>


dogs (for the most part) stay with their owner even if said owner is abusive and starving it, that doesn't mean it isn't suffering.

But per your own example, you can't know if it is suffering, maybe it likes to be beaten? I'd say we can fairly say when an animal is suffering and when it is not, even in your case it will mostly avoid the owner.

Again: whataboutism. You're justifying an act by saying that something else is also wrong, not by saying the act itself is justifiable. Whether I agree that animals should be kept as pets or not is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, because morality must be coherent, and if a thing is wrong because respect and goes against certain moral principles, then everything that respect and goes against the same moral principles must be considered equally wrong. If you are not willing to address other aspects of your "moral value scale" while talking about moral values you're debating in bad faith.

Then what's the point? 

I was anticipating a certain counterargument, see in the post
/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? >

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 >

But there are pets which are not outdoors pet, thus would be "kept in captivity" >

You said a cat can't consent, I gave you a scenario where a cat can consent. >

Ok, I admit you have disproved my argument, but I think doing so you've also disproved the argument made against bestiality, am I wrong? You're literally saying that an animal can consent, is that right? >

I am saying a cat can make a choice about where they live. Just because they can do that does not mean they can consent to everything you can think of. >

Can a cat consent to be trained? >

explain that more please. >


It makes the animal suffer. Not necessarily, there are animals (eg donkeys) with a penis much larger than the human's one, which for this reason wouldn't hurt the female animal.

"Not necessarily" isn't a point here, as the animal has literally no way of telling you it's suffering. You might think the sounds it's making are something they're not, and at that point you're just guessing for them.
This is the equivalent of saying you probably wouldn't hurt a coma patient if you fucked their body, because said coma patient has taken bigger dicks before, so it's ok.  

The animal can't consent. Neither can a cat consent to be held as a pet, or to be trained.

Whataboutism.
Also, this isn't even set in stone, as we don't have enough documented history of how domestication happened. There's arguments to this day that dogs/wolves approached humans first, by basically scavenging what we left behind, so it wasn't a situation where we suddenly caught a few hundred wolves and caged them into submission.  

which a male animal take the initiative to have sex with a woman, on which case I'd say it is doing it because it's desirable.

It's doing it on instinct, and that's not an argument towards consent. A child or teenager could also start the sexual advances towards an adult, that doesn't make the adult any less guilty or make it any less of a crime. "They came onto me first" isn't a defense for this. >


"Not necessarily" isn't a point here, as the animal has literally no way of telling you it's suffering

Animals avoid suffering; now consider an animal that is the active part in the sexual act: it is not avoiding it. So you haven't made a valid argument and my view hasn't changed, but you have disproved my point, should I award you a delta (honest technical question)?

Whataboutism.

Not an argument. If you're willing to say that we shouldn't keep animals as pet, that's another thing. 
About the evolutionary aspect, the fact the consider again an animal that is the active part and initiate the sexual act. 

It's doing it on instinct, and that's not an argument towards consent

That wasn't an argument toward consent >


should I award you a delta (honest technical question)?  

I'm fairly new to the sub, so I have no idea.  

Animals avoid suffering; now consider an animal that is the active part in the sexual act: it is not avoiding it.

Animals avoid relative suffering, not all suffering. Obviously there's no catch-all example for every animal on the planet, but dogs (for the most part) stay with their owner even if said owner is abusive and starving it, that doesn't mean it isn't suffering.
​

Not an argument. If you're willing to say that we shouldn't keep animals as pet, that's another thing.

Again: whataboutism. You're justifying an act by saying that something else is also wrong, not by saying the act itself is justifiable. Whether I agree that animals should be kept as pets or not is irrelevant.
​

That wasn't an argument toward consent

Then what's the point? Saying it's "desirable" isn't an argument for it being morally justifiable whatsoever. Someone wanting to die doesn't justify you pulling the trigger, you'll still be a murderer.