Well, "people" and "humans" aren't the same thing. One's a subset of the other.
Problem with getting too philosophical here is that someday soon the bots might also count as a subset. Then things get really complicated.
Comment on furries in shambles
yucandu@lemmy.world 1 day ago
An argument I overheard recently:
“…I think he’s a furry.”
“Well, furries are people too.”
“No, Dave, I’m pretty sure they’re not, that’s the whole point.”
FaceDeer@fedia.io 22 hours ago
Seralth@piefed.seralth.com 16 hours ago
Mate, wait till you learn about otherkin and therians. Things are already REALLY complicated. lol
tachikoma@lemmy.today 1 day ago
If furries aren’t people; Then furries fucking animals isn’t beastiality.
This is a very slippery slope. 😓
EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They’re not the ones engaging in that, that’s the fbi
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 hours ago
Furries who engage in erotic furry play (sometimes called yiffing ) partner with other furries, not with actual animals.
Anyway, they are persons and have rights, although the MAGA movement would very much like to strip them of their rights, regard them as mentally ill and disabled, and confine them to institutions. But then, MAGA wants to strip rights of anyone who isn’t MAGA.
Seralth@piefed.seralth.com 16 hours ago
Otherkin and therians have entered the chat…
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
An argument or a podcast featuring two dudes?
bilb@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I think in fantasy you do have what can only be called non-human people. The word definition for the word “person” tends to include “human,” but only because in real like human persons are the only ones that exist.
erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I’ve had enough non-human friends that I extend the definition to other animals. I’ve personally known dogs and cats that display remarkable personality and emotional intelligence, not to mention all the great examples of non-human animal communication and love available online. Animals are such people, when you get to know them.
BooBees@fedinsfw.app 1 day ago
Same, personhood isn’t limited to people. If you can be a best friend or confidant or true co-companion that is mutually beneficial and mutually understood, that’s all I need to know there’s a person in there. I’ll even extend it to other animals that exhibit complex thought, considerations, relflective behavior, but I don’t push that on other hums people, if they want to join me in doing so, they’re my kind of people. The more the merrier. I feel bad for people who can’t see animals that earned their friendship as fiends, as people.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 23 hours ago
Where the waters really get muddy is in deciding where to draw the line between ‘person’ and ‘not a person’ when it comes to AI.
Current AI is almost certainly not a person … but at some point, it seems almost inevitable that it will progress to the point where it crosses the line of personhood. Where do we draw that line? How will we know if an AI has crossed it? And how do we address the rights and responsibilities of an artificial person? Is it then unethical to turn it off or delete it? Should it have a say in government, be able to vote? Can you get married to it? Does it have a right to create copies of itself the way you have a right to have children? Can it own property? Can/should it be punished if it breaks laws, and how?
bilb@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I’m all for it.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 hours ago
Sadly, in the US, we have non-human persons. They’re called corporations, and for the moment they have more rights than humans do.
Furries count as human persons, even if they identify as another kind of beastie.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 23 hours ago
Not in Medieval European law.