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