Agreed - and for that reason (particularly when balanced against the questionable benefit), I think it’s wise to err on the side of caution.

Kinda makes you wonder what they’d be capable of if they stopped spending all their time whining that they can’t say the thing they never fucking shut up about.

…and that’s just what they openly advocate for - It sickens me to contemplate the bit they’re too uncomfortable to share.

I think your framing is flawed (I don’t think it’s an issue of consent so much as it’s an issue of creating animal suffering for personal benefit), but I broadly agree - I personally get past the hypocrisy because I have no interest in fucking animals, and push the suffering I cause by eating animal products to the back of my mind and pretending it’s not a thing. Responsibility is also meaningfully abstracted in the food example, making it far easier to pretend you’re not at fault compared to having a chicken impaled on your dick.

In a similar way, people consuming products made in sweatshops and people downloading CSA material are both exploiting children.

There’s no animal I’m aware of that has a mental capacity beyond that of a child. We don’t think children are capable of giving consent - are we clearing the way to legalise paedophilia too, or are there animals with the mental capacity to provide informed consent that only lack the ability to communicate that consent?

Spoiler: It’s not a communication issue. If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.