At least they’re mask-off about how they’re a specieist narcissist who doesn’t actually care about animals, and they just want to control the lives of others over some arbitrary notion of “human superiority” which sex somehow taints.

This person also posts to r/BanVideoGames and their arguments are so bad I think they’re either a boomer who’s going senile or have the IQ of a bowl of soup.

Transcript in case the text is too small to read:

This argument explains why it’s OKAY for humans to exploit animals for profit but NOT OKAY for humans to have intimate relationships with animals.

Any anti-zoo who uses arguments based on animal consent has probably had a zoophile come up and ask them, “do you care about animal consent in other situations, i.e. agriculture?”. And if they say no, the zoo thinks they have defeated the anti-zoo by pointing out their moral hypocrisy.

: However, this tactic is only effective against you if your stance against zoophilia is focused on animal protection. Enter the argument: preservation of human superiority. Using this as your reason for being anti-zoo allows you to comfortably solve both problems at once.

Humans exploiting animals for resources and services is okay under this rule, because in these interactions humans are clearly positioned at the top of the hierarchy. On the other hand, having sexual or romantic relations with animals would be wrong, because doing so would bring humans down to equal terms with animals.

If you are asked why preserving human superiority is important, say that it is the cornerstone of modern society’s luxuries and conveniences, most of which ride on the back of assuming animals can be treated like commodities.