Without turning this into a motherlode of a debate, I say...
Actually, animals can 'legally' (according, parallel of human year conversions to dog years, and time-of-post-puberty in humans and dogs research comparison) consent once at the age of post-adolescence (post-puberty) and over (2 years); the age of maturity, consent, and majority in humans is 18; dogs mature much faster, therefore the age is 2, not 18. My dog is within age, and hence has the capacity to consent. I am NOT a pedophile, or bestiosexualist. I am a zoosexual.
My dog is fully adult (2 years is majority, consent, and maturity, and he is above that); is never harmed; initiates (I rarely do) in sex; and has a mind, even if it has lower intellectual intelligence, unlike humans, even though there is no proof either sides (therefore any argument is lawfully invalidated), because psychology is invisible and indecipherable to scientific study and research, - empirically and theoretically.
I am in great favour for AR, not ARA (because they are OTT); I want animals to have rights, but are you sure you aren't being speciesist and compromising the sex lives of animals; if so, you do not respect animal liberation; your views are twisted by religion and false morals, IMHO.
My I ask:
Does an animal consent to being locked in a cage?
Does an animal consent to being eaten?
Does an animal consent to being tested on?
Does an animal consent to being bathed?
Does an animal consent to consuming foodstuffs and liquids; not limited to, but including, - dog food and water; and medical products.
Does an animal consent to being 'fixed'?
Does an animal consent to being 'destroyed'?
Baring in mind, we are excluding humans here, in a suprem-speciesist way; violating the true freedoms of animals; dominating your intellectual intelligence and opinions above others, human and non-human matter, in this case. May I ask, how do you dare tread in places where only the warmongers of debates dare tread? What I do to hurt you? Why is your opinion superior to mine? Have you done any research, or do you just listen to biased sources?
Where are your sources?
I have sources, so please enlighten me with yours; I asked first.
I never hold my dog down, nor do I ever name him a 'dog', he is a person; not some 'thing' with a lower importance (and including, but not limited to, intellectual intelligence) to a human, like you.
You say, it can't 'affirm' or 'negate' in speech, but do you understand whether someone with another language, is saying 'yes' or 'no'; do you understand whether someone who can't speak (a mute), is saying 'yes' or 'no', no, right; it is the same, humans ARE animals; dogs are mammals, and in the layers of DNA between different humans, you define a theoretical 'classification', to say that 'dogs' are impartially, genetically 'different' to 'humans' in their way of thinking. Who said that; their bodies may be different, but we are mammals; inter-specific contact spreads primate diseases between primates; and having sex with non-mammals is of unknown knowledge for welfare (due to their differences), but still, even they are animals; do they think different? Are you a non-human animal?
Like a mute, or someone speaking a foreign language; and before the times of organised vocal language in humans; how did humans communicate? With body language; and guess what? Mammals and other animals (that mimic mammal beharviour) are quite capable of communicating via the use of body language, as with humans. This has been proven; the consent issue has been interned, it is incorrect and wrong, until proven not; but with extensive studies, already, the consent issue has been clarified, and the answer is 'animals above the age of maturity can consent, and have reached the state of majority'.
So you think non-human animals can't make decisions, another speciesist remark; they can, especially dogs, in fact, even bacteria can; science says, - we all follow the clockwork of particles, so all decisions that we 'apparently' make, are not made by 'us', but instead, all the choices and opinions we make, are based on the most logical path of the universe's flow, resulting in negativity and positivity from the lower substitutes, a flaw in the human mind's design; in fact, a flaw in all things. But from a philosophical and empirical point of view, you are misunderstanding, that 'animals', as in 'non-human animals' can't choose, because of their low intellectual intelligence; but truly, if the 'animal' enjoys the act, and does not suffer, what's wrong? You could also turn the debate on its head, by saying 'Who's to say humans can consent, and make the right choices, like they think you do?' You think other animals are any different, do you? On its head again, we can say: - Well, how come humans live in cages, we call 'houses', and work in offices all day, we call 'survival/hunting for money for food', is truly civilised behaviour, surely that's the wild angle of our ways?
If your opinion matters, and if mine does; two negations to each other, crosses the argument out; I can say 'Both opinions are as bad as each other.' And if that is so, no argument is correct, or incorrect; everything is equal, just the minds of people, choose to ignore that. Are you sure humans can consent, to their own deeds? If so, tell me what's the difference; when it is proven in all other areas, animals truly do consent.
Helpful answers only, please.
