Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Three sections will be responded to in comments, there was no way to fit.(C5)comments(C1.1) C1.1.1 It is not the randomness that makes random face punching tied up with immorality it is the fact that it inherently means that a good portion of the face punches were immoral. When Con gave a single qualified example he was not presenting a random distribution of punching but a single data point. Saying that is random is little more than pointing out the motivation which is irrelevant. C1.1.2 To apply this analogy to bestiality you would have to say random acts of bestiality. i.e. you flip a coin to decide whether you will care about consent this time, or roll a dice to see if you’re going to beat the animal at the same time. Of course that will inevitably lead to immoral activities, yet still that which is immoral in them is that which should be illegal. Nothing else. Lifting a ban on face punching does not mean that every possible situation (which would be all of them if it is random) is then legal. “This example demonstrates that local instances of ethical actions do not render a practice moral” C1.1.3 Afraid it doesn’t. As pointed out above, if ‘random’ was truly an attribute of a single moral instance then it would prove that a practice defined as the sum of face punching where all instances were ‘random’ is moral. But no single instance can have that attribute since to give an example you need qualify the act. If you did not qualify the act it may remain random but its morality cannot be evaluated and thus cannot be found to be moral. “Pro fails to interact with my argument that a practice must be evaluated as moral based on how it is actually practiced.” C1.1.4 Con fails to realize that the law doesn’t ban practices it bans classes of action defined by certain attributes. The moment you define a practice as something greater than the class it ceases to be relevant to the proper legality of the practice. We are not looking at the positive here because something is legal unless specified to be illegal. So saying something should be legal (as explained in section A) is equivalent to saying that the entire practice should not be banned. C1.1.5 The practice of moral bestiality is moral. The law can and should ban what is unethical and nothing more. If someone (such as Con) needs to appeal to ‘how it is actually practiced’ they are attempting to confuse the issue. There is nothing that is moral on paper but immoral in the real world. Con is attempting to attach the non-essential immoral elements of some acts of bestiality to the essential elements of bestiality based on the notion that in the real world the former comprise the greater part of bestial events per time. Such a fallacy is precisely why a blanket ban is unjustified. C1.1.6 The ratio of ethical to non-ethical acts within a certain category of action has absolutely no bearing on whether an act is ethical or not. Such would be circular reasoning if you tried to claim it. Since the law deals with classes of actions, and in the most abstract terms the law should be banning only unethical acts the said ratio is also irrelevant to which classes of acts should be banned. If Con doesn’t call that interacting with his argument I’m not sure what would be. “Alternatively, a 95% non-consensual bestiality rate could be attributed to humans projecting their understanding of psychology onto animals or being unable to reliably communicate consent.” C1.1.7 But they are able to reliably communicate consent (as per arguments in round 1) which is why a 95% animal rape rate or even a 5% animal rape rate would need to be attributed primarily to intentional violation of consent. “It would be impossible to determine whether individual acts of bestiality were rape.” C1.1.8 That doesn’t mean the law permits it. To say so would be equivalent to saying the law permits murder… if you hide the body well enough. It’s simply false. The inability to prove someone broke the law is not the same as the law permitting the illegal act. (C1.2) C1.2.1 Moral accountability is not ensured by the ability to report rape. Otherwise the ability to report rape would mean that 100% of rapist are brought to account for their actions. This is false. Nothing is ensured, it is helped. All the law guarantees is that nothing done against it is legal. How well that law is enforced is quite a different matter from what the law should say. C1.2.2 What you propose is that we can’t allow for the possibility of a perfect crime, so we must criminalize ethical acts in order to catch the others in the same net. Please justify this, especially in context of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” C1.2.3 How can you reconcile this with premise B.1? C1.2.4 Con contends that there is no way to determine if an act of bestiality was rape. That is false, if a video was made of the event it can be reviewed and the implicit consent of the animal determined. There is no way to tell in every case, which is also true of human rape since sometimes the evidence is destroyed. C1.2.5 Animals can’t testify about whether they are raped, but neither can they testify about whether they had sex. Indeed the vast majority of human animal sex is never detected by anyone other than the participants. If the inability to effectively catch rapist means bestiality must be banned, why doesn’t the inability to effectively catch bestialist mean owning pets must be banned? “This sort of thinking is exactly why a practice that inherently lacks accountability is immoral.” C1.2.6 You mean the kind of thinking where someone expects another to back up their claims… C1.2.7 There is for the person engaging in it. As for after the fact by a third party, why? That seems to be a blatant appeal to ignorance fallacy. ‘We don’t know, so it’s got to be the worst.’ C1.2.8 What about he-said-she-said cases? Two opposing reports, there is no guaranteed method for determining whose telling the truth so why isn’t sex for humans immoral for even numbers of participants? C1.2.9 “Pro tries to use the inherent invisibility of nonconsensual bestiality as evidence of its non-existence.” Con tries to use the claimed inherent invisibility of nonconsensual bestiality as an excuse for not supporting its existence? You brought up the first claim of prevalence in round 2 under heading C1.2. My argument did not rely on it (and still doesn’t). (C2.1) I did when you challenged it. (C2.2) If we were uniquely the only intelligent social animal it wouldn’t be surprising, but since we aren’t it is surprising (and false). (C2.3.1) The very origin of this heading [C2.3.1] betrays the origin of your confusion. In C2.3 you tried to reconcile interspecies sex with H.3 by claiming they didn’t consent. H.3 had to do with the internal mental aspects of consent. ‘psychologically capable’ In (C2.3) I made a substantial argument as to why interspecies sex established that mental element. In C2.3 of your round 2 you forget the context and think that I had conflated the mental element with consent in its entirety. In (C2.3.1), (C2.3.2), (C2.3.3) I reminded you that I was talking about internal mental element of consent since that was the context. Finally here, you claim I didn’t interact with your argument and repeat that preferences aren’t consent. I didn’t refute your example because there was nothing wrong with it. Walking people back over the debate is a really wasteful way to use characters, but if I don’t people can’t seem to figure it out on their own and I end up making giant forum posts it while someone tells me “should have been in the debate” This is in the debate, this is reviewing the debate and I would appreciate it very much if Con did not make me do this again, I cut parts I thought were important because I am now afraid to let these things go. (C2.3.2) Jill who can’t object won’t display the ability to object, like animals do. If I was trying to have sex with a woman and she didn’t make any sound and didn’t move I would freak out pretty quickly. We are talking about a Jill who is moving, smiling, maybe moaning from time to time. (C2.3.3) 1. I did not see an argument for consent relying on human psychology and human language, and if I did and accepted it I would simply update my moral theory to include only avoidance of harm since depriving animals of something alien to their psychology could have no moral significance. 2. I did not redefine consent as a preference alone, please please review. 3. I’m afraid recognizing that the new word meant the new toy can only be a decision. There was no time to train her, no human cues behind the couch. She went back there and performed a logical operation. Logic + volition = decision. (Volition is established by dynamic behavior modification). It’s obviously not the same decision as deciding to have sex or deciding to go along with a sexual advance but that is irrelevant. The ability exists and if an animal chooses not to assert their will about sex they have still made a choice. 4. The interaction as a whole is what the animal reacts to as a whole; that is how we can know the sum but not the parts. If we isolated the parts (i.e. we used a control) we could determine what they think about details provided they care enough to react at all. 5. Conditioning/training is not exclusive with consent/decision making. There was no need to touch the questions you asked about your dog’s behavior other than the answers I gave. In fact at the very least training requires some intelligence, preference, and volition because it is a contradiction in terms to say you are training a new instinct into an animal. 6. I explained to Con why his explanation of permission is flawed: It doesn’t rely on complex moral interactions. It just relies on preference, volition, and communication. (C3.1) comments (C3.3) comments (C4) The animal knows what is happening and knows how it feels about it; that's all it needs to know since that's the only responsibility I would place on them.