>I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals. To say that there is no such thing is incredibly ignorant and illogical. Objective reasoning matters more to me than emotional gut responses. I do not believe in putting innocent people in jail just because "Eww, gross.".
What did he mean by this?
literally nothing wrong with any of that.
>fucking animals is no worse than keeping them in captivity all their lives and artificially inseminating them
Yep, Adam's point still stands.
>keeping animals in captivity and artificially inseminating them in order to feed the growing human population
>fucking a dog because you want to satisfy your degenerate sexual needs
fuck off furfags
>Objective reasoning matters more to me than emotional gut responses.
this is when atheism goes to far.
Why is Sup Forums always right bros?
He thinks he can have a nonabusive relationship with a being he can barely if at all communicate with to establish basic consent, in other words he's an idiot
how insane do you have to be to think people will care for your argument
ya don't fuck animals dude
IMO if you're penetrating an animal you're a sick fuck but if you let your dog or whatever fuck or lick you I think it's more of a grey area. I would still stay away from someone who did that but I recognize the difference.
both are fucked up, i dont see the difference
>if you let your dog or whatever fuck or lick you I think it's more of a grey area
>Its ok to fuck a creature that does not have the ability to give consent, because...because the meat industry takes advantage of animals SO ITS OK FOR ME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANIMALS, TOO!
This is where his stupid logic breaks down.
you just don't fuck animals
it's like, not cool
No matter how good of an argument a person can make for inter-species consent, the fact is the only reason you would ever make that argument is if you have a preoccupation with having sex with animals.
>be vegan furry who hates the meat industry for abusing and killing animals
>use that to justify animal fucking
b-but they're so lewd!
t. turbo whale
Artificial insemination is also for "pleasure" since you could technically survive on a non-meat diet.
I have yet to see a real argument against it.
It's fucking beastiality
kys degenerate
not arguments, try again
How is "it's bestiality" not an argument?
An animal can't give consent, so you're raping the animal.
...
in case you're not trolling, saying the subject of the debate is not an argument.
>so what is your argument against homosexuality?
>it's gay.
so a dog who bones his female owner is not giving consent?
is sex rape until you get written consent?
If a girl is mute, limbless and deaf but just loves cock and just wants me to pull down my pants so she can get sucking, am I wrong to assume that her rubbing up against my crotch is consent?
Am I in the twilight zone right now? I hope you get raped to death you fucking creep
Labeling something with a dirty word is not an argument against something.
There's plenty of arguments against fucking animals without resorting to retard tier "but it's baaaad" "arguments"
waiting for someone post this
gas all furfags
Audible kek
>retard tier
>fucking animals isn't retard tier
Have fun, Cletus.
Yes. Unless you get clear consent, it's rape. The distinction is pretty clear in the real world.
>le morality faec
the fuck m8
The argument against it is that being pro-bestiality in the first place is begging the question. Nobody would be pro-bestiality unless they had a personal interest in having sex with animals. You've arrived at your conclusion before establishing any premises.
so a dog who, of his own accord, starts banging his female owner is not giving ''clear consent''?
degenerate dog fucker spotted
so a large amount of sex is probably rape considering how normal people behave.
Also considering how being in a relationship with someone doesn't exempt you from possibly raping them, a lot of marriages would include rape simply because two people are comfortable around each other.
I'm not advocating bestiality, I just think rules regarding consent in general are arbitrarily rigid
>non-abusive sexual relations with animals
His argument will stand the moment animals will learn to sign a consent form.
Because there's no way to legally judge consent of an animal, even in Adam's dumbass 'some people have a special relationship and communication with animals' world, so there'd be no way to differentiate between raping an animal and fucking one. Is all sex with animals considered consent now? Can I buy a dog, who has no human rights, no ability to report a crime, and no ability to communicate, and rape it every day in a way that it doesn't 'consent' to, and be a law-abiding citizen? Can I have a farm where I fuck all the animals on it and say they consent because they like when I feed them?
And most importantly, it's beastiality. The only people who would benefit from this are people who want to fuck animals and don't want to get in trouble for getting caught.
Yes it's a fucking dog you degenerate
...
...
You could 'technically' survive with half a brain, should we start lobotomizing the population?
Why in the fuck would creatures that stand atop of the food chain limit their dietary choices?
This wasn't Sup Forums related two weeks ago and it's not Sup Forums related now.
>this is an actual discussion
>""""people"""" are actually debatin in favor of bestiality
>you can't discuss a moral proposition without being directly involved in it