Theone, I debunked every single one of your reasons, not one was left standing. In the world of logic a debunked reason is an invalid reason and does not count as valid support for a conclusion.

Now, if you want to say that you think bestiality is wrong, but have no reasons, feel free to do so, but don't continue to excuse it with reasons that have already been debunked over and over again. That's like playing cards you no longer have.

I don't think that this is "right" at all. I think they're wired differently to us so you could really hurt the dog in question.

A simple discussion has been hijacked into a debate. It's amazing isn't it...

By the same reasoning you would presumably necrophilia or pedophilia are fine, as long as no harm is caused. It could also be argued that harm would be caused to the owner of the animal when they discovered someone had had sex with it, and if it is their own pet it is cruelty- since the animal has no real power to escape and no ability not to consent (though even if an animal could consent it would still not be acceptable) Now granted animals can't consent to be killed and eaten (though this clearly causes harm- so by your standards should not be acceptable) and this is where a sense of natural and biological norms come into play, as well as sociological morality. Lions naturally kill their prey in order to survive, tolerance doesn't come into it it's just natural behaviour- however as far as I know lions don't fuck their prey before they eat it, because that is un-natural behaviour. The same arguments can be applied to humans.

The dog would bite, or at the very least, run away, if it was being hurt.

Dogs are mammals, and thus have vaginas and wombs. Female dogs are built to take dog penises, which have sharp bones inside them.
If anything, the dog would be MORE resistant to being hurt than a normal woman.

That argument was bound to come up at some point and so far it's the best, since the described scenario could actually cause harm.

Whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion depends if the animal gets hurt. How could a dog get hurt if, for example, a girl spread peanut butter on her clit and labia and let a dog lick it off?

Now if I boy fucks a girl dog, the dog probably can get hurt so that'd be wrong.

Male dogs that have not been neutered have "knot" which expands to about the size of a tennis ball to keep his penis in the girl dog's vag until he is finished. This can hurt a girl if she's not careful or is too small. But still, the dog isn't hurt, the girl can be. So I'm thinking this is not wrong.

Same with oral. I don't see how performing oral on a male dog can hurt the dog so it would not be wrong.

*points to my above post*
Again, the expanding knot would hurt the female dog more than a male's penis ever could.

An overwhelming amount of evidence has proven that pedophilia is very harmful.

As for consent, that has already been answered here: http://www.getdare.com/bbs/showpost....6&postcount=11

Lastly, are you're implying it's wrong because it's unnatural?

Thank God there are still some posts with nothing of value.

Anyway, could you please explain the difference between a discussion and a debate and explain why the latter is bad?

Feel free to use this source: http://www.debate.nl/index.php/en/de...sion-vs-debate

If you are actually trying to relate this argument to consent it is ridiculous! Consent in relation to sex has nothing to do with manners or etiquette, it is about power imbalance and the ability of one party to control the other and make them do what they want. Rape victims are perfectly capable of showing 'discomfort'- yet it does not mean they consent. Rape does not happen because manners prevent people from complaining, it happens because rapists want sex and don't care whether their victim does or not. The animal is owned and/or controlled by the human- they cannot exercise free choice because they do not have the intellectual capacity to make the choice, therefore they cannot consent.

As for pedophilia causing damage- yes of course it does, but my point is that according to you if it didn't, then you would say it is okay, whereas I would still see it as wrong. And btw- if a child is deemed not to be able to consent, then an animal certainly cannot.

I wasn't implying it was unnatural- it is unnatural, and not necessarily in any religious morality sense.

Well how about what we're indoctrinated into believing by our government, schools and churches?

"Gays are wrong"
"People who're different are wrong"
"sex is wrong"
etc..etc...

You're insulting someone elses culture. I've got a few Japanese friends and they'll be insulted by what you're trying to say.

Plus it has NOTHING to do with Beastiality.

I think you need to read my post again. I didn't ask if you're implying that it's unnatural. I asked if you're implying that it's wrong, because it's unnatural.

As for pedophilia. Like anyone in the western society I've been raised to feel a strong contempt towards pedophilia and even if studies magically showed that it's actually beneficial I'd still feel that it is wrong. BUT and that's a huge but, I wouldn't be able to provide any evidence as to why it's wrong as my feeling that it's wrong would be rooted in indoctrination and not rationality.

A dog is perfectly able to consent. The question is whether it's raised to consent and if it's right to raise dogs to be submissive. A topic that doesn't have any to do specifically with bestiality, but raising dogs in general.

Night1991, read my posts and you'll see it's exactly that kind of indoctrination I'm against.

If you're for indoctrination, create a new thread and I'll be happy to give my view on the topic.

I disagree, it has everything to do with beastiality. If you'd read it, you'd understand... I can't make it any simpler.