The very point that animals do not consent is the foundation of my moral argument.
My, or anyone else's feelings aside, the reason that animals are slaughtered, used for medical testing, etc. is that they do not consent. This continues to be an ongoing debate, and includes subjects like benefits to society, etc. that are too numerous to list here. For years, the "zoophile" crowd would work this very argument as a lame attempt at legitimacy: Animals don't consent, they're our property, therefore we should be free to do whatever we want with them too. The problem is that argument has never been able to stand up to the moral and legal arguments in regards to animal cruelty. So, conveniently they are trying to double back and say that consent can be given by an animal. This is equally ridiculous. How 'bout them apples?
The very point that animals do not consent is the foundation of my moral argument.
My, or anyone else's feelings aside, the reason that animals are slaughtered, used for medical testing, etc. is that they do not consent. This continues to be an ongoing debate, and includes subjects like benefits to society, etc. that are too numerous to list here. For years, the "zoophile" crowd would work this very argument as a lame attempt at legitimacy: Animals don't consent, they're our property, therefore we should be free to do whatever we want with them too. The problem is that argument has never been able to stand up to the moral and legal arguments in regards to animal cruelty. So, conveniently they are trying to double back and say that consent can be given by an animal. This is equally ridiculous. How 'bout them apples?