Anatoly Karlin @powerfultakes

Replying to @RichardHanania

I’m against legalizing bestiality because the animal consent problem hasn’t been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to Al (at least for the higher animals with complex languages). So why not wait a few more years. I don’t see disgust as a good reason. It was an evolutionary adaptation of the agricultural era against the spread of zoonotic illnesses, but technology will soon make that entirely irrelevant as well.

  • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s no animal I’m aware of that has a mental capacity beyond that of a child. We don’t think children are capable of giving consent - are we clearing the way to legalise paedophilia too, or are there animals with the mental capacity to provide informed consent that only lack the ability to communicate that consent?

    Spoiler: It’s not a communication issue. If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.

    • sue_me_please@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.

      It’s always funny realizing those who think they’re asking the tough questions that others aren’t smart enough to consider only ever talk about the same handful of topics: putting down minorities, advocating white supremacy, whining about anyone to the left of Pinochet and fucking animals/kids.

      Like that’s 95% of the content on the Motte or "I"DW.

      • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        lgbt rights bad because Chesterton fence something something.

        also

        Consent standards:

        (╯°o°)╯︵ ┻━┻

        (ᕗ ͠° ਊ ͠° )ᕗ [dolphussy]

        • bitofhope@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton’s fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative (“show me this thing is not actually beneficial”) but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it’s good actually!

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kinda makes you wonder what they’d be capable of if they stopped spending all their time whining that they can’t say the thing they never fucking shut up about.

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        or "I"DW.

        ah yes the interminable dork web

        are they still running that theme?

        (e: shower thought, had a better i)

        • sue_me_please@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not after all of the “intellectuals” showed their asses on Twitter or in real life lol

          Can only play that card as long as you don’t give away your hand by being a complete moron in public over and over again

    • SharkAttak@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering that US Republicans are OK with marrying and impregnating 12y olds, everything is possible, sadly.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        …and that’s just what they openly advocate for - It sickens me to contemplate the bit they’re too uncomfortable to share.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t want to endorse dolphin fucking or whatever but idk if we can necessarily very accurately map non human intelligence onto stages of human intelligence development. Like human children can idk stack blocks but they’re also very emotionally volatile and forgetful. Whales can’t stack blocks but they have a lot of emotional stability, good memories, and large stable social groups. How do you map between that? They’re not human.

      In some ways non human animals appear very similar, especially other mammals and their social relationships and emotions. In other ways they appear very different. They’re their own thing and I think overly simplifying their minds by trying to work out some human age equivalent will just mislead us. It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.

      • 200fifty@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.

        as a pig that can do calculus, this explains why I’m still single

        • AVincentInSpace
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          you went to college for calculus and the only job you could find was in law enforcement? damn guess biden’s economy really is shit /s

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed - and for that reason (particularly when balanced against the questionable benefit), I think it’s wise to err on the side of caution.

    • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Philosophical question: if brutally torturing and murdering billions of animals is fine, why do we draw the line at sex? I’m a vegetarian and have never ideated it, but the position is untenable.

      • self@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        HMMMMM I WONDER

        shots are on me tonight, vegetarian reply guy with pretend opinions was my last square before blackout!

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think your framing is flawed (I don’t think it’s an issue of consent so much as it’s an issue of creating animal suffering for personal benefit), but I broadly agree - I personally get past the hypocrisy because I have no interest in fucking animals, and push the suffering I cause by eating animal products to the back of my mind and pretending it’s not a thing. Responsibility is also meaningfully abstracted in the food example, making it far easier to pretend you’re not at fault compared to having a chicken impaled on your dick.

        In a similar way, people consuming products made in sweatshops and people downloading CSA material are both exploiting children.