Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable
I’m a trained logician, and I find the topic of veganism to be almost endlessly fascinating. if you think it’s insufferable, please disengage.
I’ve been pretty busy, personally, but I’ve been meaning to address more of your points further up the thread. if you’re happy to continue here or in any of the other responses I’ve made, that’s fine. I might still go back and address some of your points.
we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
only if those laws are rooted in an assumption of human sentience… they’re not. they are rooted in a belief in rights, which I think is probably misguided, but the laws themselves would not be effected by such an understanding
sentience has nothing to do with consent. since consent must be informed, it is a subject limited to sapient individuals.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn’t hold up because, if we follow that reasoning, we’d have to ignore any laws protecting humans with cognitive impairments from having their consent violated.
Furthermore, insisting that consent is only relevant to sapient beings and not sentient ones seems like an overly rigid interpretation of a definition, done just to push a point that doesn’t really have material relevance. One could argue that animals can still express forms of consent, but even then, it wouldn’t be informed consent, so there’s no real reason to insist on that specific definition in the first place. Such clarifications, however, are important specifically because some people do try to suggest that animals can (give informed) consent, and they’re wrong.
What I don’t quite understand, though, is why you’re so fixated on debating semantics around terms like “consent” and “sentience” in the context of a shitpost about a weird Regular Show scene. It really comes off as if you’re just debating for the sake of debating, which certainly makes you seem rather insufferable.
I’m a trained logician, and I find the topic of veganism to be almost endlessly fascinating. if you think it’s insufferable, please disengage.
Are you also a vegan?
no.
illogical
I, obviously, disagree
Then I will most certainly be disengaging.
have a nice day
I’ve been pretty busy, personally, but I’ve been meaning to address more of your points further up the thread. if you’re happy to continue here or in any of the other responses I’ve made, that’s fine. I might still go back and address some of your points.
only if those laws are rooted in an assumption of human sentience… they’re not. they are rooted in a belief in rights, which I think is probably misguided, but the laws themselves would not be effected by such an understanding