Was reading the Adult section rules and it brought up something I've seen before. Non-sentience creatures. And that was to imply animals basically. But animals ARE sentient. The are able to feel/ perceive things. They feel pleasure, pain, suffering, or in simplistic from of consciousness (although my cat seems to be unaware that his claws hurt when he kneads me). I'm not condoning anything... I'm just asking if people are using this word incorrectly. Or at least using a different definition of the word. Of course non-sentience can refer to computers and robots... artificial intelligence. So are we not allowed to talk about humping our hard drives? Wasn't sure if this would be posted in the Adult section because of what brought this idea up.
lol I thought I knew what sentient meant, but after looking up a jillion definitions, it practically means anything that possesses even one of the 5 senses "1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious. 2. characterized by sensation and consciousness." welp I guess for furry world purposes they kind of tweak the definition to mean that the feral must have near human levels of intelligence.
Ooooo, philosophy my favorite. You are correct there is a distinction between consciousness and sentience that is often mislabeled in common parlance. But, the meaning from the post I think you are referring wouldn't change as we commonly think of animals as "non-sentient" beings (primarily lacking the ability to consent to actions). I would be fascinated to continue this, but I don't know how many people are into philosophy. Course, if this does continue then moving it to the debates section might be wise.
(This isn't facetious or sarcastic, I promise) Is there a word you'd rather I used instead? I personally believe that animals do have feelings and emotions, although it's not how everyone feels. I never know if things have to have complex thoughts to count as sentient.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are just seeking to keep human-animal (what we would commonly think of as "pets") out of the thread. If that's the case, then maybe just using the basic definition of bestiality would work: "sex between a person and an animal (non-anthro)."
I have no idea It actually took me forever to write that post because I wasn't sure how to word any of it lol
To be honest, I would say if someone doesn't know what bestiality or pedophilia looks like, I'm concerned.
I would say I'm into philosophy (although did take PHI 101) but that doesn't exclude having deep thoughts/thinking. You could just add an addendum to the bestiality rule that excludes dragons and other mythological animals.