this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
76 points (90.4% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
350 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The 32 countries that have formally recognized non-human animal sentience include the European Union, Switzerland, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Ever since I looked at the dictionary definition of the word, I have thought animals had sentience. It just means the thing has senses and some awareness of the world around them. Yet it's more commonly used to describe the difference between humans and non-humans, which is what the word "sapience" is supposed to mean. It's like at some point, we started using the wrong word.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

I've always understood sentience as the ability to sense oneself, i.e. a being's capacity at introspection and awareness of one's own existence as a separate experience from other beings.

Many mammals and birds tick this box, some more than others.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Non-human animals may also be sapient. For example, mammals are. There is no meaningful general difference between humans and all other animals.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is no meaningful general difference between humans and all other animals.

I look forward to you arresting that orca for suspected murder of that shark.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Non sequitur. Or, what is the meaningful general difference that you are trying to describe that applies to every human and no non-human animal?

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You could have "own kill" laws, then you'd have lots of new vegetarians, some small farmers, and some newly discovered psychopaths.

Hear, hear!

[–] Fleur_@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

Signed. After all, clubbing seals is more fun knowing they are capable of feeling suffering πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I signed it but I don't really get what's the goal here other than rectifying a minor semantic issue

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It will make it harder to argue in favour of animal abuse in the court of law.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

I doubt it. But I hope you're right.