Asklemmy

55845 readers

321 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

130

[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by when@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

271 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (7 children)

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

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

you seem to be creating a link between emotion and consent, but you haven't explicated any of it.

load more comments (5 replies)