Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

(C5) If con accepted this argument in the hope of confusing the term he has not done a very good job. One of his own statements agree with the dichotomy: “A practice if immoral if it has inherent features that render it impossible to sustain in a moral manner.” Without a dichotomy this statement makes no sense, it should be possible so long as the practice could be sustained in an amoral manner as well as a moral manner. More importantly my moral standard (B.2) does not specify whether it is the requirement for a moral action or an amoral action. Since I accept the dichotomy I did not specify one, but rejecting the dichotomy does not significantly alter my debate since the standard is a standard of moral activities. (C1.1.1) There are no inherent traits of bestiality which render it immoral. If you mean a single instance of immorality renders the whole practice immoral then driving is also an immoral practice. There is no need for law to be made on the lines of these arbitrarily defined practices. It can outlaw the immoral and permit the moral in the same practice. (C1.1.2) Appealing to uncertainty is the informal fallacy appeal to ignorance. Animals are able to communicate consent, ‘fully’ is undefined in Cons statement. If an animal is not psychologically capable of consent their consent is irrelevant. (C1.1.3) That is not what ‘we’ are saying it is what you say. When I say an act is moral or immoral I mean that using all provided qualification that act (and no other) is moral or immoral. The court is never asked to pass sentence on a practice but on a specific act. There is never a need to evaluate the morality of any arbitrary scope of ‘practice’ as a whole since only individual acts must be punished or permitted. Thus the key information law relies on is not “how do I know this practice is moral” but “how do I know this act is moral.” (C1.1.4) The immorality is the negligent risk of killing your neighbor then. If (such as in the real world) a person could reduce the risk to insignificance then it would be improper to ban starting cars. (C1.1.5) Moral bestiality is the only practice that is relevant. If it exists at all it is improper to ban bestiality since that would include moral bestiality. If it exists then a practice defined as bestiality is moral since it contains no inherent immorality in its definition. If Con’s argument relies on these risks being essential and inherent then we can simply drop this whole exchange on scope of practice because all that matters is that an act, each specific one; constitutes an immoral risk. (C1.1.7) Evidence was provided in round 1. Con is still attempting to confuse who is relying on a bestial rape rate. I am not. (C1.1.8) It would be immoral for the law to prevent you from entering the room. If you ate cake you would be innocent yet the law sends you to prison. This is unacceptable. (C1.2.1) I denied that bestiality is inherently unaccountable, that is address. I pointed out that the act could be recorded which at least in that case would leave no doubt. If it was inherent it must be the case every time even with a camera. The work needed to obscure one’s crime has no bearing on whether what they did was truly a crime. (C1.2.2) Then the practice of requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt is unethical. It allows rape without repercussions since the repercussions require that the rape be demonstrated to have happened beyond reasonable doubt. We know that not every case of rape can be demonstrated to have occurred. This is inescapable. (C1.2.3) Your implied premise that you don’t need to prove inherent immorality in order to ban a practice. (C1.2.4) I’m Pro, Con attempts to rush past the fact that his claim of inherent unaccountability is shot. C1.2.4.1 They can’t bring bestiality charges either. You are already relying on someone other than the ‘victims’ to discover and report the behavior. C1.2.4.2 The prevalence rate is irrelevant, your claim was that it was inherently unaccountable. C1.2.4.3 I do not assume, I argue in round 1. If you have not addressed that argument by now I can only assume it’s because you don’t have a valid rebuttal. Frightened animals behave frightened. All we have for animals or people is what we think they agreed to. We can’t reach into the minds of others, we need to look at what they do and the sounds they make (among other things). Language is ultimately vocalizations, you are reasonably sure that the sounds relate to concepts of communication but you aren’t 100% sure, especially if your concept is identical to the other persons. C1.2.4.4 As it should be. (C1.2.5) It is relevant to your point. (C2.3.1) Preference and volition. Con has never established that complex moral concepts are involved in agreement or permission. (C2.3.2) I don’t disagree with that aspect of the argument. It is important to know that lack of consent may be communicated. Animals can communicate lack of consent. If you let someone take your wallet while you could say or do anything to stop them, and showed no fear; then I would say you did consent. (C2.3.3) C2.3.3.1 No more than ignoring B.1 falls outside the scope of the debate. It hasn’t stopped you. C2.3.3.3,6 If you say “I want this car” you consent to taking the car, you can’t take it because the dealer hasn’t consented to let you take it until you agree pay. If we expected money for sex from animals there would be a problem, they could not possibly understand that you expect something unrelated. We do not, the act stands on its own. All that matters is whether they consent to the interaction which they are experiencing. I am not arguing that they consent to anything else nor does my resolution require that I so argue. C2.3.3.5 Incorrect. The article was written by Nicholas Wade, who is not a scientist studying the dog. His full statement: “Chaser learns to link sounds to objects by brute repetition, which is not how children learn words. And she learns her words as proper nouns, which are specific labels for things, rather than as abstract concepts like the common nouns picked up by children.” Is in direct contradiction with the statement of Dr. Pilley (the scientist who studied the dog, the statement being earlier in the article): “Dr. Pilley also found that Chaser could be trained to recognize categories, in other words common nouns. She correctly follows the command “Fetch a Frisbee” or “Fetch a ball.” She can also learn by exclusion, as children do.” Which says that Chaser does know common nouns. (C3) If coercion is central to the relationship then either coercion is morally acceptable or the entire relationship is already immoral. Con claims this point is totally independent of consent, yet coercion is defined as the threat or use of force to undermine the need for consent. I deny that coercion is central to a healthy human-animal relationship. Sexual interaction does not necessarily conflict with a duty to provide care and even when it does this conflict of interest is no different than any other time when a human wants something from an animal. (riding a horse, or the multitudes of animal competitions in the world) all of which are permitted on the trust that the humans involved will not forsake their duty to care and more importantly knowing that the law can punish abuse and neglect without banning entire classes of interaction such as riding. (C4) Pro functionally concedes no such thing. Informed consent means the actor knows what’s going to happen beforehand and agrees to it before it starts. Consent can be given for experiments or just going with the flow, even if you don’t know where it will end up. “Second, simply being aware of what is happening is insufficient for informed consent. Informed consent requires full awareness of the conditions of the encounter” Then what in the world makes Con believe that Pro functionally concedes informed consent is the only morally relevant concept? “do animals believe they will be rewarded for sex?” They experience the reward during sex, that’s why you don’t typically need to use any artificial training whatsoever. “Do they believe failure to have sex will disappoint their owners?” I answered this already with the kennel question. It’s possible but it doesn’t matter. “do animals know about the health risks of sex?” No, not with humans, not with other animals, not with anything. “Do animals know they are having a sexual relationship with an actor which holds complete domination over them?” No they almost certainly do not see humans as entities with complete domination over them. They see us as leaders of the group, but their ability to defy us proves they don’t (always or often) see our authority as absolute.