Which is why it's the first thing you brought up, right?
Why does Data consider Spot not a sentient being?
- Thread starter stevenflow
- Start date
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
What it is is that you're sort of Godwinning the thread.
I could have also used a different example to illustrate my point that current and local written law alone does not suffice in these kind of discussions, but "slavery" really seemed most appropriate for the category "buying and selling property".
I was pointing out that strict legal positivism does not suffice.
P.S.: Thank you for reminding me that I have no business posting on any Internet message boards.
Only in the anonymity of the Internet somebody would accuse a complete stranger of "subtly accusing another poster of supporting slavery". That surely must rank among the most ludicrous things I have ever heard.
As this is a Star Trek message board: Live long and prosper.
Last edited:
Next to cats are sentient.
Which upon being asked you have yet to prove.
It's the law within the country I live in.
Repeatedly stating cats are sentient without any type of factual support doesn't make it fact.
this is the 3x I've asked you for factual support, you haven't given it. I'm not the one hiding.
Being sympathic toward animals doesn't give them sentience. Sentient creatures can't be mass slaughtered and sold world wide under the title "Happy Meal". If animals were recognized as sentient, that would be considered murder and we all be accompliceses. It also gives us the right to buy, sell and own animals.
It's the entire debate in "The Measure of Man".
If Data is sentient, then he can't be owned by Starfleet, the government or any person.
Last edited:
Err, Exodus' points make no sense. Blacks were in the Northern United States in the mid- nineteenth century, and were NOT considered "property," while black slaves in the South were. So.... the blacks in the North were sentient, while members of the same race in a different geographic region were not?
I think this is the point that the other poster was making about the flaws of legal positivism.
Also, you should be skeptical of the idea that slaves were TRULY considered "animals." Remember, plantation owners were trying to maintain an economic system that depended on slavery. They may have RATIONALIZED it by saying that the slaves weren't really human, but they would have spent enough time with them to know that was basically b.s.
I think this is the point that the other poster was making about the flaws of legal positivism.
Also, you should be skeptical of the idea that slaves were TRULY considered "animals." Remember, plantation owners were trying to maintain an economic system that depended on slavery. They may have RATIONALIZED it by saying that the slaves weren't really human, but they would have spent enough time with them to know that was basically b.s.
It makes as much sense as anything in this dumb debate does and the point of it being brought up in the first place.
However, we are not here to address slavery but rather are animals sentient.
Sure there are flaws but do we become criminal and disregard the law over an opinion of sentience over a cat?
Last edited:
J
Jetfire
Guest
I did, did you?
I don't live in Europe, which is why I did state: "It's the law of the country in which I live in".
J
Jetfire
Guest
Yes. My bad you were asking for proof and no one provided...other than stating "By law" which I had a link to already in the thread.
Then you say you don't live in Europe???
How about this for an agreeable solution:
1. The writers don't know the distinction between sentience and sapience
2. Data was not having a scientific discussion but reciting poetry, which is often filled with metaphors and other less concrete, fact-based notions than a scientific journal article
3. Data was employing hyperbole. Regardless of your position on feline consciousness/sentience, there is no question that compared to humans and Data, Spot's level of sentience is miniscule. Therefore, it would fit a hyperbolic poetic convention to imply that, compared to humans and Data, cats aren't quite up to par. He might have simply been exaggerating.
4. At the time the episode was written, the studies people referred to were either non existent or not widely known. Back then it's not unreasonable to think that even animal advocates didn't consider cats to be sentient. (And of course there was no Wikipedia or Google Scholar for them to consult, nor had the EU yet declared by law that animals are sentient.)
Now I'm a huge cat-lover. Unfortunately, because of terrible allergies and asthma, I can't be inside a house with one. But I've almost always adopted stray, unwanted cats and given them as much care as I can. They seem quite happy having the safety, shelter, and free food/treats/attention, even though I sadly cannot keep them inside with me. But the climate where I live is very mild. It rarely gets below freezing and hardly ever snows (and the summers are mild).
I have no idea what goes on in the minds of my cats. But they seem intelligent enough, and I would *never* want any pain or sufferring to happen to them. I know they have feelings and brains. As an electrical engineer who specializes in biomedical engineering and brain injuries and disorders, I'm quite attuned to the latest developments on the study of the human mind. One thing I know is that it's an extremely poorly understood organ. So I imagine it is difficult gauging with much precision the level of cognition of cats except through analogies to humans and behavioral studies.
I would hope that irrespective of the posters here who represent a wide spectrum of beliefs about cat sentience that *all* would agree that (a) we must treat them with the utmost kindness, ensuring that, as with our fellow humans and other animals, no preventable harm/sufferring visits them and (b) whatever their true sentience is, it's nothing *close* to that of humans.
Plus, the inability to communicate verbally with them makes it that much harder to discern their actual thoughts!
Now can't we all get along?
(seriously though: I'm not actually suggesting you guys don't have the right to continue to go at it! I'm just trying to offer what I think is a decent resolution.)
1. The writers don't know the distinction between sentience and sapience
2. Data was not having a scientific discussion but reciting poetry, which is often filled with metaphors and other less concrete, fact-based notions than a scientific journal article
3. Data was employing hyperbole. Regardless of your position on feline consciousness/sentience, there is no question that compared to humans and Data, Spot's level of sentience is miniscule. Therefore, it would fit a hyperbolic poetic convention to imply that, compared to humans and Data, cats aren't quite up to par. He might have simply been exaggerating.
4. At the time the episode was written, the studies people referred to were either non existent or not widely known. Back then it's not unreasonable to think that even animal advocates didn't consider cats to be sentient. (And of course there was no Wikipedia or Google Scholar for them to consult, nor had the EU yet declared by law that animals are sentient.)
Now I'm a huge cat-lover. Unfortunately, because of terrible allergies and asthma, I can't be inside a house with one. But I've almost always adopted stray, unwanted cats and given them as much care as I can. They seem quite happy having the safety, shelter, and free food/treats/attention, even though I sadly cannot keep them inside with me. But the climate where I live is very mild. It rarely gets below freezing and hardly ever snows (and the summers are mild).
I have no idea what goes on in the minds of my cats. But they seem intelligent enough, and I would *never* want any pain or sufferring to happen to them. I know they have feelings and brains. As an electrical engineer who specializes in biomedical engineering and brain injuries and disorders, I'm quite attuned to the latest developments on the study of the human mind. One thing I know is that it's an extremely poorly understood organ. So I imagine it is difficult gauging with much precision the level of cognition of cats except through analogies to humans and behavioral studies.
I would hope that irrespective of the posters here who represent a wide spectrum of beliefs about cat sentience that *all* would agree that (a) we must treat them with the utmost kindness, ensuring that, as with our fellow humans and other animals, no preventable harm/sufferring visits them and (b) whatever their true sentience is, it's nothing *close* to that of humans.
Plus, the inability to communicate verbally with them makes it that much harder to discern their actual thoughts!
Now can't we all get along?
(seriously though: I'm not actually suggesting you guys don't have the right to continue to go at it! I'm just trying to offer what I think is a decent resolution.)If I've already said I don't live in Europe & European law doesn't apply to me, then it should be obvious I'm not looking for an answer regarding European law. Why would I ask for an answer for something I've already said doesn't apply to me?
J
Jetfire
Guest
It doesn't but your comment doesn't make sense. You have said it isn't the law within the country I live in?
You don't have to be snide.
Similar threads
