Victoria Antoinette

“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.

if you care to articulate these refutations, i’d be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.

Feelings aren’t needed to be able to consent.

so why do you keep bringing it up? it’s absurd to discuss consent from something that is incapable of consent.

Consent is needed if you do something with another being with feelings.

you haven’t shown why you think this is reasonable from subjects which are incapable of consent, nor bothered to define feelings.

The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter.

the only respect that matters, in this case, is the ability to consent.

since you concede that neither animals nor inanimate objects are capable of consent, surely you must know that the morality of an action regarding either cannot hinge on consent.

calling me names doesn’t change whether what i wrote is true.

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.

the “ew” evolved because of that.

i don’t know how you could possibly prove this, but i would love to see you try.

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.

😄

this smacks of an appeal to ridicule

calling me names doesn’t change the truth of what I wrote

Removed by mod

no one is murdering, torturing, rapping, or enslaving animals

it’s a strong argument

the capacity to have feelings has nothing to do with he capacity to consent.

You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects.

in regards to whether discussing consent makes any sense, yes I can.

as everyone else has explained, the objection isn’t about consent but aesthetics. you’ve made a strawman.

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?

copyright

pretty sure they meant wage slavery