@miria They don't care about consent, and they probably wouldn't argue it, just wellbeing. If they actually argue about consent that's obviously retarded.

If you want to make a similar point about consent, talk about the fact you need to continually impregnate cows to have them give birth to then take their calves away and repeat and repeat so they keep producing milk forever. Artificial insemination in general, but the milk thing is especially traumatising to them

@miria @applejack I think you're missing the point. There is no consent involved here, the point is to get the end product (meat) while trying to minimize suffering, which is why they are killed as quickly, and mercifully, as possible. Unless you're jewish I guess, in which case it's as sadistically as possible

@whyyes @applejack But you're also missing the point because I'm talking about people who argue that sex with animals should be illegal because animals supposedly can't consent to sex, while they also can't consent to being slaughtered.

@miria @applejack I'm not here to argue about the ethics of dogfucking. I explained why it is the way it is (obtaining meat vs a sex toy) and that's all I intend to do.

@whyyes @applejack
>the ethics of dogfucking
This thread was never about the ethics of dogfucking. It was about people's irrational arguments being irrational.
>a sex toy
This thread isn't about sex toys.