Been computerless for the past couple days, so it took me longer than normal to respond to this. I didn't really to type all this on my phone.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I disagree, I believe this is that. Especially in discussions involving the opposing views of two specific people such as you and I. We have established that you believe animals have the same kinds of rights of consent as humans, so do you personally believe that getting an animal fixed or(more relevantly) artificially inseminated without their consent is wrong? I've seen you post, you seem to be both intelligent and well spoken, if there are major differences then you should be able to articulate them.
Tzeentch already pointed this out. Sexual agency isn't the same thing as population control. Personally, I'm not even sure we should own pets
at all, but we do, and controlling their population is important for humans and arguably for the animals themselves. Unwanted pets frequently just get dumped in the streets, and homeless animals are something we want to avoid.
Stray animals impact human life in real ways, and are usually doomed to shit lives compared to their housepet counterparts. There's evidence that neutered pets legitimately live longer.
We're not even getting into things like the spread of illness, the impact of strays on local wildlife, and even impact on the local economy.
Regardless, and I've pointed this out before, even if you believe issue B to be wrong, then you should want to eradicate issue B, not perpepuate issue A. "Two wrongs don't make right" is a cliche, but it's accurate.
Originally posted by darthgoober
It is relevant for whether or not the dog's "rights" are being violated. Dog's will have sex with all kinds of shit, they don't have the same kind of lingering issues about it that humans do. While some breeds may have a potential IQ approaching that of a young child their minds still function in fundamentally different ways than a human's. When they have have reached adulthood and have achieved an IQ of a young child... that's as sexually mature as they're ever going to get. If they enjoy it while it's happening, they're not going to wake up with night terrors about it 5 years down the road. If they want to do it in the moment, that's consent for them. If the animals's not actually suffering physically or at least in his own mind, then no real harm is befalling him. So anyone objecting isn't actually objecting about harm to the dog, but rather how the interaction makes THEM feel. It's no different than people who want to ban stuff like porn or stripping even when those directly involved are totally cool with it.
We don't actually know for sure if dogs have lingering issues over it.
We do know that dogs can suffer emotional damage and actually have pretty good long term memories though. I think you're confusing lack of ability to
communicate distress and actually experiencing them. Infants, straight up, have been known to masturbate. Despite it "not being sexual" for them, it doesn't mean you should let a curious child tickle your butthole if they reach for it.
This whole comparison is silly though. In all honesty, many children won't necessarily recall sexual abuse that happened early in life. It doesn't make the action justifiable. I'd be interested in talking about sex as social construct with you, but it's probably best to err on the side of caution no?
And yes, it is in fact different from porn and stripping. Those are comprised of adult who have the ability to consent to the acts they do. The dog and kid can't.
That's kind of the crux of this issue we keep coming back to. Consent, which the dog is mentally incapable of giving. The fact that we "ignore" it for medical procedures doesn't change that tbh.