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

Is the Harkness Test a valid means of determining consent?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
It all pretty much goes into the assumption that:
1. Aliens also fuck like humans or can simulate sex.
2. Aliens stance on sex and emotional maturity is identical to modern western values (at least I hope it includes emotional maturity as part of it, since humans have sexual maturity before 18 but the main issue is the emotional/intellectual part).
3. You won't kill yourself by exposing yourself to whatever biological components aliens have.
 
The question is not "is it a valid means of determining consent", the question is "what kind of sick freak considers Scooby Doo sexually attractive?" Cause Scooby Doo passes the Harkness test.
1724504402688.png

Also, in general when it comes to animals, nobody gives a shit whether they consent or not. Nobody asks a pig whether it consents to be slaughtered, nobody asks their cat whether it wants to be sterilized, and of course, nobody asks thousands of baby male chicks if they 're ok with being thrown into a meatgrinder.
 
Nobody asks a pig whether it consents to be slaughtered, nobody asks their cat whether it wants to be sterilized, and of course, nobody asks thousands of baby male chicks if they 're ok with being thrown into a meatgrinder.
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.
Cause Scooby Doo passes the Harkness test.
I'd smoke a joint with Scooby, I'm pretty sure Shaggy does.
 
No it's not, what are you talking about? Animals should be eaten if it helps humans. I'm pretty sure screwing animals does not help humans. Therefore it's bad. 100% solid logic.
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.
 
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.
That would be right if you had to modus ponens or modus tollens, but you don't. Suppose you start with the position that you shouldn't be exploiting animals if it's not justified. Then, consider that not using animal products would make humans worse off. Essentially the use of animal products would be justified ultima ratio, as the defense of humankind against the slippery slope to total destruction. I don't think you can make the same argument re. screwing animals.
 
How does one's diet correlates to one's sexual activity ?
Is it just a big cop out because you saw a sexy hen prancing around and lost to the intrusive thoughts ?
Grains and veggies can't consent to be grounded, chopped or diced either. Where's my zucchini ? What did you do to that baguette !?
Veganism really is the only logically consistent belief system when it comes to animals and how they should be treated.
Veganism is far from consistent.

Crops require total control over a field, and that field can not have anything but whatever you planted in it. No trees, no bushes can grow there, few to no animals can wander about.
The potential for growth of others critters is stunted by activity on that field, you've also got the chemicals for growth, pest / weed control.
Not to say that nothing ever lives in fields. Rodents, sometimes even Bambi even goes for a stroll down Barley Alley.
Ever wondered why crows and others scavengers birds flock to freshly harvested fields ? It's not just the leftovers grains, it's also whatever got flattened or chewed up by the combines.

Vegan alternatives to animal product like leather or wool usually don't last more than a few years and release micro shits every time you wash them. You'd let a cow's hide go to waste but you poison fishes and yourself too down the line.
I'd mention vegan foods being excessively processed slop but it's hardly exclusive to them.
Also, in general when it comes to animals, nobody gives a shit whether they consent or not. Nobody asks a pig whether it consents to be slaughtered, nobody asks their cat whether it wants to be sterilized, and of course, nobody asks thousands of baby male chicks if they 're ok with being thrown into a meatgrinder.
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.

The male baby chicks' fate is unfortunate but you can buy them from a hatchery. You need a lot of land though, once they're grown, it's a concerto in Bird Major for years. 🥳
Or you give them the best life until .. You know.
For the cats, they're less likely to wander and get hit by a car chasing pussy, although it's usually not up to the cat's owner, you're usually mandated to sterilize.
You may need to put down a pet, they didn't consent to that either but sometimes it's the best you can do.
 
@Farsided is mostly right. Some things I disagree with a bit. @Feral Postie respond to my point about ultima ratio. You need to engage or people will think you have ulterior motives for your position.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: paroom paroom
@Farsided is mostly right. Some things I disagree with a bit. @Feral Postie respond to my point about ultima ratio. You need to engage or people will think you have ulterior motives for your position.
I'm going to be honest with you I don't know the Latin terms and that makes it difficult. I've been very clear about what I believe and I've tried to make my arguments as clear as possible. Anyone seeing ulterior motives based on what I've posted is seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there.

Saying that I don't think one can justify the way humans use animals because we might be worse off. If humans being slightly worse off was better overall for all living beings I think that sacrifice would be worth it on our part.

I do not subscribe to the idea that humans have an inherent right to dominion over other animals, but I really don't want to to become a debate about veganism or such.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: paroom paroom
Then, consider that not using animal products would make humans worse off.
I don't like this argument because it can be used by any individual or group to justify any wrong doing, as long as it poses an advantage for that group. For example, men could argue that giving women autonomy would make men worse off. Race A could argue that not enslaving race B would make race A worse off. Etc.
It's a terrible justification.
Essentially the use of animal products would be justified ultima ratio, as the defense of humankind against the slippery slope to total destruction. I don't think you can make the same argument re. screwing animals.
Yes, you could. One could argue that zoophiles are humans, and therefore superior to animals. Since that's the same argument that many people use to exploit, enslave and murder animals for our benefit, why can't a zoophile have his way with animals? He's a superior human, after all, and he would be worse off not having his way with them. In order for human society to function as well as possible, it needs all human beings to be at their best. Granting zoophiles access to animals is beneficial for all human society, because it relieves stress and grants pleasure, so zoophiles can focus on their tasks in society better.

This is no different from any defense of human exploitation of animals for other purposes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Feral Postie
I'm going to be honest with you I don't know the Latin terms and that makes it difficult. I've been very clear about what I believe and I've tried to make my arguments as clear as possible. Anyone seeing ulterior motives based on what I've posted is seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there.

Saying that I don't think one can justify the way humans use animals because we might be worse off. If humans being slightly worse off was better overall for all living beings I think that sacrifice would be worth it on our part.

I do not subscribe to the idea that humans have an inherent right to dominion over other animals, but I really don't want to to become a debate about veganism or such.
You can argue against that sort of "right", but the fact is humans do have dominion. Anything done is an active choice, there's no safe way out "in tune with nature". To your point about "might be", that's how they get you. They ask you to point a metaphorical revolver at your head with n barrels, one loaded, where n is a large number.
And then they ask you to do it again, with another revolver. Then another. It's not long until you should expect to be dead, even if n is a very large number indeed.
The slippery slope is not a fallacy.

There's a book called Dominion by Matthew Scully about animal welfare. It about taking dominion as granted, then considering what to do with it. That might interest you.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you could. One could argue that zoophiles are humans, and therefore superior to animals. Since that's the same argument that many people use to exploit, enslave and murder animals for our benefit, why can't a zoophile have his way with animals? He's a superior human, after all, and he would be worse off not having his way with them.
I don't think zoophiles screwing animals is beneficial to humanity overall, that's the difference. Animal substances, on the other hand, are very useful. Remember, a random Chinese company selling a product is not doing full supply chain audits.
They're selling a feeling, not a reality.
To honestly sell a product as vegan they'd have to track everything from the exact glue used to make a jig used by a sub-sub-supplier to the policy on geese at the nearest airport to the factory.
I mean, imagine getting all the way through initial production when you find out your super Eco-friendly factory was built in the wrong city in Germany because the local airport kills too many birds!
 
To honestly sell a product as vegan they'd have to track everything from the exact glue used to make a jig used by a sub-sub-supplier to the policy on geese at the nearest airport to the factory.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what veganism is. Virtually every vegan will acknowledge that you can't eliminate 100% of harm being done because that is actually impossible.

Veganism attempts to limit animal cruelty and the exploitation of animals as much as possible.
 
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what veganism is. Virtually every vegan will acknowledge that you can't eliminate 100% of harm being done because that is actually impossible.

Veganism attempts to limit animal cruelty and the exploitation of animals as much as possible.
Well, so do I, if you look at it the right way. "As much as possible" is almost always a misleading statement. "As much as possible" to the detriment of what else?
Humans can't think at infinite speed, so there's a limit to the care that can practically be given. Even without that, does "as much as possible" mean moving your factory to avoid the goose-killing airport?
Or, if it's not built yet and it's a factory in the planing stages, how much money should be spent on putting it in a better place, as far as animals are concerned?
On my view, animals should be used to the extent useful to humanity as a whole, with the animal's interests being treated as more than a tie breaker, but only a little more.
I'm not a utilitarian anyway, so it's more complex than Singer wants to say it is.
 
The question is "does the harkness test accurately determine whether a creature can give consent," and yeah, I mean, those are the same criteria we follow for humans, so I'd say it does.

I think it only sounds like it does, and it's intentionally constructed to provide that illusion.

The modern idea of consent isn't based on intelligence. It's based on maturity, power differentials, ability to choose, recognition/understanding of your own ability to choose, and the ability to voice your choices. We use things like "adulthood" or "age of consent" as markers for maturity, because we can't measure maturity easily. We use concepts like duress, relationships, etc to estimate power differentials.

It's essentially impossible to objectively determine "a being who understands what is going on, what they want, how to express their own desires, and protect their self-interests". We try, through societal measures like age of consent or the mentally retardation threshold of IQ. But no matter how good or bad you think those metrics are, they all rely on a human understanding of the underlying concepts. Any being whose mental structures lie outside human experience can not be properly measured by those things.

"Intelligence, adulthood, and communication language" is simply insufficient to make these determinations. At best only "ability to communicate" gets close to an aspect that needs to be present, and even then the lack of proper translation to human-recognizable concepts should be a barrier.

Does that mean it's a good idea or socially acceptable? Definitely not. You're not a rapist for fucking Mewtwo, but you *are* objectively a freak.

This test reads a lot like the "what about a teenager who's 17 years 364 days old, you really think they can't consent?" arguments so popular online now. It's not used as a thoughtful discussion point, it's attempting to break down social barriers against sexual access and hedonism.
 
I don't want to get into an autistic argument about the technicalities of consent, but I don't think it's really that illusory. The point of each requirement is pretty clear: to meaningfully consent a species must be intelligent enough to understand the decision they are making, be capable of communicating their consent (or lack thereof), and be physically, sexually, and emotionally mature.

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.
 
If you're at the point where the Harkness test is necessary, you're probably delving into bestiality territory anyway.

Nobody's applying the Harkness test to characters like Tali'Zorah, the Twi'leks in star wars, or the myriad green skin rubber forehead women from Star Trek, it's near exclusively used for characters that are animal-like, so furries can feel justified in wanting to fuck them.
 
No, you zoophile.

This is worse cope than the normal "Anthropomorphic" "Human with Animal features" copes.

This is just to justify fuckin a wild animal😂
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: Neurotypical Mantis
Back