Forums of the Megaverse®

We are philosophical instead of game mechanicy,
In the cs animals are animals are animals.

Yes, and, of course, the CS are bastions of civil rights and correct policy towards all creatures.

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

say652 wrote:We are philosophical instead of game mechanicy,
In the cs animals are animals are animals.

Like what the CS thinks matters. They think a completely 100% human is an inhuman monster if he knows magic and alien races that have had civilization way longer than humanity no better than animals simply because they aren't human, the last thing they get to do is set any standards except in evil.

It's mostly like you said Crow. The 'Default' For dog boys is a human like intelligence. Sure there's 'abnormalities' that results in less, but there's the same for humans. With Dog boys most of those would be killed in puppyhood. Why spend time and money bringing them up?

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

In the world today dogs are legally possessions, not likely that would be any different in the future. Ultimately the question was not about an in game view of mutant animals.

Nightmask wrote:They think a completely 100% human is an inhuman monster if he knows magic

Source? I mean sure, some of them are (Corrupt, those who cast Return from the Grave or Transformation) but I think for the most part, they see the use of magic and dangerous and unstable and betraying humanity, even if some don't realize it.

Nightmask wrote:alien races that have had civilization way longer than humanity no better than animals simply because they aren't human

Source? Seeing them as an invasive threat that needs to be countered doesn't mean you think they're no better than animals.

One can hold esteem and respect for one's enemy.

Tags wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

In the world today dogs are legally possessions, not likely that would be any different in the future. Ultimately the question was not about an in game view of mutant animals.

they would still be considered property of their owners,government or corporations, sure groups like PETA would step up, but this would last so long until they get classified as terrorists, just because of the money involved in this.

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

The difference is that dog boys have been genetically modified to be easier for humans to interact with. I.E. my working dogs would gladly run down a hole after a pissed off mountain lion if I told them to, bilut would look at you like you were stupid if you told them to do anything. I'm the pack leader, you're notThey also don't know what I mean when I tell them to go outside and run around the house five times but they can follow simple command words. Dog boys would put their life at risk for any human because they recognize all humans as superior and can understand complex instructions and interpret intent.

None of that makes them any more than a purpose built tool, just easier to use and more useful than their 4 legged brothers.

Crow Splat wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

The difference is that dog boys have been genetically modified to be easier for humans to interact with. I.E. my working dogs would gladly run down a hole after a pissed off mountain lion if I told them to, bilut would look at you like you were stupid if you told them to do anything. I'm the pack leader, you're notThey also don't know what I mean when I tell them to go outside and run around the house five times but they can follow simple command words. Dog boys would put their life at risk for any human because they recognize all humans as superior and can understand complex instructions and interpret intent.

None of that makes them any more than a purpose built tool, just easier to use and more useful than their 4 legged brothers.

Their capability for conscious and rational thought, and self awareness makes them more than a tool. They're 'people' as they possess sapience. A human soldier in the military will go out and run laps around the building if a superior tells him too as well. That doesn't make them animals/tools.

Actually it does.. they are expendable resources.

Tags wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

In the world today dogs are legally possessions, not likely that would be any different in the future. Ultimately the question was not about an in game view of mutant animals.

Irrelevant, dogs today don't have human level intelligence, the ability to speak, or otherwise do everything else a human being can. You can no longer call something an animal when it's capable of reasoning and otherwise has the same mental capabilities of a human being.

Crow Splat wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:I think it's funny that there are so many assertions that dog boys are always as intelligent as humans when one of the abnormalities is having humanoid physical features but unchanged animal intelligence.

Clearly not all dog boys are as intelligent as humans, or maybe they are because I know some people that are possibly less intelligent than my dog.

But to the question, mutant animals are a tool. The fact that they have been modified to more easily interact with humans doesn't change this.

The flip slide of that is there are humans that aren't any more intelligent than animals yet are still treated as human beings.

Plus no, mutant animals aren't tools, cars or guns are tools, mutant animals are living creatures (many of which are completely a result of nature and have zero all to do with being tampered with) due the respect a living creature deserves. Those with self-awareness and intelligence are deserving of as much respect as a human being is, not being human is quite irrelevant when the things you want to argue make humans special are just as embodied in them as humans.

My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

The difference is that dog boys have been genetically modified to be easier for humans to interact with. I.E. my working dogs would gladly run down a hole after a pissed off mountain lion if I told them to, bilut would look at you like you were stupid if you told them to do anything. I'm the pack leader, you're notThey also don't know what I mean when I tell them to go outside and run around the house five times but they can follow simple command words. Dog boys would put their life at risk for any human because they recognize all humans as superior and can understand complex instructions and interpret intent.

None of that makes them any more than a purpose built tool, just easier to use and more useful than their 4 legged brothers.

You know that's just ridiculous right? When you've created sentient life it's abhorrent to insist it's 'just a tool' or 'expendable', because it's not a 'purpose built tool' it's a person, just because it doesn't look like a human being doesn't make it any less a person when you've made it into one. A mutant animal like a dog boy or the TMNT isn't an animal it's a person, it can reason as well as or in some cases better than you or I can and it's the height of arrogance at that point to insist it's 'just a tool' or 'just an animal'.

But, in the case of dog boys, they are genetically hard wired to follow the alpha. That overrides any ability to reason. Humans have no such issue.

This is the whole reason why the CS used dogs. They are loyal to a fault. To the point where their individuality is cast aside for the orders of the pack leader.

Hmmmm lots of food for thought.

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Crow Splat wrote:But, in the case of dog boys, they are genetically hard wired to follow the alpha. That overrides any ability to reason. Humans have no such issue.

Because there is no such thing as a Renegade Dog Boy, and humans are always complete individualists, never following the crowd or bowing to peer pressure.

Crow Splat wrote:But, in the case of dog boys, they are genetically hard wired to follow the alpha. That overrides any ability to reason. Humans have no such issue.

This is the whole reason why the CS used dogs. They are loyal to a fault. To the point where their individuality is cast aside for the orders of the pack leader.

Humans have hard-wired submissive instincts and pact behavior as well, which again is quite irrelevant as to whether or not they're due the same regard as sentient beings as humans are. We have human beings with a wide range of mental disabilities which include that kind of behavior would you argue then that because their disabilities SHAPE their reason that they aren't due the same regard as other human beings?

*facepalm*

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?
That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys. If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings? That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?
That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys. If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings? That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

The problem with comparing dog boys to human slaves is that dog boys ARE happiest when given tasks, and by working with humans.

Tags wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?
That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys. If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings? That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

The problem with comparing dog boys to human slaves is that dog boys ARE happiest when given tasks, and by working with humans.

Some are... but some aren't. Otherwise there wouldn't be any rogue dog boys.

So, let's broaden this a little bit, beyond the Dog Boys of Rifts, to the mutant dogs of New Kennel who help the Empire of Humanity. They are, after all, both mutant dogs, developed by genetic manipulation.

Does the same "They're tools, not people" apply to the mutants of New Kennel? Does it also apply to the rats of Philly, the mutant birds of Birdtown, the Swans and Ravens of England, the Kangaroo people of Australia and the Kangaroo Rats of New California? What about the flamingos of the Yucatan?

depending on the level of interactive its runs the gambit of partner, pet, servant, slave, tool, companion and on and on. So it's more reflection on us ,on how we perceive them.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Tags wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?
That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys. If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings? That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

The problem with comparing dog boys to human slaves is that dog boys ARE happiest when given tasks, and by working with humans.

Some are... but some aren't. Otherwise there wouldn't be any rogue dog boys.

Actually the are thousands of years of selective breeding that says all dogs are happiest when working for and with humans.

African slaves didn't have anything close to that.

Again I find it amusing that some of the same individuals who made blanket statements about all mutant animals have flipped their script to point out how mutant animals are now individuals. Animals are individuals without having to be mutants. I have never had 2 dogs with the same personality. Sure mutant animals can go renegade, just like your pets can run away. Or are you suggesting that your current pets deserve the same rights as humans now because they can make the decision to run away?

Crow Splat wrote:But, in the case of dog boys, they are genetically hard wired to follow the alpha. That overrides any ability to reason. Humans have no such issue.

This is the whole reason why the CS used dogs. They are loyal to a fault. To the point where their individuality is cast aside for the orders of the pack leader.

No. They are genetically predisposed to follow an alpha. They can still choose not to, and some infact do. A predisposition is not an overriding factor. Humans have the same disposition it's just not as intense.

Look around you. How many nations of anarchists are there on the globe? Oh. None? Each nation has a leader/Leaders? On down all the way to local government? *Chuckles*

You're oversimplifying the presented material in attempt to stimulate argument.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:depending on the level of interactive its runs the gambit of partner, pet, servant, slave, tool, companion and on and on. So it's more reflection on us ,on how we perceive them.

I think instead it's more a reflection of the authors who wrote them. I.E. The dog boys are creations of Kevin/Erik. Thus they are presented the way those two wished for them to be.

Crow Splat wrote:
Actually the are thousands of years of selective breeding that says all dogs are happiest when working for and with humans.

1) Dogs aren't dog boys. Any more than (To reference the point above. NOT MY OWN Rational) the slave owners assertation that black slaves were like monkeys.

Dog boys are sapient beings able of thought, and self awareness. Dogs are not. The mentioned black slaves of our past, are sapient beings, able of thought and self awareness. Monkeys are not.

You're talking about different creatures. Dog boys are no closer to 'dogs' than we are to the monkeys of our evolutionary chain.

2) Domesticated dogs have been bred to serve humans, but I know of no study that say they're 'happier' than wolves.

Crow Splat wrote:

African slaves didn't have anything close to that.

Again I find it amusing that some of the same individuals who made blanket statements about all mutant animals have flipped their script to point out how mutant animals are now individuals.

They are individuals. That's not in question.

Crow Splat wrote: Animals are individuals without having to be mutants. I have never had 2 dogs with the same personality. Sure mutant animals can go renegade, just like your pets can run away. Or are you suggesting that your current pets deserve the same rights as humans now because they can make the decision to run away?

We're saying that the dog boys are sapient, because they are self aware, can think and reason, commuicate their feelings through words, and form compex abstract thought, and think beyond the immediate and reaction to stimuli.

"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

Your logic with Dogboys/Dogs, would equate humanity to nothing more than primates of any other kind, with no distinction between the two. It fails on it's face and is silly in application.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:2) Domesticated dogs have been bred to serve humans, but I know of no study that say they're 'happier' than wolves.

Dunno if it means their happier but they are more reliant on humans... One test I saw hung some meat from a tree when the dog couldn't reach it, the dog looked to the human, a wolf on the other hand continued to attempt to reach the meat on it's own. *Shrug* take it for what it's worth.

and on a side note, why do you people feel compelled to reply twice when one post will do.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

Wolves do develop complex social behaviors relating to a pack. Better then people.

Tags wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:2) Domesticated dogs have been bred to serve humans, but I know of no study that say they're 'happier' than wolves.

Dunno if it means their happier but they are more reliant on humans... Once test I saw hung some meat from a tree when the dog couldn't reach it, the dog looked to the human, a wolf on the other hand continued to attempt to reach the meat on it's own. *Shrug* take it for what it's worth.

and on a side note, why do you people feel compelled to reply twice when one post will do.

They are responding to different people.
When multiple responses get combined the results quickly end up in Wall-O-Text-O-Ramma specials

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:depending on the level of interactive its runs the gambit of partner, pet, servant, slave, tool, companion and on and on. So it's more reflection on us ,on how we perceive them.

I think instead it's more a reflection of the authors who wrote them. I.E. The dog boys are creations of Kevin/Erik. Thus they are presented the way those two wished for them to be.

I not going to disagree with you about it, but I'm just going to add its also how it gets interpreted by each of us.

Mark Hall wrote:So, let's broaden this a little bit, beyond the Dog Boys of Rifts, to the mutant dogs of New Kennel who help the Empire of Humanity. They are, after all, both mutant dogs, developed by genetic manipulation.

Does the same "They're tools, not people" apply to the mutants of New Kennel? Does it also apply to the rats of Philly, the mutant birds of Birdtown, the Swans and Ravens of England, the Kangaroo people of Australia and the Kangaroo Rats of New California? What about the flamingos of the Yucatan?

And if it doesn't apply why not?
What makes some mutant animals tools and some mutant animals people?
Or is it possibly that there is no difference other than a social difference based on the society that is doing the classifying at the time?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

90% of the above statement is false and the other 10% can't be proven. Dogs verbally communicate, it's not their fault you don't understand them and they lack the appropriate anatomy to speak english. They think and solve complex problems. They can rationalize behavior and consequence. They can plan for the future, ever wonder why most dogs wait until you're not around to get in the trash?

You can't propose to know what a dog is thinking any more than you can know what I am thinking. It is not possible so how can anyone know that they are unable to develop abstract thoughts? We can theorize all day, doesn't make it provable fact.

The bottom line is that mutant animals as far as those made by the CS, are tools. They have been made to do a job and designed in a way that the end user can interact with them with minimal specialized training. It doesn't matter how advanced or smart you make a wrench, at the end of the day it is still a wrench.

Crow Splat wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

90% of the above statement is false and the other 10% can't be proven.

I'm afraid not.

Crow Splat wrote: Dogs verbally communicate, it's not their fault you don't understand them and they lack the appropriate anatomy to speak english.

No, they have vocalizations. A very few of them. They are not a language. One bark doesn't mean "Firetruck" and another doesn't mean "Icecream cone" They make noise, there's a difference. They are not 'communicating'. At the very best, the sound of another dog serves as a warning or a locator. They're not 'taling Dog-ease, and I just don't know how to speak it'.

Crow Splat wrote: They think and solve complex problems.

No they don't. I know that people like to anthropomorphize their pets but they don't think and solve complex problems. They see problems and they can sometimes intuit how to get what they want. They do not have the ability to think and plan. They're reacting to the stimuli infront of them at the moment. Something beyond "Smell food over there" and walking there to eat it, is beyond them. If presented with an obstacle they'll use what abilities they have to try and overcome the obsticle. Then. That's it. If they can't jump it. Dig under it, chew through it. they're pretty much stuck. They can't figure out team work or complex problem solving behavior. Some are clever and have better instincts than others, but they do not 'Think' in abstract terms or beyond the immediate.

Crow Splat wrote: They can rationalize behavior and consequence.

No. They can be conditioned, to a limited degree. They do not 'rationalize' behavior and consequence. If you beat your dog for peeing on the floor. he doesn't go "Oh man, my human doesn't like pee on the floor. he thinks it smells and has to clean it up so he gets mad." the dog goes "Pee=beatings" That's a form of conditioning. Just like ringing a bell before you show a dog a treat and he drools when he sees the treat, will eventually cause the dog to drool when he just hears the bell. The dog isn't thinking in his head "hey. When my human rings the bell, it means I get tasty food" The "thought' Isn't there. It's conditioning.

Crow Splat wrote: They can plan for the future, ever wonder why most dogs wait until you're not around to get in the trash?

lol that's not a plan. That's you simply being gone and them reverting to instincutal behavior with out your supervision. Animals don't 'Plan'. Ants hording food for the winter aren't going "hey fellas, it's gonna get cold here in a few months and food's gonna be hard to find! We better stock up now. Everyone tell 500 of your sisters." It's instinct.

Crow Splat wrote: You can't propose to know what a dog is thinking any more than you can know what I am thinking.

It's pretty simple.. Pretty much... AALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Science, since we started doin' it, disagrees with you, and agrees with me. lol. People that like to think their special pooch is a brilliant 'thinker' think otherwise. Science tells us, dog's aren't sapient.

Crow Splat wrote: It is not possible so how can anyone know that they are unable to develop abstract thoughts?

Because they don't ever show the ability for abstract thought? Because they're animals and have never possessed the ability or demonstrated it in any sort of scientifically verifiable way. Ever?

Crow Splat wrote: We can theorize all day, doesn't make it provable fact.

No. Science says it's fact. You're going 'Nu uh', but that doesn't make it so. Dog's are nice to have around. I like dogs. I love animals. But they're not composing poetry and pondering the existential nature of the universe. They're animals.

Crow Splat wrote: The bottom line is that mutant animals as far as those made by the CS, are tools.

Again. Just because you say it, doesn't make it law. All evidence points to you being 'wrong' about their nature. Does ___The CS___ See them as animals. yeah. But they're thinking reasoning beings. Same as any other sapient species.

Crow Splat wrote: They have been made to do a job and designed in a way that the end user can interact with them with minimal specialized training.

They have years of training. Their instincts are strong but that doesn't change the fact. They still have to be taught to shoot a laser rifle. Same as any human. Taught to talk and walk, and everything else. They do learn fast, and mature fast, but that doesn't make them less sapient.

Crow Splat wrote:
It doesn't matter how advanced or smart you make a wrench, at the end of the day it is still a wrench.

By that logic, humanity is just a wrench. We're nothing more than the end (Current) End point of years of evolution. No different from a Dog boy. They talk, we talk, they think, we think. You honestly have no argument beyond "I think ___" Your points are false or simply wrong as per the text.

By their nature as sapient beings, they are more than just tools. Like other people in society are more than just tools. "Personhood" Moves one past a 'tool'. Sure it can be argued we're all 'tools' to a greater sociatal whole, if one wants to invalidate individuality and what not, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that a nother living, thinking, reasoning being is just a tool, because it wasn't born of a human mother. It's silly.

Apply a blind test to it. Ask what a human has/can do that a dog boy cannot, that --makes a human a person-- instead of an 'animal' or 'tool'. I don't think you'll be able to find something that sets humanity apart from the dogboys in question.

This is sounding a lot like the justifications the Splugorth and Dragons have about Humanoids....
"Well sure it looks like its thinking, but its just a human dear, its not a real person like you and me. They are just tools to be used by their betters."

Crow Splat wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

90% of the above statement is false and the other 10% can't be proven. Dogs verbally communicate, it's not their fault you don't understand them and they lack the appropriate anatomy to speak english. They think and solve complex problems. They can rationalize behavior and consequence. They can plan for the future, ever wonder why most dogs wait until you're not around to get in the trash?

You can't propose to know what a dog is thinking any more than you can know what I am thinking. It is not possible so how can anyone know that they are unable to develop abstract thoughts? We can theorize all day, doesn't make it provable fact.

The bottom line is that mutant animals as far as those made by the CS, are tools. They have been made to do a job and designed in a way that the end user can interact with them with minimal specialized training. It doesn't matter how advanced or smart you make a wrench, at the end of the day it is still a wrench.

Wow but that's just so incredibly wrong. Epic analogy fail. At the end of the day a sentient, self-aware being is a sentient, self-aware being and no matter how much someone insists they're 'just a tool' doesn't make it so. Also if a wrench were so mind-mindbogglingly engineered as to be a self aware, sentient being then it's no longer just a wrench it's a living being.

eliakon wrote:This is sounding a lot like the justifications the Splugorth and Dragons have about Humanoids....
"Well sure it looks like its thinking, but its just a human dear, its not a real person like you and me. They are just tools to be used by their betters."

Well humans do kinda suck.

Nightmask wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:
"Dogs" are not self aware. Cannot think and reason. Do not communicate their feelings through words, or form complex abstract thought, nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli. They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

90% of the above statement is false and the other 10% can't be proven. Dogs verbally communicate, it's not their fault you don't understand them and they lack the appropriate anatomy to speak english. They think and solve complex problems. They can rationalize behavior and consequence. They can plan for the future, ever wonder why most dogs wait until you're not around to get in the trash?

You can't propose to know what a dog is thinking any more than you can know what I am thinking. It is not possible so how can anyone know that they are unable to develop abstract thoughts? We can theorize all day, doesn't make it provable fact.

The bottom line is that mutant animals as far as those made by the CS, are tools. They have been made to do a job and designed in a way that the end user can interact with them with minimal specialized training. It doesn't matter how advanced or smart you make a wrench, at the end of the day it is still a wrench.

Wow but that's just so incredibly wrong. Epic analogy fail. At the end of the day a sentient, self-aware being is a sentient, self-aware being and no matter how much someone insists they're 'just a tool' doesn't make it so. Also if a wrench were so mind-mindbogglingly engineered as to be a self aware, sentient being then it's no longer just a wrench it's a living being.

Why the angst...
Well this escalated quickly...

I do believe canines have a form of communication, the problem is as humans we assume any communication has to be in a form we understand, which is simply arrogance. Wolves have complex social orders and can coordinate hunting together so there must be something going on.

Of course we are all rather insignificant, humans and mutants alike compared to what's out there.

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:So, let's broaden this a little bit, beyond the Dog Boys of Rifts, to the mutant dogs of New Kennel who help the Empire of Humanity. They are, after all, both mutant dogs, developed by genetic manipulation.

Does the same "They're tools, not people" apply to the mutants of New Kennel? Does it also apply to the rats of Philly, the mutant birds of Birdtown, the Swans and Ravens of England, the Kangaroo people of Australia and the Kangaroo Rats of New California? What about the flamingos of the Yucatan?

And if it doesn't apply why not?
What makes some mutant animals tools and some mutant animals people?
Or is it possibly that there is no difference other than a social difference based on the society that is doing the classifying at the time?

Pretty much this. It simply comes down to people setting up arbitrary distinctions out of a need to set something else beneath them to feel higher by standing on them. Always placing the goal posts so that the 'other' (in this case mutant animals) are always considered inferior and not really worthy of equal treatment no matter how obvious it is that they're deserving of equal treatment.

Tags wrote: Why the angst...
Well this escalated quickly...

I do believe canines have a form of communication, the problem is as humans we assume any communication has to be in a form we understand, which is simply arrogance. Wolves have complex social orders and can coordinate hunting together so there must be something going on.

Of course we are all rather insignificant, humans and mutants alike compared to what's out there.

Instinct. Veliciraptors were pack hunters too. They're not calling out orders to one another in "Dinosaur". There are many pack hunters. It doesn't mean they have language. Barking to harry prey, working as a group to bring down a deer, doesn't mean they sat around the wolf den and planned it out. The Alpha didn't point a paw and go "Hey frank. FRANK! Quit licking your butt, listen up! Frank you come in from the north. Sally you and Gen back me up we're going to drive um towards Frank. When Frank gets in, the deer will cut left, that's when Sam and Gustuv... where's Gus? What do you mean he fell in a ravine. What the hell? Ugg, Ok Sammy you're on your own. When Frank turns um you jump out of the snow and take him down. We'll Wolf pile on once you grab hold. Everyone got the plan. Ok. Paws in. Wolves Rule Dogs Drool on three!"

Angry barks. Threatening growls, cries of pain, barks to harry prey. Sure. "Language" talking to one another? No. Nor do they possess the capibility to form plans and complex problem solving skills. The animals are beautiful. Amazing in their own way. Apex predators and for animals they're very bright. They're just not sapient.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Tags wrote: Why the angst...
Well this escalated quickly...

I do believe canines have a form of communication, the problem is as humans we assume any communication has to be in a form we understand, which is simply arrogance. Wolves have complex social orders and can coordinate hunting together so there must be something going on.

Of course we are all rather insignificant, humans and mutants alike compared to what's out there.

Instinct. Veliciraptors were pack hunters too. They're not calling out orders to one another in "Dinosaur". There are many pack hunters. It doesn't mean they have language. Barking to harry prey, working as a group to bring down a deer, doesn't mean they sat around the wolf den and planned it out. The Alpha didn't point a paw and go "Hey frank. FRANK! Quit licking your butt, listen up! Frank you come in from the north. Sally you and Gen back me up we're going to drive um towards Frank. When Frank gets in, the deer will cut left, that's when Sam and Gustuv... where's Gus? What do you mean he fell in a ravine. What the hell? Ugg, Ok Sammy you're on your own. When Frank turns um you jump out of the snow and take him down. We'll Wolf pile on once you grab hold. Everyone got the plan. Ok. Paws in. Wolves Rule Dogs Drool on three!"

Angry barks. Threatening growls, cries of pain, barks to harry prey. Sure. "Language" talking to one another? No. Nor do they possess the capibility to form plans and complex problem solving skills. The animals are beautiful. Amazing in their own way. Apex predators and for animals they're very bright. They're just not sapient.

actually you are both right and wrong about dogs.

canines do communicate through their vocilizations, AND body language, however the information content as opposed to a language like English is very limited. also if you have ever been around a husky (or malamute) its pretty obvious they are trying to talk to you in a "language" that we don't understand.

With that said most canines are "limited" in their problem solving skills because they are not complex tool users, and their grasp of cause and effect reasoning is VERY limited.

I will use an example one of the restraints a dog I know has is a cable run, if you aren't familiar with it, its a cable strung between 2 solid features, like a building post or similar, and a tree or something like that. it then has a "trolley" which is essentially a pulley attached to the main cable and a "drop" cable that goes to the dogs collar or harness.

If the dog goes around one of the end structures (or a tree) near the path of the trolley, pretty quick they will learn that they can untangle themselves by going back around the item they got their cord tangled around. where they commonly get seriously confused is if they went around the "thing" 3 times they may give up after going back around it 2x without realizing they are 2/3 of the way to untangling themselves. they also usually can't figure out over/under issues.

On the other hand I have seen dogs figure out how to climb a ladder, a folded up step ladder, a wall "chimney" or corner (chimney in this sense being like climbing a crack in a rock wall) and similar.

the best example was actually in a Christopher Stacheff novel (in his wizard in rhyme series) where the main character was explaining that one of his "medieval" companions didn't really understand cause and effect in anything much more complicated than you use a log (battering ram) to beat on the castle doors and eventually it will break. "normal" every day dogs (and most animals) don't even have that much cause and effect reasoning.

on the other hand "mutant animals" obviously DO. In fact its explicitly stated that dog boys as the example, if allowed can learn ANY skill their human soldier counter parts can learn, in fact in some cases the dog boys can be smarter than the human soldiers they are serving beside. the big differences are:
1 generations of socialization, and selective breeding to get rid of "uppity" dogs that don't automatically accept humans as more dominate than the canine. (read up on why the coalition doesn't make lots of mutant wolves, and only limited numbers of mutant felines (mostly for special purposes)
2 coalition prejudices Lone Star and I believe the RMB (especially ultimate edition) talk a bit about the irony of the coalition using mutant canines (arguably a kind of monster) as "disposable" soldier replacements to fight other mutants and "monsters"

the fact of the matter is that mutant animals, such as dog boys, don't JUST have their IQ raised to human levels, their Type" of intelligence (especially reasoning abilities) were tweaked to be more like "humans" than their canine ancestors. this is REQUIRED to enable the jump to sapience which demonstrateably has occurred. As soon as that jump occurs they are no longer "just" animals, they are "peoples" and its just the coalitions prejudices (and the dog boys training) that keep people from believing that they are people in "universe"

guardiandashi wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:

Tags wrote: Why the angst...
Well this escalated quickly...

I do believe canines have a form of communication, the problem is as humans we assume any communication has to be in a form we understand, which is simply arrogance. Wolves have complex social orders and can coordinate hunting together so there must be something going on.

Of course we are all rather insignificant, humans and mutants alike compared to what's out there.

Instinct. Veliciraptors were pack hunters too. They're not calling out orders to one another in "Dinosaur". There are many pack hunters. It doesn't mean they have language. Barking to harry prey, working as a group to bring down a deer, doesn't mean they sat around the wolf den and planned it out. The Alpha didn't point a paw and go "Hey frank. FRANK! Quit licking your butt, listen up! Frank you come in from the north. Sally you and Gen back me up we're going to drive um towards Frank. When Frank gets in, the deer will cut left, that's when Sam and Gustuv... where's Gus? What do you mean he fell in a ravine. What the hell? Ugg, Ok Sammy you're on your own. When Frank turns um you jump out of the snow and take him down. We'll Wolf pile on once you grab hold. Everyone got the plan. Ok. Paws in. Wolves Rule Dogs Drool on three!"

Angry barks. Threatening growls, cries of pain, barks to harry prey. Sure. "Language" talking to one another? No. Nor do they possess the capibility to form plans and complex problem solving skills. The animals are beautiful. Amazing in their own way. Apex predators and for animals they're very bright. They're just not sapient.

actually you are both right and wrong about dogs.

canines do communicate through their vocilizations, AND body language, however the information content as opposed to a language like English is very limited. also if you have ever been around a husky (or malamute) its pretty obvious they are trying to talk to you in a "language" that we don't understand.

That's what's known as to anthropomorphize your pet. You're attributing a human like quality to an animal. It's come up recently in the news.
http://www.annarbor.com/pets/attributin ... s-too-far/

It's also something that's common to the human condition, but to anthropomorphize your dog, doesn't mean it's actually in possession of human qualities.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/01 ... 11766.html

I could quite literally fill the rest of the reply with 30+ more links covering this topic.

guardiandashi wrote:With that said most canines are "limited" in their problem solving skills because they are not complex tool users, and their grasp of cause and effect reasoning is VERY limited.

I will use an example one of the restraints a dog I know has is a cable run, if you aren't familiar with it, its a cable strung between 2 solid features, like a building post or similar, and a tree or something like that. it then has a "trolley" which is essentially a pulley attached to the main cable and a "drop" cable that goes to the dogs collar or harness.

If the dog goes around one of the end structures (or a tree) near the path of the trolley, pretty quick they will learn that they can untangle themselves by going back around the item they got their cord tangled around. where they commonly get seriously confused is if they went around the "thing" 3 times they may give up after going back around it 2x without realizing they are 2/3 of the way to untangling themselves. they also usually can't figure out over/under issues

That's not a problem solving skill. That's simply the expression of limited options. If the dog wraps around the tree. He's only got a few options open. Stay wrapped around the tree or go around the other way. He's not sitting there thinking 'Hurm. I'm wrapped around a tree... how to get unwrapped??" He simply has two choices. Stay wrapped or walk the other way. Once he walks the other way he's lesswrapped around the tree. He didn't sit there and suss it out and then implement a plan.

guardiandashi wrote:
On the other hand I have seen dogs figure out how to climb a ladder, a folded up step ladder, a wall "chimney" or corner (chimney in this sense being like climbing a crack in a rock wall) and similar.

You've seen a dog 'climb' A natural instinctual ability that canines possess in some fashion. Be it climbing a slope in the wild or yes, applying that same instinctual behavior to climbing an inclined plane, like a ladder. Some dogs do it better than others, but again. they're not looking at the ladder and going 'Hurm.. that's a weird lookin' thing. If I putmy paw there and there and there I can ascend!" The dog is just doing what a dog does. I.E. Climb. I've seen a dog climb a tree on the internet. Doesn't mean it's spiderdog. Or a brilliant canine. It's just an expression of instinctual behavior that THAT dog does very well.

guardiandashi wrote:
the best example was actually in a Christopher Stacheff novel (in his wizard in rhyme series) where the main character was explaining that one of his "medieval" companions didn't really understand cause and effect in anything much more complicated than you use a log (battering ram) to beat on the castle doors and eventually it will break. "normal" every day dogs (and most animals) don't even have that much cause and effect reasoning.

on the other hand "mutant animals" obviously DO. In fact its explicitly stated that dog boys as the example, if allowed can learn ANY skill their human soldier counter parts can learn, in fact in some cases the dog boys can be smarter than the human soldiers they are serving beside. the big differences are:
1 generations of socialization, and selective breeding to get rid of "uppity" dogs that don't automatically accept humans as more dominate than the canine. (read up on why the coalition doesn't make lots of mutant wolves, and only limited numbers of mutant felines (mostly for special purposes)
2 coalition prejudices Lone Star and I believe the RMB (especially ultimate edition) talk a bit about the irony of the coalition using mutant canines (arguably a kind of monster) as "disposable" soldier replacements to fight other mutants and "monsters"

the fact of the matter is that mutant animals, such as dog boys, don't JUST have their IQ raised to human levels, their Type" of intelligence (especially reasoning abilities) were tweaked to be more like "humans" than their canine ancestors. this is REQUIRED to enable the jump to sapience which demonstrateably has occurred. As soon as that jump occurs they are no longer "just" animals, they are "peoples" and its just the coalitions prejudices (and the dog boys training) that keep people from believing that they are people in "universe"

This part I mostly agree with, though I'd say the dog boys consider themselves people. Not 'dogs'. just like we consider ourselves humans, and (For the most part) Not apes. (Yes I know we 'are' apes, in the scientific sense but most humans consider ourselves above/removed/betterthan/superior to our ape cousins) due to the differences in our intelligence. The dog boys, through training and upbringing and yes, genetic selection are just more 'prone' to being subserviant to humans. It's not 100%

Ugg such long posts... And the conversation has morphed again. Also, please note the quote.

And now for something completely different...

My point was, in my previous posts, the That the OP did not distinguish between the sentient Mutant Animals of ATB, the HU power cat and the dog-boys and the ilk in rifts; and just normal animals that have been genetically altered or natural mutations. Writing as if we were all psychics and just knew what he meant. I was trying to get the OP to define what was meant.

There are ways in Char creation that the resulting char be a humanoid highly developed animal IQ or that the char has the same basic form of the core animal type but have a high sentient IQ.
-------
It was brought up that in the CS that their dog-boys and kill-cats and the like are considered to be just animals legally and by culture. (Is about to be as blunt) But that is like saying that in the Old Pre-Civil War South how the African humans were property. This doesn't fit in with the OP asking if they, humanoid animals with human IQ, are people or not.

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?

I suppose, but I think human slaves in the 1700s had more potential to learn calculus than current dogs.

Mutant dogs like psi-hounds on the other hand, would probably have equal potential, since they also have a 3D6 IQ roll like humans.

eliakon wrote:That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

Such claims were more spurious about humans than they were about non-mutant (normal) dogs.

Even back then when people were all biased, they realized slaves were more intelligent than dogs, able to speak and use tools and stuff. Even if they might have thought them closer to great apes than to caucasians, they still ranked them high above dogs in intelligence.

eliakon wrote:In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys.

Which slavers argued that? Pretty sure more comparisons were made to great apes, who are more intelligent than monkies or dogs.

eliakon wrote:If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings?

No, because sharing sentience doesn't mean you share the IQ. Orcs are sentient but have 2D6 IQ, they are inferior, even if the smartest of them exceed the human average.

eliakon wrote:That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

Dehumanization is only wrong if something is human, since that would be inaccurate.

Comparing something A to something else lesser B is not the same as equating the worth of A to B, since comparison is not equating, determining 2 things equal is only one possible result of comparing 2 things.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:"Dogs" are not self aware

Mine can pass the mirror test, that's self awareness to me. Obviously not the same level of self awareness we have, but some level. Humans have varying degrees of self awareness too, so you need to be more specific.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Cannot think and reason.

Sure they can, mine can figure out the dogs barking on TV aren't real and not to react to them. Not on the same level, but they do on a limited level.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Do not communicate their feelings through words

So far as we can discern, though they seem to understand a limited amount of them.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:nor do they think beyond the immediate, and react only to immediate stimuli

If that were true, why do mine wait by the window at a certain time of day, expecting someone to return?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:They can be 'conditioned' but that's not the same thing.

Sure it is. Human behaviors can be broken down into conditioning in response to environment as well.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:they have vocalizations. A very few of them. They are not a language. One bark doesn't mean "Firetruck" and another doesn't mean "Icecream cone" They make noise, there's a difference.

Different noises for different things. They don't get as specific as we do (truck/cone) but we can associate it with broad ideas like "enemy" or "friend". Birds even do this for aerial/ground predator.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:they don't think and solve complex problems

They DO think. As for the other... I think this depends entirely on what one considers "complex". I think we need more specific vocabulary to rank complexity to discuss it.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:sometimes intuit how to get what they want. They do not have the ability to think and plan

The difference between intuitive/instinct and planning seems apparent to us because we can comment on what we consciously dwell upon. With dogs unable to give that feedback I don't think we can fairly or accurately assess that.

Why is it 'planning' if a human decides "I'll crawl on my belly to get through this tunnel" but 'intuition' if a dog decides to do that?

Pepsi Jedi wrote:If they can't jump it. Dig under it, chew through it. they're pretty much stuck.

this must be coincidence

Pepsi Jedi wrote:They can't figure out team work or complex problem solving behavior

The way wolves take down herd prey seems to fall under this.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:they do not 'Think' in abstract terms or beyond the immediate.

Unless of course you say 'treat' or 'walk' in which case, they anticipate a future journey or feast even though it is not immediately happening.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:No. They can be conditioned, to a limited degree. They do not 'rationalize' behavior and consequence.

I think rationalization is simply very advanced conditioning.

You make conditioning sound like a passive process but there need not be a person conditioning them, it can simply be the environment and learning from it. A human conditioner is simply another environmental factor, just as anything that leads humans to learn is.

We're smarter and more complex but we're not discretely different beyond this.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Ants hording food for the winter aren't going "hey fellas, it's gonna get cold here in a few months and food's gonna be hard to find! We better stock up now. Everyone tell 500 of your sisters." It's instinct.

It's instinct for humans too, we just make it seem different because we can talk about our instincts.

eliakon wrote:This is sounding a lot like the justifications the Splugorth and Dragons have about Humanoids....
"Well sure it looks like its thinking, but its just a human dear, its not a real person like you and me. They are just tools to be used by their betters."

Getting flashbacks of how humans are discussed in the early chapters of 'Dragon Champion' right now

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Veliciraptors were pack hunters too. They're not calling out orders to one another in "Dinosaur".

Do we know that?

Also, if they're not giving orders, maybe that's because they're more communal/democratic and have no cemented subserviance to a single leader?

I'm sure they had a sound (ie word) indicating prey, vague ideas like near/far, head-beckoning, etc.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Barking to harry prey, working as a group to bring down a deer, doesn't mean they sat around the wolf den and planned it out.

A lot of humans didn't plan out hunting either and might simply go by signs they observe in the field.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:The Alpha didn't point a paw and go "Hey frank. FRANK! Quit licking your butt, listen up!

If Frank was ignoring the Alpha, the Alpha might just nip at him or bark. Kind of like how IRL an alpha might just punch or shove someone.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Frank you come in from the north. Sally you and Gen back me up we're going to drive um towards Frank. When Frank gets in, the deer will cut left, that's when Sam and Gustuv... where's Gus? What do you mean he fell in a ravine. What the hell? Ugg, Ok Sammy you're on your own. When Frank turns um you jump out of the snow and take him down. We'll Wolf pile on once you grab hold. Everyone got the plan. Ok. Paws in. Wolves Rule Dogs Drool on three!"

Not in so many words, but patterns emerge based on subtle communitications we just don't pick up on.

Human languages aren't all equall complex, Dragonese might be way more complex than American, being simplistic doesn't mean it's not language.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:

Crow Splat wrote:My current dogs are living creatures. Doesn't make them any less a tool. I have owned working dogs and pets both. My working dogs are trained to do a job and they love doing it, same as dog boys.

And your current dogs can learn Calculus?

Isn't this almost the exact same argument that was put forth in the 1700s for why slavery was good and should be legal in the United States?

I suppose, but I think human slaves in the 1700s had more potential to learn calculus than current dogs.

Mutant dogs like psi-hounds on the other hand, would probably have equal potential, since they also have a 3D6 IQ roll like humans.

My point was that claiming that something was trained to do a specific job, does not mean that they are not people

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:That the blacks were a sub-human tool, who was happiest when given direction and purpose by their benevolent white masters. That they just looked like real people but that they were not really 'true' people because they were less intelligent, or driven by instinct, or any number of other claims.......
......claims which were, in the end, just spurious claims designed to justify the ownership and enslavement of other humans for profit.

Such claims were more spurious about humans than they were about non-mutant (normal) dogs.

I am not talking about normal dogs.
I am specificially talking about the claim that a mutant dog is a tool. Which is the SAME claim that was put forth that blacks were tools.

Tor wrote:Even back then when people were all biased, they realized slaves were more intelligent than dogs, able to speak and use tools and stuff. Even if they might have thought them closer to great apes than to caucasians, they still ranked them high above dogs in intelligence.

Yes....but I was not talking about normal dogs. I was talking about intelligent dogs, and pointing out that claiming that intelligent beings are just tools is the same claim NO MATTER THE INTELLIGENT RACE BEING DISCUSSED.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:In this case the argument is that dob-boys are no different than dogs. Just like the slaver argues that Africans are no different than Monkeys.

Which slavers argued that? Pretty sure more comparisons were made to great apes, who are more intelligent than monkies or dogs.

The claim still stands
The slaver claims that the Africans are not 'real people' and are really some sort of lesser primate. The specific species, or the term of that species is not a relivent issue. Anymore than it would be an issue to argue that dog-boys should be treated differently than 'wolf boys'....

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:If it is false for humans (and in fact is a vile insult).....then shouldn't the same be true for other sentient beings?

No, because sharing sentience doesn't mean you share the IQ. Orcs are sentient but have 2D6 IQ, they are inferior, even if the smartest of them exceed the human average.

Not what was said though.
What I said was that claiming sentient beings are really animals was 1) false and 2) a vile insult
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.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:That 'dehumanization' of a person by trying to compare them to something they are not, but that is lesser, so as to say that they only are as valuable as the other, lesser, thing is wrong no matter the species involved?

Dehumanization is only wrong if something is human, since that would be inaccurate.

Fine, if you want to get picky on the gramer
"Depersonization" better? or maybe "desentientatization" 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"

Tor wrote:Comparing something A to something else lesser B is not the same as equating the worth of A to B, since comparison is not equating, determining 2 things equal is only one possible result of comparing 2 things.

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

Tor wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote:"Dogs" are not self aware

Mine can pass the mirror test

Then 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.

^this^ seems to be an attempt to critique the idea that there is an actual concept of sentient beings.
That some how all beings up to and including mundane dogs are intelligent, sentient, self aware beings and thus there is no moral difference between owning a (normal) dog and owning a slave.
A concept I reject on its face.
I will agree that person hood is a complex issue....
But I reject the idea that one should equate the simplest communications "danger, mine, mate" with complex abstract thought. Or that 'can be trained to do a specific task' is the same as 'can self learn to do multiple abstract tasks' Or any other attempt to equate animal intelligence with non-animal intelligence.
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?) 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

The claim here is that Animals do not have abstract thought (A claim that is widely supported in the scientific literature)

I have to wonder if the opinions expressed would hold up in a real world situation.

Tags wrote:I have to wonder if the opinions expressed would hold up in a real world situation.

I imagine if/when sentient animals are created they will certainly have to deal with both those who believe they deserve the same rights as sentient beings as humans have and those who either from humano-centric beliefs or to get away with exploiting them will insist they're just animals even when said 'animal' can argue the literary merits of Shakespeare while painting a masterpiece and follow it up by crafting an intricate computer program of astounding complexity.

Seaworld has lostr 84% of it's profits after the Blackfish movie last year.

That's a TON of money due to one smear campaign, and a movie... People used to luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv Seaworld and going and seeing the s hows. 84% loss in ONE year is hugely dramatic. And those are for swimming mammals that will eat you or hump you to death on the bottom of the tank.

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*

Pepsi Jedi wrote: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!"

Mark Hall wrote:

Pepsi Jedi wrote: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*