fuck a sheep and it's not rape
no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals
"It doesn't count because we use different words"
this is a strawman
a strawman of what argument? either fill the vacuum or shut up
Using the word carnist is like screaming "I am a huge asshole and I think I'm superior". I won't be seeing your replies.
Ps. Hilarious you think anything from the 90s is for boomers. You're just telling me you're an awkward gen z
Dick Tracy, famous pulp comic from the 1990s
I'M NOT CIS I'M NORMAL REEEEEEEEEEE
(They're afraid of talking to someone with above a 5th grade vocabulary)
Technically Dick Tracy is pre-boomer as it started in the 30s. Though it ran till the 70s I think so kinda works both ways. Simply biazzare that the other guy thinks it started in the 90s though either way.
Yeah the 90's was when it petered out as a cultural reference. There was a movie that did well.
HIV exists because someone had intercourse with a chimpanzee so that might be a part of it.I'm not aware of that being a prominent theory honestly. I thought the most popular theory was actually that HIV exists because of the hunting and butchering of simians with SIV
Also, not accusing you of this ofc bc it's a common myth of the disease, but that origin explanation over the significantly more plausible "bushmeat + open wound" explanation has been used within homophobic and xenophobic contexts. From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconceptions_about_HIV/AIDS): "Tennessee State Senator Stacey Campfield was the subject of controversy in 2012 after stating that AIDS was the result of a human having sexual intercourse with a monkey.[49][50]" (more detail on Stacey Campfield's wikipedia).
Obviously we shouldn't shy away of discussions of taboo or shameful acts when they are relevant, just be careful about who may hijack your words for nefarious intent.
Thanks for the correction I wasn't aware of that.
Perhaps zoophilia affects the human doing it negatively; eg the human may start to hurt other people some time?
You're not worried about killing and eating animals having the same effect?
I’ve spent a lot of time around German butchers, who specialize in two of three areas during their training: 1-slaughtering, 2-meat production, and 3-sales. In my experience (so take this with a big grain of salt), people who specialized in 1 are significantly more callous towards human life than those who didn’t.
My husband’s hopefully passing his licensing exam today and though he specialized in 2&3 (hence the big grain of salt), he still had to work at a slaughterhouse for a few weeks during his training. He’s not a squeamish person at all (he once knowingly selected The Lullaby’s Smile [trigger warning: this is very effective body horror that so paralyzed me with anxiety to listen to that I couldn’t make myself get up to turn it off] to fall asleep to and is a big fan of schlocky horror movies), but he could not stand it. He hasn’t paid for meat since (though he does save things from the trash, both for himself and for a network of people we know who are happy to accept free meat past its sell-by date and capable of determining whether it’s safe to eat) and will work at a vegan butcher shop after his licensing as a direct result of his experiences at the slaughterhouse.
Uh, what?
They sell vegan meat imitation products made by actual trained butchers. Some of their stuff is wild. I used to eat meat, but I’ve never been able to digest pork and it’s never appealed to me, and I find their pork-style products way too realistic to eat (confirmed to be accurate and not just unappealing by my husband, lol).
Wow, that's... Interesting. TIL
No, most people who eat meat wouldn't wanna kill an animal themselves
Edit: i guess the question is more directly about killing animals than eating meat though
There was an article many years ago about people working in the meat industry, and how they are under extreme stress. So yes, the meat processing industry has detrimental effects on people. Is there evidence that these people commit more violent crimes? It is well documented that psychopaths / serial killers usually have a history of torturing / raping animals in their youth. Taken together, this may be an additional reason beyond laws against sex with animals. (Before you pop a vessel: I am vegetarian and most of my meals are vegan).
none of it is about consent anyway. it doesn't even make sense. do you get consent from doors before you jam a key in them, open them, and put your whole body through them?
You can't compare living animals with inanimate objects. "Animals can't consent" is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that "Animals can't consent". Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses' inability to consent.]
as everyone else has explained, the objection isn't about consent but aesthetics. you've made a strawman.
I disagree. As I understood it, their point was that an animal is a living thing capable of having feelings about a situation and a door is an inanimate object with no feelings or thoughts at all. Dogs can suffer PTSD from being mistreated but a door has no such capacity.
That would make the first comment a false equivalence and their rebuttal valid. In turn we must either present a better equivalent or justify the validity of the original statement.
the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.
It's not that emotion is important for consent, it's that violation of consent can create trauma. If violation of consent is bad because it's a negative experience and an animal is capable of experiencing trauma then a violation of its consent is as inherently negative of an experience as it would be for a person.
A door does not experience anything, it is a door.
you seem to be creating a link between emotion and consent, but you haven't explicated any of it.
Consent is needed for sexual morally correct intercourse if you want to do it with something capable of having feelings. So having feelings has something to do with consent, because:
Consent is not needed if the thing we're doing it to is inanimate and doesn't have the capability of feeling anything.
why are feelings important with regards to consent? consent is the ability to understand and agree. feelings have nothing to do with that. the ability to consent has nothing to do with feelings if you don't already have the ability to understand and agree.
Consent is needed if you do something with another being with feelings. Feelings aren't needed to be able to consent. That's simple logic, if you can't understand that you're incapable of discussing that argument.
in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.
You can, but it's a weak argument, if any argument at all.
it's a strong argument
Weak arguments don't become strong just because you say so, you troll 😄
calling me names doesn't change the truth of what I wrote
Yes, it's still a complete non-argument even if we consider you're serious. Not even worth discussing.
Doors aren't animals, Victoria. The same way you're not a door either. Maybe a doorknob?
this smacks of an appeal to ridicule