More than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok ‘almost constantly’::A new Pew Research Center study finds that more than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok “almost constantly.”

  • McKee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ok let me unpack your two points:

    • The difference with the sentience criteria is that a non-sentient being by definition cannot be hurt by actions taken against their being as there is quite literally no subject, no one, to experience anything. Would you say that someones that likes smashing rocks is discriminating against rocks? Of course not because it makes no sense to speak about discrimination for a non sentient being/object. The only time where you can make an argument that doing something to a non sentient being is an issue is when it affects a sentient being.

    • Again as I’ve literally stated in my earlier comment the discrimination is not based on species but on sentience. If you want a more concrete example, let’s imagine a philosophical zombie or in other terms a non-sentient human. I would not include such a being in my moral circle by itself as it would lack sentience.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      it makes no sense to speak about discrimination for a non sentient being/object.

      we discriminate between cars and motorcycles.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Would you say that someones that likes smashing rocks is discriminating against rocks?

      i wouldn’t say they’re are discriminating against rocks. i’d say they are using discrimination and allowing themselves to smash objects they class as “rocks”

      • McKee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        But you would agree that the rocks themselves cannot have an issue with it? That’s the gist of the sentientist position. Sentient beings have an interest in living, not being exploited and thus the sentientist position goes further and say that for the same reasons we say that humans have a right to live (i.e.: not being killed) or being exploited, we should extend the same rights to sentient beings because there is no morally relevant difference between us and other sentient beings that would justify killing them when you would not kill a human being in the same position.

        Note that this does not mean all sentient beings should have exactly the same rights. Obviously giving the right to vote to a cow does not make sense, the same way we don’t give the right to abortion to cis men because they cannot make use of this right.

          • McKee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Ok it feels like you’re just starting to spam answers without even taking the time to argument on why you think something. I try to take the time to justify my position and you just answer with small sentences that don’t do anything for an interesting discussion.

            Let’s stop there, have a nice day.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          But you would agree that the rocks themselves cannot have an issue with it?

          yea. it doesn’t change whether you’re practicing discrimination.

          • McKee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes I agree in principle that it’s a discrimination. They way I used discrimination was implying that someone on the “bad” side of the discrimination could be discriminated against. My bad I should have clearly defined the way I used this term. Sorry English is not my first language as well.

            In any case a discrimination that does not hurt the discriminated or another sentient being is of no consequence for me.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              so you can see, in this case, NDT was right that vegans also practice speciesism, even if his other arguments are kinda stupid.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          we should extend the same rights to sentient beings because there is no morally relevant difference between us and other sentient beings

          yes there is.

          • McKee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            What’s your morally relevant argument for killing for example cows for taste pleasure and not humans then? What’s this special trait humans have that other sentient being do not possess that allows us to do that to them?

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              What’s this special trait humans have that other sentient being do not possess that allows us to do that to them?

              they aren’t human.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      as I’ve literally stated in my earlier comment the discrimination is not based on species but on sentience

      you don’t seem to understand that you have decided, for instance, oak trees do not have sentience, and you treat all oak trees as though they are the same due to their membership in the class “oak tree” instead of treating them as individuals. it’s speciesism. and, in fact, you do this to sentient animals too, classing them all together and setting a standard to treat them based on their class membership. it’s speciesism. it’s just speciesism you agree with.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only time where you can make an argument that doing something to a non sentient being is an issue is when it affects a sentient being.

      consequentialism is fraught with epistemic problems. how can you know what might effect a sentient being at some point in the future?