Jackowens wrote:A. Feeding a hungry dog, and
B. Feeding (force-feeding) a dog that has eaten all that it wants --and needs-- and struggles to avoid the ingestion of more food.
Assuming a dog is incompetent to consent which I believe, both A and B are non-consensual feeding (a.k.a. force-feeding).
How I would feel and how I think the vast majority people would about a specific instance of feeding an incompetent being in the form of A or B would of course not be based on whether or not the feeding was consensual since the feeding in both cases is inherently non-consensual. It would instead depend mainly on the intention and beliefs of the competent being feeding the incompetent being and on the healthiness of what was being non-consensually fed (a.k.a. force-fed) to the incompetent being. If the incompetent being was intentionally being overfed food to an unhealthy degree, perhaps causing stomach pains, causing puking or eventually making the incompetent being suffer from morbid obesity, then that would be something I and most of us would oppose and probably want criminalize. In contrast, if the substance being fed to the incompetent being was something healthy and/or reasonably expected by the feeder to be good for the incompetent being, then most of us would not have a problem with that.
Sometimes an empty bowl of cereal is left out for a little bit, but there is still some milk residue on the bottom. Our cat will usually try to drink it. If she does lick it up, she will throw up later. I use my superior strength to push the cat away from the bowl, sometimes even picking her up as she tries to resist being moved. I also hear of some pet owners who pry open the mouth of their resisting pet and put in a vitamin or flea-repelling medication, then use their strength to hold the pet's mouth closed until the pet resistingly and unhappily swallows the vitamin or flea-repelling medication. I also hear about pet owners who put too much food down for their pet and the pet becomes obese. I have also heard of pet-owners who feed their pet beer; and I'm sure there have been pets just like there have been children who have died or become terribly ill from the consumption of alcohol or some other harmful food item that they ate without resistance simply because the owner/parent put the consumable item in front of the incompetent being.
Jackowens wrote:Are we in agreement that those are two distinguishable actions and that if it were not a case of, as you put it, its being in the dog's bests interests and worth your effort, particularly in cases where the incompetent being would needlessly die or come under grave suffering if you did not force-feed it a certain substance, you, as I, would refrain from doing it?"
A and B are different actions, yes. Shooting someone to death and stabbing someone to death are different actions. Nonetheless, when done to an incompetent being, A and B are both force-feeding (a.k.a. non-consensual feeding). As for your question, I would refrain from feeding an incompetent being in my custody--remember all feeding of an incompetent being is non-consensual feeding--something that would overall hurt him or overall make him unhappy; in contrast I may feed the incompetent being in my custody something that is healthy for him. Unlike with a competent being who is capable of consent who I would thus not feed if he does not consent to being fed and who I may feed or overfeed even something unhealthy like large quantities of alcohol or heart-attack-inducing fast food, the incompetent being is incompetent to consent.
Scott wrote:Let me be clear, I think your desire to talk about each separately is symptomatic of a contradiction on your part.
Jackowens wrote:I see nothing clear in that. That's another promising start but nothing to substantiate it. What is the contradiction?
Scott wrote:What did you not understand about my explanation...
It would be a blatant contradiction to say it is rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) when a competent 30-year-old adult has sex with a 12-year-old-human-child/dog regardless of how horny or willing the 12-year-old-human-child/dog is or seems because a 12-year-old-human-child/dog is incompetent to consent AND not with the same logic and premise of incompetence say that feeding an incompetent being is force-feeding regardless of how hungry or willing the incompetent being is or seems.
Jackowens wrote:A contradiction occurs when one affirms and denies the same thing, and when I say "same thing" I mean something quite precisely identified.
Scott wrote:Right. I think these two sentences are contradictory.
1) Activity A is B because one participant in the activity is C.
2) Activity D is not B; one participant in the activity is C.
The first implies the premise, if one participant in the activity is C, then the activity is B, via the use of the word because. But the second illogically violates that premise. Logically both can't be true; at the very least one needs an added condition to avoid the illogical contradiction.
Jackowens wrote:Please point out my two specific statements (in my own words), one wherein I affirm X and the other wherein I deny it.
I'm not sure what your asking me to show you. You asked me to talk specifically about feeding/force-feeding and only talk about consensual-sex/rape in a a potential second, separate conversation. I told you that I think that desire is symptomatic of a contradiction. If I say, "Activity A and activity D are both B because one participant in each activity is C." and you say, 'Please only talk about activity D,' then the most plausible cause (i.e. what that seems to be a symptom of) is that you think Activity D is not B while activity A is B
Jackowens, you did not answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Please answer them. I'll quote the actual questions in order here, but please re-read the post in which they originally appeared to get them in context:
Scott wrote:What does it mean to say a being is incompetent to consent if it does not mean that any seeming willingness or consent offered by the incompetent being is invalid?
Scott wrote:Do you agree that a 12-year-old child is incompetent to consent?
Scott wrote:Do you consider that to be consensual sex or rape?
Belinda wrote:There is a moral difference of degree between force feeding an animal ( as is most horrifically done with foie gras geese) and over-feeding an animal or child.The methods are different; force feeding is frightening and painful but over feeding although not painful leads to disease and death as certainly as does force-feeding.
I don't follow you. Firstly, regardless of whether you physically retain, pry open the mouth of and stuff food into the mouth of an incompetent being, put use the threat of additional violence to get the incompetent being to consume some substance (e.g. "eat it or I'll spank you," or "eat or I'll shoot you with this gun"), or simply put the food in front of the incompetent being who desiringly approaches the food and eats the food, it is non-consensual because the incompetent being is incompetent to consent. Whether or not non-consensual feeding (a.k.a. force-feeding) of an incompetent is harmful, is something I or the vast majority of people want criminalized or is something you would call more or less "immoral" or "moral good"--whatever that means--often depends I think on whether the one feeding the incompetent being genuinely believes it is good for the incompetent being and whether it is actually good for the incompetent being. For instance, if the consumable item being given to the incompetent being--which is inherently non-consensual--is a large quantity of vodka, then most people would think it is harmful, want it to be criminalized, and maybe think it is whatever you mean by 'immoral' to some varying degree. In contrast, if the consumable item is some food or medicine that the incompetent being needs to avoid death or grave suffering or unhealthiness, then most people would be fine with letting someone non-consensually feed the incompetent being.
I force-feed my 3-month old son iron supplements that he doesn't like that the pediatrician recommended. He turns his head away, but I am stronger than him and hold his head in place and pour the drops into his mouth where gravity keeps it until he unhappily swallows it.
Belinda wrote:My point is that common human sympathy should go further than the law, and put the onus upon the more powerful agent to protect the weaker in every case.
I agree with that sentiment. For example, it is legal for me to walk past a homeless starving family with a look of hateful disgust in my eyes. I want it to be legal for me to be selfish, mean-hearted person in that way. But common human sympathy would be what leads me to choose without being compelled by the law to behave differently.
To the topic at hand, common human decency may make it so I choose not to feed an incompetent being--which is inherently non-consensual--large quantities of low calorie, poor tasting vegetables that the incompetent being doesn't seem to want even if it wouldn't be illegal in the same way it isn't illegal for me to forcefully make my 3-month old son consume those iron drops.