VictoriaAScharleau

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

the post either is true or it is not. your characterization side steps any real discussion of the topic and it's, on its face, bad faith

and pretty much no one does that anyway

too fast. it needs a little more setup.

this is a strawman

"Other animals do it to each other, so why not us?" "Animals don't have sophisticated minds, so it doesn't actually cause them real suffering." "Humans need animal protein to be healthy." etc. All terribly weak arguments that are easily refuted.

if you care to articulate these refutations, i'd be fascinated to see how strong your arguments are.

Feelings aren't needed to be able to consent.

so why do you keep bringing it up? it's absurd to discuss consent from something that is incapable of consent.

Consent is needed if you do something with another being with feelings.

you haven't shown why you think this is reasonable from subjects which are incapable of consent, nor bothered to define feelings.

The problem is that sameness in one respect does not imply sameness in the respects that matter.

the only respect that matters, in this case, is the ability to consent.

since you concede that neither animals nor inanimate objects are capable of consent, surely you must know that the morality of an action regarding either cannot hinge on consent.

calling me names doesn't change whether what i wrote is true.

why are feelings important with regards to consent? consent is the ability to understand and agree. feelings have nothing to do with that. the ability to consent has nothing to do with feelings if you don't already have the ability to understand and agree.