>

Having a pet is not always captivity, I had an outdoor cat that was my pet, it was it's choice to live with me, most pets would choose the home they know or people they feel comfortable with... most pet will not choose to have sex with a human
/u/OnePhotoPerMonth (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


Neither can a cat consent to be held 

I dare you to pick up a cat against it's will.
Cats are a wonderful way to teach children about consent. >

I've seen a vet tech in literal falconry gloves cowering in fear of doing that, heh. >

Per your third point, a parent will, as a matter of course, train their child and they will sometimes keep them in captivity. This is considered to be normal and acceptable. Sex with a child still isn't. Even if they initiate it. >

As I said in the post, you have to explain why what applies to humans applies to animals to. A child is a human, it's not acceptable to have sex with him because he has or will have a certain understanding and concept of sexuality >

I've shown that there's one category of beings that we train and keep in captivity and don't think it's moral to have sex with. Training and captivity are therefore not sufficient to make sex moral. Therefore your third point is incorrect. >


I've shown that there's one category of beings

My post isn't about "beings", it is about animals, therefore showing that my point isn't valid for some beings (especially if we are talking of humans, for which we have higher standards than animals, see murder) does not show that it's not valid for the animals >

What it shows is that your argument doesn't hold. Animals can't consent. That's why bestiality is wrong. >


Animals can't consent.

So is having a pet wrong?