The idea behind veganism is that it would be morally permissible to exploit animals for food if only they could give their consent first. Since they can't give consent, it is not (and never will be) morally permissible.

The same logic applies to cannibalism. It's perfectly okay if the human subject permits it--but would I personally eat a human? No, that sounds disgusting. Meat in general is disgusting. Not to mention very unhealthy.

i dont see why that would change anything

Meat in general is disgusting.

No, it isn't, it's just that the process of getting it is morally impermissible. I'm pretty sure I recall you saying something along the lines of "You don't think I'd love some chicken nuggets right now? Chicken products are delicious." The meat industry is fucked but let's not pretend meat doesn't taste good.

Do we actually have more than one?

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 04:54:28 PM

Meat in general is disgusting.

No, it isn't, it's just that the process of getting it is morally impermissible. I'm pretty sure I recall you saying something along the lines of "You don't think I'd love some chicken nuggets right now? Chicken products are delicious." The meat industry is fucked but let's not pretend meat doesn't taste good.

Just because they taste good doesn't mean they're not disgusting. They're disgusting. Objectively.

No, if someone consents to being eaten, then that's the end of it. Consent is everything.

If you're girlfriend doesn't want to have sex with you, and would suffer emotionally from it, but consents anyway because she doesn't want to lose you. . . You're a scumbag if you have sex with her.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 19, 2016, 10:33:26 PM

No, if someone consents to being eaten, then that's the end of it. Consent is everything.

If you're girlfriend doesn't want to have sex with you, and would suffer emotionally from it, but consents anyway because she doesn't want to lose you. . . You're a scumbag if you have sex with her.

I'd be a scumbag, but it's still her fault for not having the autonomy or the spine to say no. Either way, that sounds like I'm coercing her--something I would never ever do. If I don't know she doesn't want to have sex, then I can't be blamed. If I know she doesn't actually want to have sex, I wouldn't on principle. But I'd consider breaking up with her for lacking a fucking backbone. I mean, gimme a fucking break. I'm not PSU--I can handle being turned down for sex.

So yeah, consent is still everything. Is there nuance? Yeah, but not enough to change anything.

Verb BTFO

I've never been blown the fuck out in my life. Especially not here. Especially not by Meta.

but it's still her fault for not having the autonomy or the spine to say no.

I actually know a few girls who've been in the situation I've described, and I'm not going to lie this is a shitty thing to say.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 11:24:09 AM

but it's still her fault for not having the autonomy or the spine to say no.

I actually know a few girls who've been in the situation I've described, and I'm not going to lie this is a shitty thing to say.

Why is it a shitty thing to say? Were those girls in abusive relationships, where if they declined sex, they were beaten?

Do you think that counts as real consent?

Because you have a pretty simple-minded definition of "consent" if you think a verbal "yes" is all you need.

Quote from: Verbatim on December 20, 2016, 05:05:52 PM

Were those girls in abusive relationships, where if they declined sex, they were beaten?

Beaten? No.

But don't be so quick to discount emotional hardship. A girl may well legitimately value a relationship more than she values not having sex, even when said sex is not good for her well-being. Stating a girl is spineless and weak for refusing to consent in this situation is a shitty thing to say.

No, I'm saying she's spineless for refusing not to consent. Very, VERY big difference there. If you don't want to have sex, then don't. Stand up for yourself. If your boyfriend is too much of a shithead to accept less sex, end the relationship. Clearly you're not sexually compatible--find someone else. So you didn't get what you wanted--Oh well, that's life. I didn't make it that way.

People are fallible, stupid and emotional. To think consent is the be-all-and-end-all is to elevate human deliberation to a status of which it isn't worthy; people make mistakes, and are often wrong about their own preferences.

That's why it's your job to hone your judgment skills. Assess each situation carefully. Weigh out your options. Think a little bit. Use your fucking brain. Consent is one of the only things we have to affirm whether someone wants to do something or not, and you've still failed to address the point I made where consent is more than just a simple "yes" or a "no." There's a little bit more that goes into it. Body language being a big one.

If your lips say "yes" but your face/body says "I would really rather not," that's not a yes. That's when you ask things like "Are you sure?" or say things like "We can do it later if you want to." There's a subtle nuance to consent that you're failing to recognize.

Do you honestly disagree that the minimisation of suffering is the prime moral imperative? I can obviously see how consent can minimise culpability in given situations, but inflicting harm on people is still immoral as fuck.

If you WANT nothing more than pain to be inflicted on you, how could you express that to somebody without sounding insane, mentally ill, or otherwise lacking sound judgment?

Or do you have to be insane to be a masochist? I think you'd have a good case for that.