Bestiality is immoral

"I didn't go into details about this because I don't believe sexual activity ever falls into this category." Very well. "I would point out that your car is not capable of suffering, whereas animals and children are." I would remind you of your statement: "To violate a being is to act upon them against their will, or as we may also say, without their consent. Whether or not harm is actually inflicted is irrelevant" Indicating the truth that consent and harm are two different concepts. What was relevant was whether a car had a will to violate. If you say animals don't then what is the difference relevant to consent? "Immediate effects, yes" Implications too. An implication is the result of an action which only occurs or becomes apparent after the action is over. A dog wouldn't bring a leash unless he/she knew that was communicating that they wanted a walk. They don't carry leashes around for fun, they don't do it when there is no one there to let them out. "The same can be said of animals." It could be said but it would be incorrect. Animals who have had sexual encounters with familiar humans have worked out a system of communication so there is no doubt that they can understand that certain signals are an invitation to a sexual encounter. Probably one of the best examples of this is the presenting of socks to humans by male dogs just as they might retrieve a bowl or leash. This is only done by dogs who have had sex with humans, and only done because the socks are used to prevent scratching during coitus. As for lasting pain, by what mechanism? "To impose something inherently risky upon a being without the cognitive capacity to appreciate or prepare for potential problems" We aren't imposing anything, that's what it means to have consent. If anything sex with or around humans is safer because of our intelligence. Sex is not inherently risky, there is risk in it like there is risk in anything but it is certainly not the most risky thing a domesticated animal will ever be exposed to nor even close. "which we cannot ever be sure is shared by the cognitively limited being" That's not certain, they have measured brain activity analogous to emotional centers in animals which is correlated to stimuli the way we would expect. i.e. a dog feels excitement when presented with humans they know well. As to whether they associate sex with social bonding we don't know yet (at least not for dogs and horses) but that may be determined at some later time. "is to act contrary to their best interests" It is in their best interest to let them decide what interactions they find acceptable if we have no strong reason to contradict their consent. That is the only view which does rely on unsupported assumptions about them. "There is no compelling reason to do it." There is no compelling reason not to have sex either. That is why their consent is the only barrier and it's one they are quite capable of crossing. "With higher cognition comes greater culpability and responsibility for one's actions - especially when they propose to interact with cognitively limited beings and engage in risky behavior with them." I am prepared to be culpable for all unwarranted significant risks I may take with any animal. Consensual sex carried out responsibly with the relevant species where both parties health has been checked is not a significant risk of anything except a good time. "So there can be no meaningful discussion of sex without the consequences of sex" Then let's talk consequences. What are they? If you don't hollow discussion detached from reality you'll have something better than undetectable psychological damage, unknown STDs, and pain that is never communicated. "since any number of things can happen" Any number of things can happen walking down the street, we aren't immoral for bringing an animal along. "Some consequences are permanent and irreversible, and that is why the risk factor is high." The risk of an event is not increased by the magnitude of its evil. "Some consequences are permanent and irreversible, and that is why the risk factor is high. This is among the reasons that societies and religions urge sexual restraint." I will wait to comment on this until you get around to discussing those consequences and their objectively determined risks. "Of course. The point is that they can't consent to everything inherent in the activity you would like to engage in with them, and given the risk factors involved, this is quite necessary to meet our shared understanding of what is moral." I am afraid our understanding of what is moral is not shared here. My knowledge can cause no harm in of itself. It cannot and does not lessen their consent. Whatever immorality you are asserting occurs it has nothing to do with the other party. If it is nature not my refusal to share information that prevents them from understanding a risk, I see no reason to morally require that such information is possessed by the other party. If I accepted your implied premise then domestication itself would paradoxically be immoral compared to letting animals wander around and die horribly from all the risks they don't know about. "The risk factors involved in eating are insignificant next to the certainty of death that not eating would entail." Ah but you evaluated that risk, as a human with all that reason. The animal did not. If you are correct about a moral requirement for the animal being aware of all inherent risks before an interaction; it doesn't matter whether you think the reward outweighs the risk for the animal. The simple fact that you know about a risk that they don't makes feeding them immoral. Who says they would starve either? Maybe if you let them go they would go out and find their own food, just as if you let them go they might very well proceed to have sex with other animals still just as ignorant as before but lacking the benefit of your superior perception of the risks. "That is consent." That is informed consent. "If you realize that the second dog can't foresee the bad consequences of eating chocolate, you are realizing that the dog cannot meaningfully consent to eating chocolate." No I am realizing that it would be immoral for me to consent to an interaction that will lead to something bad. The truth is the dog will consent to eating chocolate which means that if I didn't know any better I would let them have it with a totally clean conscience. Your position implies that regardless of what I know about the chocolate the mere fact that a dog can't evaluate the risks of eating strange human foods means it isn't moral to ever let them eat human food even if I know there almost certainly won't be negative consequences. "But acknowledging that virtually anything can happen at any time isn't a substantive argument." It is until you come up with some calculus to weigh risks and find a way to determine what risk is too great to ignore. "The riskier the behavior, or the more responsibilities it entails, the more important consent becomes for participation in it." You are confusing consent and informed consent. Informed consent relieves you of worrying about whether the other party will accept risks. It removes liability. Consent does not manage risk at all. Consent is a separate issue. The only liability consent alone removes is your liability for violating the self-determination of another. "Obviously the "thing" we are talking about matters." Like riding on a plane, or in a car. What moral implications does an animal's inability to consent to horrible crashes have? "The "vast majority"? How do you know this?" Researching pedophilia for debates. "They become withdrawn, agitated, and disturbed very early on." The ones that get noticed early on do. "There's not much out there on the specific effects of bestiality on animals." I've noticed. As far as the zoo community can tell it's pretty much nothing. They integrate it into their life and are psychologically and physically indistinguishable from any other happy healthy animal (and good thing too or else a lot more people would be going to prison for no good reason). "I would say needlessly putting your pets at risk by having sex with them is abuse." Why? why is it more of a risk then letting them have sex with each other? "Which I don't think you provided in your account of the effects of abuse on children in the least." The issue at hand is animals. For the sake of argument (that point wasn't critical) let us say that children are immediately harmed and this is evidenced as you say above. "Read the link on child abuse I posted." We are talking about sexually mature animals here. Not children. "I think the burden of proof is now on YOU to prove that. I'm out of room, so I will leave it there." Very well. Other animals with similar mental capabilities do not have the intelligence to consistently outwit their intellectual equals. Yet they still have sex. Thus it is proven that trickery is not required. Animals who have sex with humans do not just consent to the first time as an experiment, but often become more cooperative to the point of initiating encounters. Here familiarity with the process is causing increased interest which is the opposite of what would be expected with trickery. Now a great number of your points this round relied on the premise that there are significant negative consequences/risks to bestiality (as defined in R1). Most of my rebuttals have been to deny such risks exist or are significant. Therefore the most productive content for your next round would be an extensive argument for the existence of these consequences/risks.