2012-07-16: The One Where We Talk About D&D Next

[Forrest]

2. Give one example of an animal being sentient.

sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

I'm pretty sure most animals we eat were sentient before they died. It's kind of the big thing that separates animals from plants, at least as far as I know. (I am but a layperson in these matters.) I used to think that it had something to do with "intelligence", but apparently creatures don't need to be intelligent to be sentient. I think we've been tricked. I think some smarty-pants bleeding heart used fancy words to get us to agree that sentient species should have rights, when we only would've agreed to intelligent beings having those rights. And only if they were intelligent enough!

"Sapient" is the word most people really want when they say "sentient"; neither has any necessary correlation to intelligence (and for that matter, "sapience" is often what people seem to mean when they say "intelligence"; e.g. we have lots of very intelligent artificial systems today, but artificial sapience is still a big hurdle). And as far as I can tell, it's sloppy scifi writers who started that mistake. ("Conscious" is another overloaded term, which could be synonymous with either "sapient" or "sentient" depending on what sense of "conscious" you mean).

[taltamir]

sentient[/url]: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

That is the archaic definition.
You are using the animal rights activists definition of "the ability to feel emotions like pleasure or pain" or "the ability to perceive the environment" while everyone else use it to describe self aware persons.
The issue is that this is merely arguing semantics. Regardless of whose definition of the word is used the actual argument is on whether a cow is smart enough to deserve rights not what you want to call those smarts.

[You mean like spambots communicate with humans by using the same words that we use?

You talked to a spom bot? I try but they never answer because its a recording not an actual AI.

"Sapient" is the word most people really want when they say "sentient"

You know what, I believe you are correct. Just like the popular media constantly mixes up android/cyborg/robot and cyonics/cyrogenics and schizophrenia/multiple-personality-identity-disorder and so many other things.
However, it is important to note that languages do evolve. If the most commonly used modern meaning of "sentience" is sapience then that is what it means. Just as the word "thou" was replaced.

[Lukkai]

On languages:
Now where do we draw the line? It is known, that animal sounds and gestures go to be as precise as "Dangerous bird in the sky! Take cover!" or "Watch out, snake approaching!" for example. Of course, the vocabulary rarely goes beyond several dozen different phrases. Up to in the low hundreds. That is that we know of. Research is still not that far there since it was long completely ruled out as a possibility, that anyone else besides humans could ever have something like a language or any substantial amount of intelligence. Yet there are clear indications, that animal language is way more complex and precise than presumed. With some examples of a sound transmitting clear and precise concepts already found.

And there are cannibal tribes that have long eaten other humans, what the fuck does that have to do with my arguments?

You made it sound as if no animal could be used in this argument, that is not considered a standard food animal. And chimpanzees are or at least were for a large amount of people.
It may be moot though since the whole point about some animals being eaten or not eaten and it being more morally okay to kill a dumb animal than an intelligent one only appeared some part into the discussion.
(That's what I meant by the distinction you didn't make at the beginning by the way. At least not in a way that I could read in your lines.)

The statement

Define dumb. I've seen enough animals acting more reasonable than humans or showing mental skills we couldn't dream of having to treat this classification as a difficult one to make. That is for animals or single races in general.

Is nonsense if using the word race but coherent if using the word species.

How so?

Did too, and then you proceeded to ignore the second line

Nope, just cut it out of the citation to make it clear what my first sentence there was refering to. I then went on to talk about the second line.

And to put it into words once again: I've got no qualms about sacrificing animals to save the group. But your initial statement kinda made it sound as if it should be the prefered way, even if the well-being of the group does not hinge on it (*). Even if it could be just as well be ensured by other means and another character in the group. To which I replied that a wizard who still prefered to go by sacrificing living beings even if there was absolutely no need for it is drifting towards or already in the evil range of alignments in my opinion. Because the only reasons for doing so that I can see are either that he kills for fun or that he is too self-absorbed to allow anyone else to be a hero but him.

And I'm not against killing animals for food. I'm eating quite a lot of meat myself and I know where it comes from. I kill gnats or horse-flies that land on me without remorse or a second thought. I'm generally not that nice a guy. But purposely killing when there is neither need nor a good reason just doesn't strike me one can do and still consider oneself of good alignment. That's all I'm saying.

*If that's not what you meant at all, I'm sorry. It just sounded like this to me.

[taltamir]

On languages:
Now where do we draw the line? It is known, that animal sounds and gestures go to be as precise as "Dangerous bird in the sky! Take cover!" or "Watch out, snake approaching!" for example. Of course, the vocabulary rarely goes beyond several dozen different phrases. Up to in the low hundreds. That is that we know of. Research is still not that far there since it was long completely ruled out as a possibility, that anyone else besides humans could ever have something like a language or any substantial amount of intelligence. Yet there are clear indications, that animal language is way more complex and precise than presumed. With some examples of a sound transmitting clear and precise concepts already found.

I want to see some sources for those fantastical claims.