Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
False equivalency; I am not a cow.
My logic is sound and self consistent while yours depends on fallacies.
…can animals not be raped?
Of course they can, however artificially inseminating livestock is not rape. Nuance exists.
There is no nuance.
Rape means no consent was granted. We need communication to receive consent. We cannot communicate with cows.
You’re a shill for the dairy industry. You drink rape milk
doors dont consent for you to jam your keys in them.
Does the door bleed when you do that? Does it cry out in fear of rape, or of sadness of losing its child right after birth?
the issue was consent. are you conceding that consent is absurd from something that we cannot communicate with?
Animals can communicate with others in their species, meaning that they can obtain and give consent to others of their species. Just because humans cannot communicate with other non-human animals does not mean that the idea of consent is invalid or absurd.
The fact remains: we cannot receive consent from animals should we want to violate their bodily autonomy. It is always morally unjust to do this. The same is true when people neuter or spay their pets. Humans do this for their own benefit, to avoid behaviors in animals that occur if nothing is done, since not doing so would be inconvenient.
consent must be informed. animals can’t be informed anymore than a door can.
at least you are consistent on this point
this is a leap of logic.