The nature of mutant animals

[Library Ogre]

You get the right golden retreiver Dog boy, or A handsome clecer German Shepard one, or a cute little pug one. Give them good press and it's all over. People love dogs. (That's what a huge part of the dog boy program is built off in the books) Have those three dog boys do something heroic or nice. Visiting kids with cancer, or saving the lives of troops in battle. Whoo. *shakes head*

Can't the Sniffer dogs be used to detect cancer? Now put a Golden Retreiver in green scrubs, and have him walk around to little kids with cancer, sniffing them all over with a cold, tickly nose while they giggle and pet him.

I can't tell if it's a pro-Mutant Animal Rights video in the CS (on a pirate channel), or a trailer for "Air Bud: The Dogtor is In!"

Yes?
The pro-rights video is entitled Air Bud....
I am afraid that this is now stuck in my brain and is now official head-canon for my games.
*walks off giggling while shuddering*

My work here is done.

[Brayon]

You get the right golden retreiver Dog boy, or A handsome clecer German Shepard one, or a cute little pug one. Give them good press and it's all over. People love dogs. (That's what a huge part of the dog boy program is built off in the books) Have those three dog boys do something heroic or nice. Visiting kids with cancer, or saving the lives of troops in battle. Whoo. *shakes head*

Can't the Sniffer dogs be used to detect cancer? Now put a Golden Retreiver in green scrubs, and have him walk around to little kids with cancer, sniffing them all over with a cold, tickly nose while they giggle and pet him.

I can't tell if it's a pro-Mutant Animal Rights video in the CS (on a pirate channel), or a trailer for "Air Bud: The Dogtor is In!"

Yes?
The pro-rights video is entitled Air Bud....
I am afraid that this is now stuck in my brain and is now official head-canon for my games.
*walks off giggling while shuddering*

My work here is done.

If you could do a Facebook like on the Forums, all of these, I would click! Awesome stuff, & I now have a few Campaign Ideas.

[Rallan]

I'm late to the party that I started, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in and saying that mutant animals in Rifts are pretty damn obviously people. Mechanically they're not treated as a special case that's different from all the other sentient RCCs you can play or labelled as "not people", and in the fluff they're consistently portrayed as people (who sometimes face oppression because other people wrongly dispute their personhood).

About the only case where someone could argue the point and have any facts on their side at all is probably the mutant bugs on Mars in Mutants In Orbit, where the text explicitly points out that they're emotionless semi-intelligent killing machines that are barely smart enough to learn simple mechanical tasks like opening a door or firing a gun.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm late to the party that I started, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in and saying that mutant animals in Rifts are pretty damn obviously people. Mechanically they're not treated as a special case that's different from all the other sentient RCCs you can play or labelled as "not people", and in the fluff they're consistently portrayed as people (who sometimes face oppression because other people wrongly dispute their personhood).

About the only case where someone could argue the point and have any facts on their side at all is probably the mutant bugs on Mars in Mutants In Orbit, where the text explicitly points out that they're emotionless semi-intelligent killing machines that are barely smart enough to learn simple mechanical tasks like opening a door or firing a gun.

Logic and reason... is that all you've got to offer?

[Tor]

The slaver claims that the Africans are not 'real people' and are really some sort of lesser primate.

Which ones went that far? I know they would say stuff like savage/uncivilized but I never heard anything like 'not people', although 'not a citizen' or 'not a gentleman' or 'not a civilized person' might have been used.

What I said was that claiming sentient beings are really animals was 1) false and 2) a vile insult

I don't see it like that, I claim humans are really animals, that is not false, they are mammals, part of the animal kingdom. Calling a human an animal or an ape can be meant or an insult or taken as one but it is not inherently this, since context is everything.

Nothing was said about relative intelligence, just that if you ARE intelligent/sentient/sapient/ what ever we are calling this, then you are NOT an animal.

Isn't "mutant human" a species of mutant animal you can make in Transdimensional TMNT? I'm not sure I'd agree these to be mutually exclusive labels.

"Depersonization" better? or maybe "desentientatization"

The first's already in use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization and easier to pronounce.

Or some other term for 'attempting to negate the value of a person by claiming that they are not actually a person, but actually just a thing, that has no intrinsic value"

Value is a subjective quality, so there is actually no intrinsic value in anything until you define a values system. For those who do not value personhood, depersonalizing a target is not a value negation. For those who hate persons it may even be an enhancement.

When you claim that A is really B, then yes you ARE equating the worth of A and B.

That goes beyond comparing to equating, a specific type of comparison.

you should get that written up and published quick as that would be the first documented case of a Dog passing the Mirror test.....Since AFAIK no dog has ever successfully passed the Mirror test when performed in controlled conditions. Ever.

Perhaps I misunderstand what the test is. My dogs don't bark at their own reflections, they don't view it as an evil twin dog, isn't that enough? Perhaps there are varying kinds of tests done with mirrors and the ones you're thinking of are more complicated than this basic idea of self-recognition I'm referring to.

^this^ seems to be an attempt to critique the idea that there is an actual concept of sentient beings.

No, just that sentience comes in degrees and that I see it as a continuum not a discrete yes/no issue.

That some how all beings up to and including mundane dogs are intelligent, sentient, self aware beings

I don't believe I said "all" beings have such traits.

thus there is no moral difference between owning a (normal) dog and owning a slave.

That would only apply if "has sentience" makes any 2 sentient beings of equal worth, which I do not agree with.

I believe there is a moral difference depending on the severity of what you compromise. Like ripping off a fingernail versus ripping off an arm. Like stealing a pencil versus stealing a car. Enslaving a dog is like stealing a pencil, enslaving a human is like stealing a car. Different degrees of severity of value which you steal.

I reject the idea that one should equate the simplest communications "danger, mine, mate" with complex abstract thought.

You're rejecting a straw man since I am not equating these things, simply stating they are both degrees of complexity on a sentience continuum. I have distinguished the level of impressiveness from the outset, never equated.

'can be trained to do a specific task' is the same as 'can self learn to do multiple abstract tasks'

You are inserted "be trained" when I was more broadly discussing the idea of "conditioning" which covers more than just being trained, but also being conditioned by environmental feedback.

Unless one is seriously claiming that any and all animals should, in game terms, be allowed to select any and all skills (they are after all the same intelligences right?)

They would need to switch to an OCC capable of teaching them those skills. Of course to do that, they'd presumably need to be taught by a member of that OCC able to communicate with them, and fulfill the attribute requirements. Bear Vagabond ftw.

I do not think that there is any support for birds with philosophy, earthworms with multiple language skills, or dogs with computer programing...All of which though are perfectly fine for mutant animals that have been changed to where they are fully intelligent beings

Do we even know what the IQ attribute for these species is? Until something's given an IQ it's hard to argue about it.

You get the right golden retreiver Dog boy, or A handsome clecer German Shepard one, or a cute little pug one. Give them good press and it's all over. People love dogs. (That's what a huge part of the dog boy program is built off in the books) Have those three dog boys do something heroic or nice. Visiting kids with cancer, or saving the lives of troops in battle. Whoo. *shakes head*

Can't the Sniffer dogs be used to detect cancer? Now put a Golden Retreiver in green scrubs, and have him walk around to little kids with cancer, sniffing them all over with a cold, tickly nose while they giggle and pet him.

I can't tell if it's a pro-Mutant Animal Rights video in the CS (on a pirate channel), or a trailer for "Air Bud: The Dogtor is In!"

Dog Boys already enjoy good PR, they are beloved by the public.

The ones who rebel against human service wouldn't be in the spotlight like this, and if they tried to change tracks, that would be managed. The CS won't give too much attention to 1 dog boy in particular so they can't be made a spokesman.

If they end up trying this, it can always be written off as a changeling/dragon imposter.

[eliakon]

"Dogs" are not self aware

Mine can pass the mirror test

you should get that written up and published quick as that would be the first documented case of a Dog passing the Mirror test.....Since AFAIK no dog has ever successfully passed the Mirror test when performed in controlled conditions. Ever.

Perhaps I misunderstand what the test is. My dogs don't bark at their own reflections, they don't view it as an evil twin dog, isn't that enough? Perhaps there are varying kinds of tests done with mirrors and the ones you're thinking of are more complicated than this basic idea of self-recognition I'm referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

The Mirror test is a specific test with a specific defined meaning that is used in behavioral psychology to determine if a creature possesses self-recognition and self awareness.
Thus claiming that something can pass it, has a specific, defined meaning.
Either your dog can pass the mirror test, or it can not pass the mirror test, however the claim must stand on the definition of the phrase 'the mirror test' and not any other meaning ascribed to those words that is not its actual specific definition.

[Tor]

Phrases can have multiple definitions, I didn't specify which form, Wikipedia's not a monopoly on meaning. My dogs see their reflections in the TV and windows and don't bark at them. They also don't bark at the dogs on TV. I don't know if it's "self" recognition but it's clearly a recognition of a non-threat even though it should appear like one. They're able to figure out they're not spectral ghost dogs.

[Rallan]

I'm late to the party that I started, but that's not gonna stop me from diving in and saying that mutant animals in Rifts are pretty damn obviously people. Mechanically they're not treated as a special case that's different from all the other sentient RCCs you can play or labelled as "not people", and in the fluff they're consistently portrayed as people (who sometimes face oppression because other people wrongly dispute their personhood).

About the only case where someone could argue the point and have any facts on their side at all is probably the mutant bugs on Mars in Mutants In Orbit, where the text explicitly points out that they're emotionless semi-intelligent killing machines that are barely smart enough to learn simple mechanical tasks like opening a door or firing a gun.

Logic and reason... is that all you've got to offer?

Nah I got plenty more than that. This is one of those "Is the CS right about intelligent nonhumans?" threads, so if logic and reason don't work I can fall back on reductio ad hitlerum.

[eliakon]

Phrases can have multiple definitions, I didn't specify which form, Wikipedia's not a monopoly on meaning. My dogs see their reflections in the TV and windows and don't bark at them. They also don't bark at the dogs on TV. I don't know if it's "self" recognition but it's clearly a recognition of a non-threat even though it should appear like one. They're able to figure out they're not spectral ghost dogs.

I can provide more links to different sources if you like....
but they all have the same statement....that there is a specific test which is described by the words "The Mirror Test" and that it has a specific meaning.
Just like if we say that someone is taking the AP Calculus exam then we can assume that it is the calculus test provided by the Collage Board, and not really a geometry exam at their local junior high.
If you use a phrase that has a specific meaning, in a discussion about those specific areas (like using the proper name of a psychological test in a discussion about psychology) then it is assumed that you are talking about that subject and not some other non-related subject.

[Tor]

I lowercased "the mirror test". In recognition of different types I will change this to "a mirror test".

AP Calculus exam could also refer to an exam you take in an AP prep course rather than the following AP entry exams themselves