Cross species is what I'm alluding to, in the OP. That aside, animals already have no rights. So why arbitrarily extend a fringe conduct to them, when such an ethical concern is inconsistent in regards to other areas of their treatment that get disregarded? I.e, farm house abuse, slaughter, enslavement,ect. Fyi, from my knowledge animals products aren't an absolute for human survival. So you can't argue from the pov of necessity. And to clarify, I'm not a vegan. In case some failed abortion uses that as a talking point against me.
Yes, because as far as I'm aware killing livestock animals is legal and jacking off with your dick wrapped in deli meat is legal, so somewhere inbetween there bestiality goes from being illegal to being legal if you kill and butcher the animal first which doesn't make sense to me.
Robert Jackson
if they look like that and can consent sure but otherwise no, fucking animals in their current form and state of mind is wrong.
Having a hard time poking a hole in this logic desu
Dylan Long
No, because once an animal mates with a human, they will only mate with humans for the rest of their lives, and animals don't ask for consent first either.
an animal doesn't have the brain capacity to consent but hopefully crispr gets perfected to the point that I can have my genetically engineered cowgirls who can consent to a deep dicking.
It's pretty much the easiest "crime" to get away with, they aren't going to tell anyone (unless you're screwing a parrot)
Parker Sanchez
>an animal doesn't have the brain capacity to consent Not really sure that's true. If a woman sticks out her butt and her dog actively decides to mount her then it's obviously consenting. Also, usually if an animal doesn't want you doing something it will let you know, violently. If some dude was banging a horse and it didn't want him there it'd kick him and he would probably end up in the hospital if not dead.
Ayden Wright
>this is the best defense animal rapists can concoct lmao
Owen Ortiz
>A non issue complaint from a retard who didn't elaborate with a rebuttal
And explain to me how mutilating animals in confined spaces for taste pleasure is morally permissible, yet using said biological utilities for other facets of joy is wrong?
>salughtering animals to eat is taste pleasure >slaughtering an animal to eat is the equivalent of sodomizing them You really are a nigger huh?
Xavier Richardson
>killing an animal is less cruel than putting your dick in it
Grayson Morris
>to eat
You don't require animal products for immediate survival, nor do you need them for anything else. If you did, pic related wouldn't be alive. And the logic follows the same, as in both instances pleasure is the criteria for justifying abuse.
>muh feefees I popped a free range steer with a captive bolt, instant kill, and ended the stress free life of an animal that couldn't survive in the wild to begin with. You want to stick your dick in an organism you aren't remotely biologically compatible with. I suppose this is the part where you break out another false equivalencely without thinking about how animals eat other animals or how they lack sentience. don't (you) me nigger
James Bailey
>dumbbell curls are the only exercise in the world >You want to stick your dick in an organism you aren't remotely biologically compatible with. You're not biologically compatible with your own hand, but you don't let that stop you.
(you), and did the animal consent to that transaction? If you interchanged that position of abuse with a Human subject, would it still be morally permissible according to your logic?
He's 6'3+, so his frame is appropriate for his ethnic back ground(blacks tend to be ectomorphic) and or height. Besides he's bigger now, if that means anything.
Can you all shut the fuck up and focus on some real fucking problems. How i wish i was pampered to the point where i could argue online about some guy sticking his dick in a dog.
I really want to post a succulent pink mare pucci to show case apparent superiority in reference to your sub 3. But the mods are stuck up, so maybe google something related , and find the appeal.
>A relative sense of righteousness with no objective meaning
>Sparse amounts of muscle near the buttocks >Lose back side with no reinforced muscle support for additive pleasure >Soft with a texture of thinly sliced turkey labia wise
You're misinterpreting the argument. An animal and human can never produce a child. A trap can still mate with a female and produce a baby. That's why it will never be legal.
Aiden Evans
No I'm being consistent, as your claim was that (you) can't breed them. There fore they should be illegal for sexual intercourse. And I accentuated the absurdity of this statement, by putting a legal agent into this context. So whether or not the party in question is capable of breeding some other way (both are) excluding you is irrelevant, as the premise of your argument focused on a self insert.
Maybe, but at the end of the day it's still a substitute for having real anthros. Only thing is I don't know what plausible excuse there would be to genetically engineer animal people.
