Is the Harkness Test a valid means of determining consent? - Named after Capt. Jack Harkness from Dr. Who.

[California Newt]

I voted yes. It's a good way to determine consent. That being said, consent is only one of the ingredients that makes sex ok. You also need to be able to produce a viable pregnancy (or at least leave the possibility open and hope for the best in the case of barrenness) and get the go-ahead from God, which I don't think is the case for anything but human beings.

Like, trust me, I'm not here advocating for the right to fuck dragons with impunity, but these rules are clearly meant to differentiate between "hyper-intelligent species who just happens to be eldritch tentacle monsters" and pikachu.

I think Pikachu qualifies, actually. Personally I wouldn't, but he qualifies. I'm pretty sure he understands human language, as do most if not all Pokemon.

@Feral Postie

You're right on all points. This is also what I would consider the strongest argument zoos could make to support their desires. Ignoring the ick factor it's extremely hard to argue they're worse than (or even on the same level as) people legally abusing and killing billions of animals for us to quite literally eat.

This isn't something 99.999% of people are willing to consider because they have to confront their cognitive dissonance and it ends in one of two ways: 1) having sex with animals is okay, or 2) eating meat is wrong and we need to stop.

Veganism really is the only logically consistent belief system when it comes to animals and how they should be treated.

Nah veganism is emotivist and arbitrary made-up pseudo-ethics, like most (all) secular ethical systems. See the attached pdf.

The problem with animal rape isn't just the cruelty, it's what it does to your soul.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

This isn't about helping humans, it's about determining consent. @Hardline Traditionalist is correct in that we already don't care about consent of animals when it comes to murdering them, so logic follows that if we're okay with killing them without consent it's stupid to concern ourselves with consent to sex.

Again there are only two possible outcomes to rectify this contradiction if we want to be logically consistent. I personally would argue that since we can't get consent from animals we shouldn't be exploiting them in any way whatsoever.

Thing is when we slaughter animals we do it with minimal pain. Bestiality is a type of animal torture.

The whole "consent" part of the rul is just tumblr speak. It's all about morality.

 

[SentinentCloud]

i consent to total furry death

 

[HeraldofNurgle]

I feel like there should be a 4th question for the test.

4. Would having sex with this creature put it or yourself in danger of injury or other medical distress?

This completely rules out creatures like talking feral animals, as fucking something like a dog always leads to severe medical problems for the animal (and sometimes the human) in question. I don't think I need to elaborate how dangerous it is. The zoonotic diseases, the size difference, the increased rate of cancers, it's just generally not a good idea and abhorrently degenerate.

I don't care if some magical talking dog asks you to fuck it in three different languages. Having sex with it is morally wrong because you will cause them damage that they might never recover from. It's the same reason why I feel like bug chasers and people with other fetishes that cause permanent damage to another need to be locked up. Putting your sexual desires over a living beings' ability to live life without pain or misery is evil.

So in a nutshell, I feel like humans are only really compatible with each other or something like star trek aliens that have a common ancestor. The rest I feel like would end with one or both participants suffering from some aliment down the line.

 

[Whatevermancer]

You may not like it but humans are omnivores. Used to hunt, now we used money to get it prepared for us.
Meat is on the menu boys ! ( sorry, I had to do it. ) that being said I'm against ritual killings, whatever's quickest is the best way and if you want to eat meat, you should be able to kill an animal you raised.

Yes, as I've said, the predator doesn't care if prey consents to getting eaten.

it's just generally not a good idea and abhorrently degenerate.

Yes. Having sex with animals is not evil because of consent or some other rational reason, it's evil because it feels viscerally wrong.

 

[Feral Postie]

Thing is when we slaughter animals we do it with minimal pain.

No one who has seen slaughter videos or in person could ever claim that. We kill animals in the most efficient way for us, not the least painful way for them.

That's not even getting into some traditional methods of slaughter that we still tolerate today.

 

[Vecr]

Yes, as I've said, the predator doesn't care if prey consents to getting eaten.

Yes. Having sex with animals is not evil because of consent or some other rational reason, it's evil because it feels viscerally wrong.

That does not make it irrational.

No one who has seen slaughter videos or in person could ever claim that. We kill animals in the most efficient way for us, not the least painful way for them.

I agree that should be worked on.

I voted yes. It's a good way to determine consent.

I disagree, but it's hard to say why exactly. @Harvey Danger makes a good start. The concept of consent might be too subtle to encode into a set of rules with current capabilities.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

harkness test is valid only under the precursor that it is a fictional being.
TZD

 

[Vecr]

harkness test is valid only under the precursor that it is a fictional being.
TZD

I think a lot of people (well, a "lot" of very online people) care even in fictional cases. There's probably something to that.

Veganism attempts to limit animal cruelty and the exploitation of animals as much as possible.

Have you heard of the term ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) before? In the US, the problem is nuclear power plants are required to reduce their already very low radiation emissions according to a strange linear model, and make them "as low as reasonably achievable". This isn't about large-scale or catastrophic releases, that's obviously something that has to be prevented, but very small releases, consistent over time.

---

The problem is, they have to keep spending more and more money to reduce less and less absolute radiation amount, until the plants cost too much money and people start building coal plants instead that release way more radiation than the nuclear plants were releasing even before ALARA.

---

This is not good, and I think similar reasoning could be applied to veganism. You need to stop before you make things worse overall, and you also need to stop before there's a backlash and people decide they don't care about animals at all.

---

Relating back to the thread, I don't think "not screwing animals" has the same problem. You're probably not going to get a blacklash unless you go insanely draconian (even post Hitler and Singer animal rights is doing okay, so I'm talking total crazy town), because it's not something a huge number of people depend on. Animal products on the other hand really do make the world better even now. You can try to reduce their uses, but think of the side effects.

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

In the sci-fi community and occasionally the furry community

Kill yourself

 

[Feral Postie]

Kill yourself

Typical zoomer: reads a few words, gets upset, lashes out, can't read a complete sentence much less an entire post.

 

[Devout Muslim]

The problem is, they have to keep spending more and more money to reduce less and less absolute radiation amount, until the plants cost too much money and people start building coal plants instead that release way more radiation than the nuclear plants were releasing even before ALARA.

All major hazard industries across EU/England/ANZ have to comply with ALARP under the relevant Seveso/COMAH/MHF legislation. It’s not an endless money pit, they can stop by proving that the cost of further controls are grossly disproportionate to the statistical value of lives saved. Usually they can just assert it without proving it.

What standard are US nuclear power plants held to?

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

This isn't about helping humans, it's about determining consent. @Hardline Traditionalist is correct in that we already don't care about consent of animals when it comes to murdering them, so logic follows that if we're okay with killing them without consent it's stupid to concern ourselves with consent to sex.

Again there are only two possible outcomes to rectify this contradiction if we want to be logically consistent. I personally would argue that since we can't get consent from animals we shouldn't be exploiting them in any way whatsoever.

What contradiction? It's only a contradiction if consent is your only moral standard for literally everything, but it's obvious that morality is involves a lot more standards that have to be weighed against each other.

Yes, people don't ask for an animal's consent before slaughtering them and a zoophile doesn't ask for consent before violating an animal, but they are not morally equivalent and it's not inconsistent to support the former while being against the latter. Technically it is inconsistent if consent is your only metric, but that's a very narrow way of looking at things.

For one, animal slaughter can theoretically be done painlessly. Raping an animal is uncomfortable no matter what. Second, as other users said, animal slaughter serves a useful purpose because a diet without meat likely to deprive you of essential nutrients. There are few alternatives. Meanwhile, some horny degenerate who wants to bugger animals doesn't NEED to use a real live animal to satisfy himself, and I would assume that most zoophiles aren't even exclusively attracted to animals. They can literally choose to have sex with people but because they're sick in the head don't find alternative ways to satisfy themselves that don't involve raping an animal.

I appreciate how concerned about animals you (apparently) are in your posts but your being a furry seriously puts your motives into question. Willingly associating yourself with a community infamous for being a bunch of freaks, and then asking questions about animal consent in Kiwifarms of all places expecting to be taken at face value. Lmao, what? I suspect you're trying to trap people into justifying zoophilia in some roundabout way.

Maybe I'm too paranoid but it seems like your goal is to:
Step 1. Make people think eating meat is morally inconsistent. As in make them think you cannot be okay with eating meat without also being okay with zoophilia. So they either have to be okay with both or okay with neither.
Step 2. Obviously as you've seen how hostile people are to being told they can't eat meat, you'd expect them to choose the latter option which is to think that both zoophilia and meat eating are okay, so the furries score a win in becoming socially accepted.

If that's your goal, then all I can say is fuck you.

 

[Feral Postie]

and then asking questions about animal consent in Kiwifarms of all places expecting to be taken at face value. Lmao, what? I suspect you're trying to trap people into justifying zoophilia in some roundabout way.

We're at a point where you can't even have uncomfortable discussions on the mainstream web most of the time. I've gotten the impression that isn't the case here and that one can.

Maybe I'm too paranoid but it seems like your goal is to:
Step 1. Make people think eating meat is morally inconsistent. As in make them think you cannot be okay with eating meat without also being okay with zoophilia. So they either have to be okay with both or okay with neither.
Step 2. Obviously as you've seen how hostile people are to being told they can't eat meat, you'd expect them to choose the latter option which is to think that both zoophilia and meat eating are okay, so the furries score a win in becoming socially accepted.

I really don't think people should eat meat. My position is that both eating animals and fucking them are bad things.

Of course people are hostile to being told they shouldn't eat meat because that implies they're doing an immoral thing and harming animals...which they are.

This discussion however was originally not about eating animals OR fucking real animals, it was about an argument/justification that people online make in relation to fictional creatures.

 

[grimacefetishist]

The Harkness test is halfway correct. If it doesn't have the ability to refuse then that's a no go, but being able to speak isn't a 1 to 1 situation with that.

 

[Lightsaber Dildo]

Yes, it is. I don't know why the retards in this thread are comparing a standard made strictly for fictional creatures to fucking real animals though.
Real animals don't pass the harkness test, and zoophiles wouldn't give a shit about the harkness test to begin with.
Letting degenerates live rent-free in your head must be a pretty miserable existence.

 

[Vecr]

The Harkness test is halfway correct. If it doesn't have the ability to refuse then that's a no go, but being able to speak isn't a 1 to 1 situation with that.

Being able to refuse is absolutely an aspect, but I'm not sure adding that to the test would be enough. Consent is probably more subtle than that.

I really don't think people should eat meat. My position is that both eating animals and fucking them are bad things.

Of course people are hostile to being told they shouldn't eat meat because that implies they're doing an immoral thing and harming animals...which they are.

Yes, but... Things can be much worse than other things without either being optimal, right? I think it would be a good exercise for you to quantify that if you can.

 

[Feral Postie]

Yes, but... Things can be much worse than other things without either being optimal, right? I think it would be a good exercise for you to quantify that if you can.

Than I'll take the position of the legal system: murder is worse than rape, but both should be harshly punished.

The worst part of all this is that the animal agriculture business relies on both the killing and sexual abuse of animals to exist in its current form.

There is no argument you can make to convince me that:

1) Killing is okay when you're killing animals for food when you have alternatives.
2) Forcible impregnation (among other things) is okay when it's to produce either more livestock, or to keep livestock (milk cows) productive.

 

[Karen of Human Resources]

Nah veganism is emotivist and arbitrary made-up pseudo-ethics, like most (all) secular ethical systems. See the attached pdf.

The problem with animal rape isn't just the cruelty, it's what it does to your soul

>Actual material living creature with memories, feelings and a capacity for pain is irrelevant.

>Unverified fantasy McGuffin's welfare is the real problem with dog fucking.

You're giving me the impression the only reason the God Squad isn't raping dogs is because their imaginary freind doesn't like it, and they would be pro dog fucking otherwise.

 

[California Newt]

>Actual material living creature with memories, feelings and a capacity for pain is irrelevant.

>Unverified fantasy McGuffin's welfare is the real problem with dog fucking.

You're giving me the impression the only reason the God Squad isn't raping dogs is because their imaginary freind doesn't like it, and they would be pro dog fucking otherwise.

You're apparently not able to distinguish between you not liking something, and that thing being "wrong". When an Atheist (and especially a vegan) says that something is "wrong", what they mean is that they don't like it. I don't like it either, but that doesn't make it "wrong". Can you as an atheist explain why causing pain, ending life etc. are "wrong" rather than just "things that make you uncomfortable"?

Are you physically able to stop ignorantly shrieking at positions you haven't taken the time to understand—you were given a pdf to help you understand, and you didn't look at it—are you able to stop shrieking long enough to ask yourself that one simple question? What makes something "wrong" as opposed to just "uncomfortable for me"? Can you do that?

Obviously I believe that there's such a thing as the human conscience, but if it's not rooted in something concrete beyond our own feelings—and if you bring up some blind, chaotic, and mindless a-teleological process like "evolution" as though it's able to ground any kind of ethics, I'm gonna lose it—then there's no reason to follow it (the conscience) any more or less than our cravings for Reese's Pieces and frozen yogurt.

There are plenty of solid rational proofs and arguments for God. One of them is in the pdf I posted (that you clearly didn't read, as it also blows your naive utilitarian pseudo-ethic out of the water). Apply yourself.