Random question.

[KaspeZoo]

Do you guys think that if a device is created that lets animal communicate with humans trough speech, and they end up revealing that the can, in fact, consent. Would the haters stop or would they try to turn it around from "they can't consent" to "is morally wrong because it's a different specie"?

 

[Huskeroni]

I really doubt it. You see, generally people are hostile to unfamiliar concepts that threaten their worldview. Romantical affection and sex are exclusively human-human (or even just man-woman in backwards places) and animals are just dumb lesser life forms to a lot of them, anthropormizing them as children of all things. You can argue as much as you want, you'd probably run against a brick wall. (The Oatmeal got a nice comic strip about the backfire effect).
Also, animals can already consent through their body language, but that argument will be dismissed without a second thought as well. Sure, you have to learn it to understand it, just like any other language (and all dog "owners" should do so anyways, imho), but that's the most definitive and clear answer you'll get.

However, even if there was such a translation device, question is would you actually want to use it, or would it even make sense? I assume something like this would need something like an invasive BCI implant and I wouldn't put my companions through this just to prove a point to some lunatic. Another problem would be that you'd have to be sure that the translation 100% matches the intention of an animal, but the output you'd get will be fuzzy compared to their "native" body language.