Debunking animals cant consent

[Sissy_Misty]

So the biggest thing people have for zoo being wrong is that they can't consent.
So if that is the main hurdle they we need to cross it can be done.
I'm sure a lot of people have seen those animal videos where the owner can talk to there pets by training them to hit a button to answer. So if with that you just need to make a sex button and to train the animal to hit that button if they want sex.
Consent given.
Plus any dog owner would know if you got naked and on all four it would be only a matter of time before you get mounted.

 

[canecorso]

So the biggest thing people have for zoo being wrong is that they can't consent.

From my experience trying to debunk this before, I disagree. If you could prove beyond all doubt that animals can consent, they'd just find some other excuse to demonize it for.

Two reasons why: common folk would rather choke on their own words than to openly admit they're wrong (actually a consequence of society being too critical and dismissive of honestly "wrong and knowing it" people, which encourages ostracizing them rather than educating them, with the appropriate response from the person involved); and second, usually the common folk's main problem is that it's "disgusting" (read: a low-class act, diminishing of one's social status, "beneath me", "something that only desperate losers and psychopaths do"), but of course few would admit that openly, as it opens them to accusations of shallowness and bigotry in other areas.

Zoophilia just happens to be an acceptable target, because it's actually criminal in most of the world - perhaps shitting on it upholds one's status as a "proper, lawful" person. The window to honestly and openmindedly discuss WHY any given act is criminal in the first place is shut out for most people - "the gubmint knows better than I, it's their job!".

I just got an idea for a question I'd ask a curious antizoo: "If I gave you a million dollars, would you fuck a horse? And how would you fuck it?" That diverts away the initial disgust and makes it a hypothetical "dare".

 

[dogluver101]

you just need to make a sex button and to train the animal to hit that button if they want sex.

Exactly like some other member mentioned. All you just said was "training them for sex" That definitely does not help the consent logic.

 

[egoldstein]

From my experience trying to debunk this before, I disagree. If you could prove beyond all doubt that animals can consent, they'd just find some other excuse to demonize it for.

Absolutely, as soon as convincing evidence is presented, they just move the goalposts and hop directly over to some other talking point, typically without even acknowledging the consent.

Two reasons why: common folk would rather choke on their own words than to openly admit they're wrong (actually a consequence of society being too critical and dismissive of honestly "wrong and knowing it" people, which encourages ostracizing them rather than educating them, with the appropriate response from the person involved); and second, usually the common folk's main problem is that it's "disgusting" (read: a low-class act, diminishing of one's social status, "beneath me", "something that only desperate losers and psychopaths do"), but of course few would admit that openly, as it opens them to accusations of shallowness and bigotry in other areas.

Been my experience as well. The core objection, if you can them to discuss it long enough to get there, is that they find it disgusting. Hooray? I always encourage people to not engage in activities they find repulsive, but unless there's demonstratable harm from an action, there's no logical reason to prohibit or punish it.

 

[canecorso]

Been my experience as well. The core objection, if you can them to discuss it long enough to get there, is that they find it disgusting. Hooray? I always encourage people to not engage in activities they find repulsive, but unless there's demonstratable harm from an action, there's no logical reason to prohibit or punish it.

To play the devil's advocate a bit, the perceived demonstratable harm could be something as tangential as "it's corrupting our youth". What usually gave me more of a positive response wasn't trying to defend zoophilia on a moral ground, but rather doubling down on its immoral status, i.e. painting it as something "cool, edgy and mysterious". A self-aware weirdo with attitude always wins the popular vote over a moralistic weirdo that tries to convince everyone he's not. And I guess we zoos also need to accept that, in the grand scheme of society, we're "weirdoes".

 

[egoldstein]

To play the devil's advocate a bit, the perceived demonstratable harm could be something as tangential as "it's corrupting our youth". What usually gave me more of a positive response wasn't trying to defend zoophilia on a moral ground, but rather doubling down on its immoral status, i.e. painting it as something "cool, edgy and mysterious". A self-aware weirdo with attitude always wins the popular vote over a moralistic weirdo that tries to convince everyone he's not. And I guess we zoos also need to accept that, in the grand scheme of society, we're "weirdoes".

I think a person would have a very hard time showing evidence for that claim, not least of which is because it's circular. It is considered bad largely based on religious doctrines, so if anyone is found engaging in it there's no need to show harm because, due to the circular reasoning, it's inherently bad and doesn't need to be shown to be so. Unfortunately, logic and reason don't always guide society.

As for being a weirdo, I have no problem accepting that my behaviours are not typical, but nor are they outside the human norm or inherently harmful. In the bell curve of any behaviour anyone not close to the centerline is a weirdo. Those who engage heavily in learning, for example, are weirdos as would be athletes, and priests.

 

[pes]

You do not need any button training to demonstrate consent.
My dog comes to me an asks me for sex unprompted and when I refuse he vocally argues with me until I either give up or stand my ground and he gives up (for about 15 minutes ).
This is actually more than consent, the dog here is asking you for consent.

 

[egoldstein]

You do not need any button training to demonstrate consent.
My dog comes to me an asks me for sex unprompted and when I refuse he vocally argues with me until I either give up or stand my ground and he gives up (for about 15 minutes ).
This is actually more than consent, the dog here is asking you for consent.

Also, not to dismiss the importance of consent, but when I hear the "animals can't consent" it is applied only when sex is involved. Nobody seens to feel it's necessary to get Fido's consent to pet, to leash, to breed, to train for various purposes, to euthanize, to buy/sell, spay/neuter, or any of a host of other interactions. Why is it that consent becomes an important issue only when talking about things the person finds objectionable? It's almost as if consent were a red herring and they really didn't care about it.

 

[pes]

Also, not to dismiss the importance of consent, but when I hear the "animals can't consent" it is applied only when sex is involved. Nobody seens to feel it's necessary to get Fido's consent to pet, to leash, to breed, to train for various purposes, to euthanize, to buy/sell, spay/neuter, or any of a host of other interactions. Why is it that consent becomes an important issue only when talking about things the person finds objectionable?

Exactly. I forgot to mention that in my post.
Allowing animals to be able to consent would cause a lot of trouble in how we treat a lot of them. And we would all have to become vegan.
No organism ever is going to allow you to kill it to eat it.
So while animals can consent, the society can not allow that.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

Until the animal can sit in a box in front of a judge and give verbal consent in a clear and concise manner that cannot be questioned by anyone, you are dreaming

 

[canecorso]

Until the animal can sit in a box in front of a judge and give verbal consent in a clear and concise manner that cannot be questioned by anyone, you are dreaming

And even then they could blame coercion.

 

[egoldstein]

Until the animal can sit in a box in front of a judge and give verbal consent in a clear and concise manner that cannot be questioned by anyone, you are dreaming

So a mute person cannot give consent as they can't give it verbally?
I know what you meant, but pretty much the core of the issue are the assumptions we make that aren't always fully grounded.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

So a mute person cannot give consent as they can't give it verbally?
I know what you meant, but pretty much the core of the issue are the assumptions we make that aren't always fully grounded.

You defeated your own argument by trying to compare a person to an animal

 

[egoldstein]

And even then they could blame coercion.

Certainly, there's no argument that one can train a dog, horse, human, etc to perform an action. There's the classic experiement of the dog who's conditioned to ever greater electrical shocks who would voluntarilly go into the harness even long after the reinforcement was removed, same applies to all animals, even humans.

You defeated your own argument by trying to compare a person to an animal

Kindly explain how I defeated my own argument, humans are animals. We may have different abilities of engaging with our world, but at a fundamental level there's no difference between them; core principles of pleasure and harm, the desire to want one and avoid the other apply.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

Certainly, there's no argument that one can train a dog, horse, human, etc to perform an action. There's the classic experiement of the dog who's conditioned to ever greated electrical shocks who would voluntarilly go into the harness even long after the reinforcement was removed, same applies to all animals, even humans.



Kindly explain how I defeated my own argument, humans are animals. We may have different abilities of engaging with our world, but at a fundamental level there's no difference between them; core principles of pleasure and harm, the desire to want one and avoid the other apply.

Do we refer to others of our species as animals, or do we refer to them as "people/humans" ?

They are nothing alike in the eyes of the law, scientific community, and medical profession.
Which is ALL that matters

 

[egoldstein]

Do we refer to others of our species as animals, or do we refer to them as "people/humans" ?

They are nothing alike in the eyes of the law, scientific community, and medical profession.
Which is ALL that matters

If you are limiting yourself to a human-only perspective that's valid, but when discussing non-humans and their ability to consent to any particular activity that pretty much necessitates expanding the perspective. How does one even discuss the possibility of consent, when you limit it by rule to only humans?

As for the scientific community and medical professions, the two are indeed quite alike as has been acknowledged for centuries. If they were not, what would be the purpose of studying the development of say, zebrafish, or technology such as CISPR as perfecting it in other organisms for use in humans? One can get into an endless discussion on philosophical grounds, but I'm trying to avoid any of that and stick to demonstrable facts.

Getting the cooperative consent of a non-human is foundational in some fields, such as when working with non-humans for veterinary care. It is impractical to sedate for every possible procedure, so the use of consent-based cooperative care is much preferred and far less stressful for all parties involved.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

If you are limiting yourself to a human-only perspective that's valid, but when discussing non-humans and their ability to consent to any particular activity that pretty much necessitates expanding the perspective. How does one even discuss the possibility of consent, when you limit it by rule to only humans?

As for the scientific community and medical professions, the two are indeed quite alike as has been acknowledged for centuries. If they were not, what would be the purpose of studying the development of say, zebrafish, or technology such as CISPR as perfecting it in other organisms for use in humans? One can get into an endless discussion on philosophical grounds, but I'm trying to avoid any of that and stick to demonstrable facts.

Getting the cooperative consent of a non-human is foundational in some fields, such as when working with non-humans for veterinary care. It is impractical to sedate for every possible procedure, so the use of consent-based cooperative care is much preferred and far less stressful for all parties involved.

The point is we can treat them however we want whether we want to treat them as equals or even as our betters, however they will always be looked at as less than human as far as our standards go in law, medicine and science.

Which is why the consent issue can never be one no matter what we do, until such time as the animal in question can sit there and physically speak a language that we understand stating "nah I want this this was my idea"

 

[egoldstein]

The point is we can treat them however we want whether we want to treat them as equals or even as our betters, however they will always be looked at as less than human as far as our standards go in law, medicine and science.

Which is why the consent issue can never be one no matter what we do, until such time as the animal in question can sit there and physically speak a language that we understand stating "nah I want this this was my idea"

From a legal perspective, I don't disagree; legal systems often fail to treat even other humans equally. I am not so much discussing the legal perspective so much as the general concept of consent as the typical person seems to mean it; i.e. it's something the being wants and they can express that desire in a meaningful manner, a position pretty well accepted in the relevant scientific communities.

On that note, I hear a lot of times that non-humans are "instictual" in breeding, that they just do it because they're driven by hormones. To whit I tend to point out the vast numbers of people I know who ended up with children because they were lost in the moment and weren't thinking clearly about the consequences.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

From a legal perspective, I don't disagree; legal systems often fail to treat even other humans equally. I am not so much discussing the legal perspective so much as the general concept of consent as the typical person seems to mean it; i.e. it's something the being wants and they can express that desire in a meaningful manner, a position pretty well accepted in the relevant scientific communities.

On that note, I hear a lot of times that non-humans are "instictual" in breeding, that they just do it because they're driven by hormones. To whit I tend to point out the vast numbers of people I know who ended up with children because they were lost in the moment and weren't thinking clearly about the consequences.

I don't believe there's anything instinctive involved in my horse backing into me letting me know what she wants and when she wants it.

I'm just looking at things from a realist point of view as far as the world we live in

 

[28746]

To play the devil's advocate a bit, the perceived demonstratable harm could be something as tangential as "it's corrupting our youth". What usually gave me more of a positive response wasn't trying to defend zoophilia on a moral ground, but rather doubling down on its immoral status, i.e. painting it as something "cool, edgy and mysterious". A self-aware weirdo with attitude always wins the popular vote over a moralistic weirdo that tries to convince everyone he's not. And I guess we zoos also need to accept that, in the grand scheme of society, we're "weirdoes".

I like this point of view to be honest. It could probably help a lot of zoos who struggle with shame and stuff to acknowledge and comes to terms with the fact they're weirdos.

 

[canecorso]

Certainly, there's no argument that one can train a dog, horse, human, etc to perform an action. There's the classic experiement of the dog who's conditioned to ever greater electrical shocks who would voluntarilly go into the harness even long after the reinforcement was removed, same applies to all animals, even humans.

Well that's the thing. On some basal level, coercion essentially is even how parents teach their kids, so trying to excise it from society entirely is not only stupid, but also impossible. A child will effectively never wash his teeth on his own volition, even though it's a good and reasonable habit to acquire in the long run (but a small kid won't really figure that out, since they don't really plan for the future yet). Coercion is far more insidious and widespread than people like to admit, even in common adult-adult relationships where it's "legal" and people think nothing of it.

 

[egoldstein]

Well that's the thing. On some basal level, coercion essentially is even how parents teach their kids, so trying to excise it from society entirely is not only stupid, but also impossible. A child will effectively never wash his teeth on his own volition, even though it's a good and reasonable habit to acquire in the long run (but a small kid won't really figure that out, since they don't really plan for the future yet). Coercion is far more insidious and widespread than people like to admit, even in common adult-adult relationships where it's "legal" and people think nothing of it.

As I see it, we cannot avoid influencing behavior except by removing ourselves from the environment entirely. I focus almost entirely on discernable harm as coersion is hard to objectively define. I lure a dog with a treat into a sitting position, deliver the treat and make a physical change in the dog's body (neural pathways are built) - no coersion. I lure a dog into a sit with a treat and put pressure on it's hips to assist the sit, I have applied force, so is that coersion? If not, when is it? Intention and motive also matter and define on a moral level, the character and quality of the action. The same action can be a good one or a bad one depending entirely on the intention. I lure a dog into a sit, due to my impatience I force the dogs hips downward to make it sit; clearly coercive. I lure a dog into a sit, it does not respond correctly and I must make it sit for the veterinarian to provide critial care; coercive, but different than the previous. So long as there's no harm, these are all acceptable though some are preferable to others.

 

[based and dogpilled]

Part of me feels that trying to "legitimize" the practice is going the wrong way with things. Going back and forth on ethical questions, trying to win over the general population. Thoughts and ideas, and the way they spread and take root in the minds of people, sometimes it's easier to go in the other direction. Right-wing and neo-nazi ideology has taken hold in the west, despite being wrong and bad in the eyes of the majority, with a viral approach. Spreading ideas, ideas that people might know are wrong and bad, but feel good to entertain and appeal to their most base emotions and desires. And once the lowest common denominator has been reached, they build their power from the bottom up. From individuals, to local communities, to the government.

Not that the moral questions shouldn't also be tackled. But people are more likely to agree with you if they're sympathetic to your cause, and they're more likely to be sympathetic to a cause that's frowned upon by the public if deep down they have those thoughts and feelings too.