What you call basic principles are actually subjective value judgments, or in the case of using mentally retarded people as models for animal intelligence, complete bullshit.
Your argument is constructed as follows:
Basal assumption: all Humans are valuable. [we both agree]
Basal assumption: Animals are like a subset of humans. [categorically wrong]
Basal assumption: 'Like' only guarantees animals to cherry picked human rights. [non sequitur]
Conclusion: Eating animals is okay but having sex with them is not. [non sequitur]
I am proposing this alternative:
Basal assumption: Humans, in general, are valuable. [we both agree]
Fact: Disease, in general, harms humans. [proven]
Fact: Sex with animals is a significant disease risk [proven]
Caveat: Eating animals is not a significant disease risk [proven]
Conclusion: Eating animals is permitted, having sex with them should not be. [sequitur]
I'm not using retarded as a slur. It has a medical definition, which you're probably aware of.
Mental disability in humans is a good reason to invalidate consent.
Arguing that all non human species count as mentally disabled, and therefore cannot offer consent, is a very weird and unnecessary argument though. It's just nonsense, especially because lots of sexual activities- such as forced breeding and sperm collection, are carried out on animals- evidently without their consent.
If you don't want more messages you can stop replying, but I guarantee a reply to any new conversation.
-Disease risk is not subjective, because one can measure it and determine its significance.
-The value of an animal's feelings is subjective.
-I do not think the word 'retarded' is degrading, it is an accurate descriptor
-I think using retarded people as models for animal intelligence is degrading, moreover it is biological nonsense.
I personally feel that animal well being is valuable, but that's only my feeling.
We both value the wellbeing of animals as a ratio to the benefit we can extract from them [although my constant of relation is probably higher than yours]- and that is why we both feel bestiality is wrong.
However I am keen to highlight that even if you do not value animal wellbeing what-so-ever that there is a deeper objective reason to consider bestiality immoral; one does not need to appeal to animal wellbeing and certainly does not need to compare animals to the retarded.
That's a nonsense statement. An animal's consent is not necessary for being killed and eaten. We recognise eating and abusing animals are different. Understanding the reason we treat those two things differently illuminates the actual reason that having sex with animals is bad. It is because of the disease risk, not because animals are 'like retarded people' [this describes animal intelligence very poorly, and it is degrading to retarded humans]
People who have to project human qualities onto animals in order to justify not having sex with them have serious problems. They're missing the much stronger point- which is that almost every single epidemic disease originated from an animal pathogen. The next Measles or HIV could emerge from sexual contact between humans and animals, and that is the legitimate concern here.
You implied that I was tacitly complicit with animal abuse.
I had arrived at the same conclusion that animal abuse was unacceptable, via a different justification. I can say animal abuse is unacceptable without relying on the nonsensical premise that animals are like mentally retarded people, which some other users had claimed.
I could do a critique, sure. Although I'm sure I'd critique the writing more than the literary aspects of it. I know a little bit about that type of stuff, but I doubt I know as much as you on the subject.
That was actually more of a general comment to make my position on the matter clear.
Anyway, when are you going to link me to that Google Doc? Or was I supposed to make it? Because I don't even know what you had in mind in terms of storyline or anything.