So, it wouldn't be rape, because sharks do not have the intrinsic value ...
It isn't rape because the female shark indicates her willingness. She gives her consent to the male after the initial courtship. This suggests that she may have enjoyed what came before. Not saying she did - it's just a possibility. The definition of rape is "a sexual act carried out upon a person sans their consent". If non human species are able to give or withhold consent then technically, one non human could rape another.
And can I pour acid on my cat? After all, it has no intrinsic value.
... nor the needed capacities to "realize" and have "intent." Or, at least these are not established, in order to meaningfully talk about "shark rape."Also, I find it funny how someone claims to know what a shark is "willing."
We can identify willingness via behaviour. What is so strange about that? I know when my cat both wants (and is willing) to be stroked.
"Low opinion." ? What low opinion? Animals are God's creation, which was called "good," and if God calls something good, then it deserves the appropriate conduct for it being "good."
But it is the theists (not the atheists) in this thread who've suggested that things have no "intrinsic worth" if they are "just animals" and so on. I'm just delving into that and asking questions to promote discussion.
We don't know what the shark is willing. You don't know what inside a shark's head, because that would take "revelation(much like we can reveal what's on our mind)."
You don't identify willingness via behavior. You are assuming "willingness," via behavior. You can know that about other human beings, because you know other human beings have "will." You don't know whether sharks do. It's very question begging, because you're basically assuming most of your case which I dispute - that sharks do not have personal will. But you say something along the lines of "since behavior = willingness." Well,, not really, I've seen people who has shown "friendly behavior," but later revealed that they were wishing the death of all the people in the room. So, what is one "willing" is not just "behavior."
No, you know your cat's body needs stroking. You don't know whether there's some personal will within your cat, which is "willing." You're begging the question, once again - in assuming that behavior = personal will of some sort. Not really. I could construct a robot and program it to yell "I NEED WATER, I WANT WATEEER," and express a behavior as if it's really thirsty, but it wouldn't mean the robot actually has a will of any sort.
Once again - no. They don't have the intrinsic worth to be subjects to human-to-human ethical rules. They still have intrinsic worth, but not to such proportion. And it's you atheists, who twist what theists are saying and aren't pantient and comprehensive enough to not rush to hasty conclusions. And humans doing cruel things to animals would be wrong, not because the intrinsic worth of the animal, but due to the human being intending to do evil, which is a sin. If you intend to kill an animal, for otherwise you'd starve to death, then that's not sin. However, if you intend to torture an animal to receive pleasure out of seeing and inflicting suffering, then that's sinful and it's because the human defiling the worth God has put in him, and not so much because there are "animal rights."