Non-Human Personhood

[Salodin]

Her first comment was sarcastic, second was troll. If she says I'm wrong then my bad, but I have a sense of humor and took it as sarcasm.

[hey]

Because you pushed the topic in that direction, ffs. (Because Kuronosan just had to throw in a low effort pedant comment to open the opportunity.)

My first post in this thread was in response to this...?

Hey is being sarcastic. I know it's the internet and words but damn you guys are getting baited so easily.

Her first comment was sarcastic, second was troll. If she says I'm wrong then my bad, but I have a sense of humor and took it as sarcasm.

Nope, i'm serious. What does gender/age have to do with being human?

A perfectly reasonable definition of human would be "Member of homo sapiens species". Why do we need to add more to that? Gender and age are not part of being human.

[Karbuncle]

My first post in this thread was in response to this...?


Nope, i'm serious. What does gender/age have to do with being human?

A perfectly reasonable definition of human would be "Member of homo sapiens species". Why do we need to add more to that? Gender and age are not part of being human.

fuck I just googled "humanity". Write an angry letter to Webster or something ._. I didn't write it

[kuronosan]

I'm being somewhat satirical. I find it odd that there are those who argue the humanity of an undeveloped fetus but not an orangutan. There's a difference between classifying and defining.

I think this entire thing is stupid. It's an animal. Not a person.

[hey]

fuck I just googled "humanity". Write an angry letter to Webster or something ._. I didn't write it

Oh. Well, it's a bad definition

I'm being somewhat satirical. I find it odd that there are those who argue the humanity of an undeveloped fetus but not an orangutan. There's a difference between classifying and defining.

I think this entire thing is stupid. It's an animal. Not a person.

Well, people are animals too. The question i guess is, what makes us, as humans, special, that most other animals don't have in common? And further, are there any other animals that do have those things in common?

[BaneTheBrawler]

This thread is about sentience and the rights it entitles (or not) a being to. Not gender. The "man" was clearly referring to humanity, not gender. Sure, it's an anachronistic use of the word. But that's way off topic. Post about it somewhere else.

Only warning.

[Salodin]

Nope, i'm serious. What does gender/age have to do with being human?

A perfectly reasonable definition of human would be "Member of homo sapiens species". Why do we need to add more to that? Gender and age are not part of being human.

Fuck I am so sorry guys. I didn't realize she was going full-terrible.

[Blubbartron]

Can anyone in here explain the difference between sentience and sapience? I've tried to look it up a few times before, but depending on where you look, both words either have the same definition, or wildly different definitions. I'm looking for whichever term encompasses the ability to have knowledge of self - to know you are a unique individual with your own feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. The thing that children under the age of 2-3ish lack.

Regardless, I think one of those two things is what sets humanity apart from the animals. I think that's what makes a person a "person" instead of simply "life". If an animal has it, we should endeavor to treat them as fairly as we treat each other.

[Salodin]

Even when we teach orangutans sign language they still don't have a theory of mind. It's a uniquely human thing, as far as we know.

[FNH]

I'm looking for whichever term encompasses the ability to have knowledge of self - to know you are a unique individual with your own feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. The thing that children under the age of 2-3ish lack.

Sentient.


Probably a tangent to the discussion, but here goes. I don't think "Non-human personhood" is the right label because it stirs up discussion of the lines of humanity. I'd prefer it if they define the rights attributed to animals. Specifically in the regards to captivity. There have been few zoos that I have felt like the animals could be comfortable, and generally dislike the concept of them. Outside of special cases for certain species where they need some sort of captive breeding program to increase their numbers, I wouldn't mind them being shutdown. It is neat in concept to be able to view exotic species in a fairly close range, but I just don't enjoy it after seeing the conditions. On the same idea, I've never been a fan of having a dog or cat inside. All the dogs and cats I've cared for had miles to roam/hunt/swim. While it might be hypocritical, but the animals I have kept captive (birds, fish(duh), rodents), were in a cage because of the presence of danger.

I am by no means an extremist "fur is murder" type of person, however, more middle of the road preserve the wild until I can make use of them. Probably a better way of putting that but I am at a loss for rephrasing. I enjoy hunting, but I don't hunt specifically for trophies. I follow the rules and will take a cull buck or a doe to better the local herd for the future. I fish, but I catch and release if I don't plan on eating them and will eat them if they get a foul hook in the throat. I have raised livestock for food. I don't like the concept of city expansion for the sake of expansion, I enjoy the wilderness and want to keep land undeveloped in some areas.

[hey]

Even when we teach orangutans sign language they still don't have a theory of mind. It's a uniquely human thing, as far as we know.

I don't think we really understand any other animal enough to really say that. Dolphins in particular, don't seem to be much different. Language barriers obviously make it difficult to to really learn about other animals, and how they think.

[Salodin]

No hey, we can. We have people intelligent enough to set a bar for what we consider a mind, and no animal tested to date has one. Even children before the age of 2ish don't have one developed.

If you're going to refute decades of psychology you better damn well provide evidence for it, and not "well we don't speak orangutan or dolphin so we don't really know anything".

[hey]

I'm sorry, i'm not sure if you're serious?

[kuronosan]

Well, he's kind of right. It's pretty presumptuous to say language is the only barrier.

[hey]

When did i say that?

[Salodin]

No animal that we know of has the capability to think outside itself, to question reality or its own perspective. This is something uniquely human, and when we refer to "man" we are talking about this specifically.

[BerenTebogo]

Was about to post about elephants painting, then did a bit of digging. Turns out it's a purely routine memorization exercise with lots of prodding. Basically the same as a routine you would see between a seal and a trainer at an aquarium.

Sad

[hey]

No animal that we know of has the capability to think outside itself, to question reality or its own perspective. This is something uniquely human, and when we refer to "man" we are talking about this specifically.

Yes, that we know of. But that doesn't mean there isn't. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it's not the case. How something thinks is not exactly trivial to determine, especially when it's impossible to ask them.

[Salodin]

Yes, and maybe tomorrow god will descend from the heavens and smite the nonbelievers.

There might be animals that have the ability to understand others perception, but we haven't found them. Out of all animals we are currently aware of, none have a mind capable of the things described above. These are the traits we consider unique to man that sets us apart from the rest of the animals. That is the only point that matters. It needs to be said cause at this point what the hell are you even arguing?

The people from the original news article seem to forget this. They assume that because some primates look and sometimes act like us, that they must be like us. That is not true, they are incapable of thinking like us. They can experience something, but never understand something. They can be taught tricks to get what they want, but they can never ask us something to learn from the experience. I'm not saying they're wrong for doing this, because empathy is a human trait that is actually a real thing, but I am saying there reasons are wrong.

[BerenTebogo]

This isn't my professional field, and as far as I know, with the exception of maybe Byrth, this isn't anyone else who posts here either.

So while I'm sure you're on the right track, maybe some link to studies, articles, research? The only conclusive way to say we can't interpret shit about shit is with MRI and fMRIs of other mammals while performing certain tasks. I'm pretty sure this has been done and that there is a bevy of research on it.

Right now Salodin is no more correct than Hey because neither of you are backing up your arguments in even the weakest sense. This information exists, if you're going to argue and defend legitimate scientific research, you should probably cite some to make sure you aren't talking out your ass.