Bestiality.

[Mosasauria]

Although I will point out that no one answered how an animal can legally give consent.

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

Thanks Nana for reminding him of what everyone else has been trying to point out. Maybe he and the others will finally get it.

[The Deep Vault]

Although I will point out that no one answered how an animal can legally give consent.

Whether or not they can legally give consent currently is irrelevant when those exact laws are what we're debating the validity of.

[Mosasauria]

Although I will point out that no one answered how an animal can legally give consent.

Whether or not they can legally give consent currently is irrelevant when those exact laws are what we're debating the validity of.

Take a look at Nana's post.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Although I will point out that no one answered how an animal can legally give consent.

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

[Old Vester]

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

[Norstal]

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

Except we don't butcher or milk children. Nor do we keep them as pets, but rather as...children.

[Galloism]

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

I read "gay parrots" the first time through.

[The Deep Vault]

Whether or not they can legally give consent currently is irrelevant when those exact laws are what we're debating the validity of.

Take a look at Nana's post.

I actually disagree with the idea that consent shouldn't be considered, but...that's for another debate.

Not one I'd mind having, mind you.

[Lackadaisical2]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

I think he means that their consent could begin to matter if they are in fact capable of doing so.

[Mosasauria]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

That seems to be what he is pointing out.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

No, I'm saying if it can be proven that they can express their own desires in a manner understandable by humans, they should have similar rights to humans.

[Vectrova]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

[The Deep Vault]

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

Except we don't butcher or milk children. Nor do we keep them as pets, but rather as...children.

There's a difference in scale factor there, however. Also, owning them as pets isn't always something animals mind.

[Phing Phong]

For me as a person who attempts to treat animals with the appropriate respect I feel they deserve as feeling beings, by refraining from their consumption whenever possible, I do not think that human beings should exert their sexual will over an animal which does not have the mental maturity or development to give consent.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

Remember that there are millions of species of "animal," and that not all have the same level of cognitive awareness. If we can prove an animal is self-aware and capable of expressing thoughts, that animal should be protected from use by humans. That's a pretty big if, because as you've said we can't yet tell if animals understand the decisions they make. It's a very similar issue to the rights of children, and just as difficult to make big decisions on.

[The Deep Vault]

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

[Galloism]

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

How many people you think would die if they quit eating meat?

A few, those with difficulty in breaking down protein particularly, but the vast majority would not.

[Zeth Rekia]

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

But thrills are what people live for.

[Vectrova]

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

We don't need to eat animals to survive. We do, but it isn't necessary.

Moreover, rape implies consent was not given. Fascinating how you're throwing that word around without bullet-proof definitions of consent that work for animals and a reason why consent matters in terms of sex but not in terms of food without sounding hypocritical.

[The Deep Vault]

For me as a person who attempts to treat animals with the appropriate respect I feel they deserve as feeling beings, by refraining from their consumption whenever possible, I do not think that human beings should exert their sexual will over an animal which does not have the mental maturity or development to give consent.

Prove to me they're developmentally unable to consent. Bearing in mind we have no clue about how brain structure works for non-mammals (and even for mammals).

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

No, it's not. Killing to protect yourself from starvation is different from committing rape for a thrill.

How many people you think would die if they quit eating meat.

A few, those with difficulty in breaking down protein particularly, but the vast majority would not.

That doesn't mean that Humanity as a whole will not have certain nutritional deficiencies and such, since not everything can be replaced in plant form, and not everyone is capable of eating certain plants that may be required to fill a nutritional niche.

[Mosasauria]

So if it's smart we should be allowed to have sex with it?

Not to mention Gorillas and other sapient species only learn languages when we teach such things to them, we can't tell if they understand the gravity of their decisions, etc.

It's stupid and hypocritical to say that the "consent" of the same animals we cut up and digest every day somehow matter only in the context of screwing them sexually.

Exactly!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

They can't. And it's very weird you bring such an issue to bear because animals cannot nor do we ask them for consent when we do the things we do to them.

The issue of consent is a human one and irrelevant to this thread.

I would say it is not necessarily a human issue. In my opinion, it is viewed as a human issue because we traditionally believe only humans are capable of two way communication. What of a Gorilla taught to use sign language to express his or herself? Or gray parrots with cognitive capabilities measured to be on par with a human child? Self awareness and capacity for communication I think ought to be the qualifiers for consent to apply.

Communication does not always signify sapience, although it is a significant factor. The short answer is that these animals, while intelligent for animals, are still owned by and property of people. They can no more give or revoke consent than a fleshlight. The fact that they possess sentience and can view the world does not automatically imply that they can give or revoke consent or that consent even applies.

[Gagatron]

Perhaps there's more to sexual intercourse than just pleasure. It is a social action. It is for a bond between a couple, and to form a productive society. Sex in the animal world means something different than in the human world. For animals it is an expression of social status, whereas for human beings it is an expression of affection. Ultimately sex between a human and an animal is unproductive. No baby can be made, no mutual love is expressed, and no mutual pleasure is gained. It serves no social benefit because it is simply treatment of an animal as an object. It is potentially very unhealthy, and is most definitely very unproductive.

Is it wrong? Yes. Should it be illegal? That is up to the majority.

[Mosasauria]

For me as a person who attempts to treat animals with the appropriate respect I feel they deserve as feeling beings, by refraining from their consumption whenever possible, I do not think that human beings should exert their sexual will over an animal which does not have the mental maturity or development to give consent.

The animal won't even know its being fucked. To them, it will feel like another attack.