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.]
Even if this were correct, it doesn’t matter, because we’re not discussing whether animals and doors can consent or not, but rather why it’s morally right to kill animals but not to have intercourse with them.
The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter. A calculator and a human are identical in their capacity to photosynthesize (neither can), but that tells us nothing about whether they deserve rights, can think, or have interests.
Likewise, a door and an animal are both incapable of consent, but for entirely different reasons. A door lacks consciousness, desires, experiences, and interests. An animal has experiences and interests, even if it cannot express consent in a human-like way.
We’re also both breathing oxygen but that’s irrelevant to the question whether we can press the reply button or not.
Can’t believe I fell for an obvious troll, but kudos to you.
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.
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.
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.]
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 😄
this smacks of an appeal to ridicule
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?
you’re not me, but in our ability to hit “reply” we are identical. doors aren’t animals, but in their capacity to consent, they are identical.
Even if this were correct, it doesn’t matter, because we’re not discussing whether animals and doors can consent or not, but rather why it’s morally right to kill animals but not to have intercourse with them.
The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter. A calculator and a human are identical in their capacity to photosynthesize (neither can), but that tells us nothing about whether they deserve rights, can think, or have interests.
Likewise, a door and an animal are both incapable of consent, but for entirely different reasons. A door lacks consciousness, desires, experiences, and interests. An animal has experiences and interests, even if it cannot express consent in a human-like way.
We’re also both breathing oxygen but that’s irrelevant to the question whether we can press the reply button or not.
Can’t believe I fell for an obvious troll, but kudos to you.
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.
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.
so why do you keep bringing it up? it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that is incapable of consent.
you haven’t shown why you think this is reasonable from subjects which are incapable of consent, nor bothered to define feelings.