Consent conflicts (1 Viewer)

[maquiscat]

First, appologies if the title seems misleading. Such is not the intent.

The focus here is on consent itself, and is not limited to matters of sexuality. I had seen a video recently where the person was talking about how allowing homosexual activity was not the same as engaging in the act with children or animals because consent can be given by adults, whereas not by the other two. And children here are not the issue actually. Children eventually grow up to be able to give consent. And we talk about consent, and informed consent, for all kinds of topics, including medical and tattoos, and so much more. Even in simpler issues such as hugging, consent is a raised concern.

But when we look at animals we seem to be running a double standard. We say that one can't have sex with an animal because the animal can't give consent, and yet we do so much more with animals, and don't care whether they consent to it or not. For example, we use them as work beasts. Do we ask if they consent to being hook to a plow? We use them for food. Did they consent to that? We could look at some things, like milking, and make the point that we have moved to consent there, as many farms now use machines where the animal (usually cows) go into a milking stall by choice and are attached automatically to the machine. But in breeding, do they consent to the artificial insemination?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not making a claim that they need to be able to consent to these things. But, setting any ick factor aside, what makes the difference between what we claim they need consent for and what they do not? What makes one act equal to humans in the need for consent, and another act not need consent for the animal, but is needed for the human? That is the conflict that I am referring to.

For all that I disagree with it, I can at least see the logic and the consistency in a person saying that since animals don't need to consent to many of the other things we do to them, then they don't need to consent to the sex. Again, wrong, but at least consistent. And we have the people on the other side of the spectrum, who want the animals to be able to consent, if not in all things, then at least in many more than we do now. Again, consistent.

 

[lwf]

Animals obviously can't consent to anything humans do to them. Barring the "ick" factor and trying to legislate morality, I would think the consistency of the prohibition against sexually abusing animals would be the same as any other form of animal abuse. We use animals for our own purposes, but we should do so in a humane way. They can be used as beasts of burden in a humane (or as close as we can get) way, or an inhumane way, and they can even be raised as livestock and slaughtered humanely or inhumanely. Wherever possible, our treatment of animals should be as humane as possible. Inflicting unnecessary stress and pain on an animal should be prohibited. Whether that be torturing them for sexual gratification or for simple amusement, it shouldn't make any difference to the legality of the act.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

First, appologies if the title seems misleading. Such is not the intent.

The focus here is on consent itself, and is not limited to matters of sexuality. I had seen a video recently where the person was talking about how allowing homosexual activity was not the same as engaging in the act with children or animals because consent can be given by adults, whereas not by the other two. And children here are not the issue actually. Children eventually grow up to be able to give consent. And we talk about consent, and informed consent, for all kinds of topics, including medical and tattoos, and so much more. Even in simpler issues such as hugging, consent is a raised concern.

But when we look at animals we seem to be running a double standard. We say that one can't have sex with an animal because the animal can't give consent, and yet we do so much more with animals, and don't care whether they consent to it or not. For example, we use them as work beasts. Do we ask if they consent to being hook to a plow? We use them for food. Did they consent to that? We could look at some things, like milking, and make the point that we have moved to consent there, as many farms now use machines where the animal (usually cows) go into a milking stall by choice and are attached automatically to the machine. But in breeding, do they consent to the artificial insemination?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not making a claim that they need to be able to consent to these things. But, setting any ick factor aside, what makes the difference between what we claim they need consent for and what they do not? What makes one act equal to humans in the need for consent, and another act not need consent for the animal, but is needed for the human? That is the conflict that I am referring to.

For all that I disagree with it, I can at least see the logic and the consistency in a person saying that since animals don't need to consent to many of the other things we do to them, then they don't need to consent to the sex. Again, wrong, but at least consistent. And we have the people on the other side of the spectrum, who want the animals to be able to consent, if not in all things, then at least in many more than we do now. Again, consistent.

Really bizarre thread that absolutely doesn’t belong in the general political discussion forum.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Really bizarre thread that absolutely doesn’t belong in the general political discussion forum.

No, I get it. You have to wade through the OP’s post to get to it. It starts off with a truly off putting way to get to the point. That point is a matter of what government regulates for the industries that utilize animals.

There is no reason we should be cruel or inhumane in our use of animals. Yet we are. It’s not even good for us. By way of example; the way we raise and process chickens for consumption in this country. Packing them so close they can’t move and fulling them full of drugs to keep that from killing them before we want to harvest them. Same for calf’s we use for veal.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat. We should get there in ways that don’t torture the animals involved, and is healthier for us. The only benefit the way we do it currently is to producers of the product of the not cruelty free, less healthy, products being sold to us.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

But when we look at animals we seem to be running a double standard. We say that one can't have sex with an animal because the animal can't give consent, and yet we do so much more with animals, and don't care whether they consent to it or not. For example, we use them as work beasts. Do we ask if they consent to being hook to a plow? We use them for food. Did they consent to that?

That's not a double standard. We use animals to ensure our survival as a species. Having sex with an animal has nothing to do with our survival.

It's about survival! Not about consent.

Completely unrelated issues.

 

[maquiscat]

Really bizarre thread that absolutely doesn’t belong in the general political discussion forum.

And where do you think it belongs? Too broad for sex and sexuality, or really, any other section.

 

[maquiscat]

That's not a double standard. We use animals to ensure our survival as a species. Having sex with an animal has nothing to do with our survival.

It's about survival! Not about consent.

Completely unrelated issues.

So how is keeping animals like hamsters and even rabbits or dogs, as pets (as opposed to meat or working animals) about survival?

 

[maquiscat]

Animals obviously can't consent to anything humans do to them. Barring the "ick" factor and trying to legislate morality, I would think the consistency of the prohibition against sexually abusing animals would be the same as any other form of animal abuse. We use animals for our own purposes, but we should do so in a humane way. They can be used as beasts of burden in a humane (or as close as we can get) way, or an inhumane way, and they can even be raised as livestock and slaughtered humanely or inhumanely. Wherever possible, our treatment of animals should be as humane as possible. Inflicting unnecessary stress and pain on an animal should be prohibited. Whether that be torturing them for sexual gratification or for simple amusement, it shouldn't make any difference to the legality of the act.

So how do we define abuse? Using cows as an example, I can see claiming a force milking at the human's convince as more abusive than allowing them to go to the machine at their choosing. And yes, I would say that if one is attempting to mount or be mounted by an animal, and it's not cooperating, as being abusive, but what of when it does so willingly? What makes it abuse if it is not forced?

 

[Juin]

That's not a double standard. We use animals to ensure our survival as a species.

The animal did not consent to that.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

And where do you think it belongs? Too broad for sex and sexuality, or really, any other section.

Coming at it from that approach diminishes the point you’re trying to make.

Breeding is only one aspect of industrial animal husbandry. Your point is broader, I’d suspect, and coming in at that acute angle gives people an odd idea of what you are likely driving at.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

And where do you think it belongs? Too broad for sex and sexuality, or really, any other section.

Off-Topic Discussion

Talk about any subject here.

debatepolitics.com

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No, I get it. You have to wade through the OP’s post to get to it. It starts off with a truly off putting way to get to the point. That point is a matter of what government regulates for the industries that utilize animals.

There is no reason we should be cruel or inhumane in our use of animals. Yet we are. It’s not even good for us. By way of example; the way we raise and process chickens for consumption in this country. Packing them so close they can’t move and fulling them full of drugs to keep that from killing them before we want to harvest them. Same for calf’s we use for veal.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat. We should get there in ways that don’t torture the animals involved, and is healthier for us. The only benefit the way we do it currently is to producers of the product of the not cruelty free, less healthy, products being sold to us.

I appreciate your input however, the premise of @maquiscat’s thread is clearly philosophical, not political.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So how is keeping animals like hamsters and even rabbits or dogs, as pets (as opposed to meat or working animals) about survival?

Why wouldn't it be?

You're changing the subject. You spoke about using them for work and food. THAT is about survival of the species. Playing frisbee with Fido is about something else that may or may not be related. If you want to debate how a symbiotic relationship like keeping pets, that's a different topic. Do you or do you not have anything to say about my POINT?

 

[Juin]

So how is keeping animals like hamsters and even rabbits or dogs, as pets (as opposed to meat or working animals) about survival?

Plus the survival argument concedes, a priori, that it is without the animal's consent. It's a justification, not a challenge of the Op double standard case.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The animal did not consent to that.

Nor did humans. We just happened to find ourselves at the top of the food chain. Humans didn't invent evolution....

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So how is keeping animals like hamsters and even rabbits or dogs, as pets (as opposed to meat or working animals) about survival?

Hmmm…

You are addressing a symbiotic relationship that is very realistically, if done responsibly, beneficial to both species involved.

Not, I’d think, a great example of what you are trying to get at.

 

[Juin]

The animal did not consent to that.

Nor did humans. We just happened to find ourselves at the top of the food chain. Humans didn't invent evolution....

You started by arguing there's no double standard but have so far not shown how there is none. Animals have not consented to abuse from humans for human survival.

 

[Michael Cole]

First, appologies if the title seems misleading. Such is not the intent.

The focus here is on consent itself, and is not limited to matters of sexuality. I had seen a video recently where the person was talking about how allowing homosexual activity was not the same as engaging in the act with children or animals because consent can be given by adults, whereas not by the other two. And children here are not the issue actually. Children eventually grow up to be able to give consent. And we talk about consent, and informed consent, for all kinds of topics, including medical and tattoos, and so much more. Even in simpler issues such as hugging, consent is a raised concern.

But when we look at animals we seem to be running a double standard. We say that one can't have sex with an animal because the animal can't give consent, and yet we do so much more with animals, and don't care whether they consent to it or not. For example, we use them as work beasts. Do we ask if they consent to being hook to a plow? We use them for food. Did they consent to that? We could look at some things, like milking, and make the point that we have moved to consent there, as many farms now use machines where the animal (usually cows) go into a milking stall by choice and are attached automatically to the machine. But in breeding, do they consent to the artificial insemination?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not making a claim that they need to be able to consent to these things. But, setting any ick factor aside, what makes the difference between what we claim they need consent for and what they do not? What makes one act equal to humans in the need for consent, and another act not need consent for the animal, but is needed for the human? That is the conflict that I am referring to.

For all that I disagree with it, I can at least see the logic and the consistency in a person saying that since animals don't need to consent to many of the other things we do to them, then they don't need to consent to the sex. Again, wrong, but at least consistent. And we have the people on the other side of the spectrum, who want the animals to be able to consent, if not in all things, then at least in many more than we do now. Again, consistent.

The argument is one of self-awareness. A child is limited in this area, and animals have little to none.

It's interesting that you note this isn't limited to sexuality. Arguments have been made that someone driving drunk is not capable of consent. Again, this goes to being aware.

This knife is double-edged. While it protects growing children, it also can be seen as "harmless" to animals. If a chicken isn't aware of its circumstances, is it really suffering? I don't know, but a chicken is different than a hog which is different than a pet which is different than a child.

Stories from 19th century stockyards tell of squealing screaming hogs as they were shackled and pulled into the Hurford Wheel where they met the sticker. These animals knew enough of what was happening to see the end in blood-curdling fear. Does a chicken know it's being slaughtered?

Anyway, the reasoning behind consent is related to a level of consciousness. Children are not aware as adults are. And someone driving with a 0.20 BAC is probably less aware than a 16 year old, yet we "allow" such people to consent to a breathalyzer. Seems inconsistent.

 

[maquiscat]

Off-Topic Discussion

Talk about any subject here.

debatepolitics.com

I had thought about that, but it seemed to weightly a topic to put there.

 

[maquiscat]

Why wouldn't it be?

You're changing the subject. You spoke about using them for work and food. THAT is about survival of the species. Playing frisbee with Fido is about something else that may or may not be related. If you want to debate how a symbiotic relationship like keeping pets, that's a different topic. Do you or do you not have anything to say about my POINT?

No I am not. My topic covers all animals under any conditions. Simply because I have only mentioned a few examples so far of what we do with animals, that doesn't mean the topic was limited to such. If anything you are the one shifting the topic by focusing on too specific an area. But even so, if you want to say that we can use them for survival purposes but not for non-survival purposes, then that means that we should not be raising animals for pets. Protection, service animals, you might even be able to push that for ESA's. But pets don't contribute to survival

 

[Feynman Lives!]

You started by arguing there's no double standard but have so far not shown how there is none.

I have not proven a negative? If you claim that there IS, then it's YOUR burden.

My ONLY argument is that we use animals (to eat or work) because evolution just happened to put us at the top of the food chain. So we consume and use animal for our survival (or continuation) as a species. You can question any other use of animals (like the OP questioned having them as pets). But that we are at the top of the food chain requires no proof.

Animals have not consented to abuse from humans for human survival.

Again: Humans didn't "consented" to it EITHER. Nobody has ever signed a paper "consenting" to require animal protein to feed, or using animals to produce food we need to survive. Nature didn't ask for our consent. It just put us where we are without asking.

 

[maquiscat]

Plus the survival argument concedes, a priori, that it is without the animal's consent. It's a justification, not a challenge of the Op double standard case.

It is a valid argument in and of itself. It holds as a premise that consent is not needed from animals for our survival, and anything outside of survival means we don't do it. However, it simply turns right back around and highlights the double standard even more.

 

[maquiscat]

Hmmm…

You are addressing a symbiotic relationship that is very realistically, if done responsibly, beneficial to both species involved.

Not, I’d think, a great example of what you are trying to get at.

I am simply addressing the "survival" aspect. Beneficial isn't automatically survival.

 

[maquiscat]

You started by arguing there's no double standard but have so far not shown how there is none. Animals have not consented to abuse from humans for human survival.

Which of course also brings us back to abuse, and whether we do anything other than abuse. We can call something humane, but what is that? Is killing it outright inhumane, or does the manner in which we kill it make a difference between whether it is abuse or not?

 

[Michael Cole]

No I am not. My topic covers all animals under any conditions. Simply because I have only mentioned a few examples so far of what we do with animals, that doesn't mean the topic was limited to such. If anything you are the one shifting the topic by focusing on too specific an area. But even so, if you want to say that we can use them for survival purposes but not for non-survival purposes, then that means that we should not be raising animals for pets. Protection, service animals, you might even be able to push that for ESA's.

But pets don't contribute to survival

They do. Beyond their original uses such as protection or pest control, pets give us comfort. We wouldn't keep them if there wasn't an evolutionary advantage. Pets are family members to many, and the way we feel about them is due to our social nature.