Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

.Nevertheless, for the purposes of his position, I find it lacking. ” After reading your offering for this round I have come to the inevitable conclusion that you simply ignored most of my points from the last round and are repeating yourself in hopes that voters may forget to read the first half of round 2. In the instances where I think you are just reasserting your point without addressing my rebuttal I will probably just ask a pointed question plus (+) [some searchable section of previous rounds]; leaving it to the conscientious observer to be sure and read the whole debate carefully. (E1) Everything is a valid debating point, doesn’t mean I didn’t want to preempt them. I have the distinct impression you haven’t tried to broach the topic of rational ethics before, nothing on this planet appears more controversial. I hope you realize it is not simply choosing an arbitrary goal and then applying logic to see how best to achieve that goal. (E3) Again PRO denies this (+) [I do not, I said it’s used in legal circles. The law is c. .] (+) [I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. ] This is deeper than law and I am not constrained by the precedence and traditions of the court. I am saying consent matters to morality and morality should dictate law. This is in no way depends on any existing law or any definition in existing law. If I were to consider existing law the message is clear, humans don’t need informed consent from animals to interact with them. Since you like explaining what your opponent must do why don’t I return the favor. You must demonstrate why the fact that informed consent is a legal concept means I must integrate it into my argument when I specifically said I am not using it. (E1) Every vegetarian is proof. (E5) My answer is no. It was apparent a dozen times over that I was not defending every act that qualified as bestiality. In rape it is not the sex that is immoral but the use of force and absence of consent that is immoral. However since rape is also sex the event belongs (among others) in the category of sex, and therefore there is an occurrence in that category which is immoral. Yet still sex qua sex is not immoral and I can say sex is not immoral. “. .indeed he didn't even bother to define it. ” Read more carefully (+) [I use the term Bestiality/z] (R1) That’s nice, animals can learn and make decisions, case closed. Before you say something like “PRO must prove that animals can…” get accustomed to using google? Here is a hint for search terms “animal + intelligence” “it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision” You didn’t define a minimum threshold of knowledge, indeed under your definition any decision made by an organism capable of learning and understanding may be an intelligent decision. (R2) But not the only form. “I have already established that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality” You have asserted that I ceded this twice when I have not done so. If that is your idea of establishing it then I have already won this debate. “so of course an animal's inability to demonstrate informed consent DOES mean they cannot consent. ” Put that in the form of a categorical syllogism please. Here I’ll do it for you. Some consent is informed consent (Some C is I) No animal can demonstrate informed consent (No A is I) Therefore no animal can demonstrate consent (Therefore no A is C) Invalid logic, check it any way you like. If bestiality was legal I wouldn’t need to make this argument would I? No it’s illegal so of course I am not trying to demonstrate its legality but that it should be legal. The law gives no justification, it simply defines bestiality as an illegal act falling under animal abuse. I repeat (for the last time hopefully) that no section of any common law requires informed consent prior to interacting with animals. It is not the law that requires informed consent from animals, but my moral theory that requires consent for sex. I will not address this point again unless you come up with something with more meat than "look the word legal is in his resolution. " (R3) It could mean just about anything in just about any context, but in the context of a man trying to penetrate said bitch it can only have one meaning. Any sane person who has a pet dog will assure you that they would notice such an action. If they stand in the same position for five minutes during coitus there is only one rational conclusion. They know what is happening and at the very least don’t mind. (R4) I see no contradiction, those dogs didn’t like baths; they weren’t consenting to take a bath and that’s what non-consent looks like in animals. I see no connection to demanding a categorical definition. (R5) ehh. no if zoophiles think they have consenting animals then they think that if those animals could talk they would be whispering dirty things in their ear. That means if they run into a human who says "No I don't want to have sex with you" they will not associate their subsequent behavior with what they do with the animals. In their minds the animals would be consenting unlike the human. As for my logic being convoluted it is blindly simple, if an animal has the power of choice and tries to stick it's penis in you or allows you to stick your penis in it then it consents. (R6.1) That’s what I was afraid you’d say, no it is not globally rational just because it’s practical in a given context. Some zoophiles would rather eat you than their animals. Furthermore you have still failed to show why behavior towards animals does not spill over to humans in the case of slaughter houses but would supposedly do so in the case of sex. (R6.2) Of all the responses you could have thought of this is the most disturbing. Instead of abandoning your proposition that humans can’t separate their behavior towards animals and people you speculate that hunting is in fact a form of psychological training – preparing people to go out and gun down other humans for the crime of being on the other side of a political conflict. But people don’t hunt because animals in the woods are communist, they do it for some kind of emotional triumph and they don’t seem to care that the animal doesn’t have a chance. Based on the reasons for killing and their choice of targets it would make sense that if they did start repeating their behavior with humans it would be as a serial killer targeting the weakest humans. (R7) And the full force of the law should not fall on someone who hasn’t committed rape but only done something statistically associated with rape. (R8) Why don’t you prove that having consensual sex with animals makes people rape humans? This was the counter example to that. Please sir, there is a beam in your eye! (R9) Open the court room door, wheel in a TV, and watch a video. Evidence admitted. Also note that I am not advocating making consent a legal requirement for sex that must be verified constantly by inspectors, it isn't for any other human animal interactions. Rather a guide line should animal abuse be suspected. (R10) It is not an animal, but it is incapable of consent. Therefore according to your argument it is rapeable and rape is immoral and will lead to the raping of people. That is the relevance of my point: ad absurdum. (R11) I would be very interested to see if this fools anyone. I can’t post pornographic material and you know I can’t and even if I did you would claim that you didn’t see the rest of that animal’s life so maybe it was beaten if it didn’t cooperate. This is not unique to my argument but all of them here can be reduced to links to studies where people have made objective observations. If someone won’t accept any third party evidence it is indeed true that nothing can be proven since this is a website and all we have are words. I don’t need to however since the burden of proof is not on me, the law must be justified by CON because it asserts something is immoral where I only assert that the law is baseless. Something is moral until proven otherwise just as someone is innocent until proven otherwise. It was never my intention to replicate the effect of an objective study but to reduce the issue down to a question of independently verifiable facts. Speaking of which you never answered my question “Looks at these dogs behavior, do you seriously believe that if the human cooperated they wouldn't complete the act? ” (R12) Rofl, first I must use the concept of informed consent and now I must choose only examples involving rape? You sure do have a tight grip on those reigns but I am afraid I will not be cowed into moving my goal posts. I used consent not informed consent and I am saying that rape is not necessary to interspecies sex. That excerpt was meant to give a concrete example of an animal not only consenting to sex with a human but initiating it. It did not occur but as with the dogs, there is no reason to believe it would not have given human cooperation. Something zoophiles have tested and confirmed. (R13) So in other words, it’s legal so you don’t care if horses consent. That’s what I thought. "One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape. " This is your main point? It was already well addressed, quick review: Zoophiles are not having sex with non-consenting beings Zoophiles do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beingsa) (+) [the best you can hope to clai] People can behave differently towards animals and other peoplea) (+) [And if we were to accept your p]b) (+) [if humans are willing to kill animals the] Statistical association is not a basis for banning a behaviora) (+) [Finally even if ther] “Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality. ” Prove bestiality is equivalent to rape?