Follow TV Tropes
It could be that Sapient Predators have to follow certain rules where Sapient Prey is concerned. I have some of these in my one interactive over on another site - The Reptilian Chronicles (Sorry, can\'t make the link work right.)
1. Right of Consent and Refusal - shorthand, \"No means No\". A law-biding predator has to get permission from the prey in question. The prey can refuse to be a meal, and this is to be respected. Failure to follow said rule can lead to being charged with Murder.
2. Eligible Prey - Prey is of Legal Age, either has no children, or has made arrangements. Predator is responsible for paying off owed financial debts - banks want their money. Consumption must be reported. Has a Limit of number allowed to consumed.
3. Ineligible Prey - Can\'t be eaten due to being under legal age, single parent with no arrangement for kids, important job. Can possibly be waived, and thus be classified as Eligible Prey, or legally removed, thus becoming Legal Prey.
4. Legal Prey - Basically, these guys are under a Death Sentence. They don\'t have the protection of Consent and Refusal. Can also apply if a Predator comes upon a violent crime in progress (rape/murder). Consumption must be reported. No Limit.
5. Hospital Food - Basically, these people are about to die anyways. Chemotherapy, or other medicines, aren\'t working, and life is just going to go down the tubes from there for the prey anyways. More of a Mercy Kill or Assisted Suicide. Consumption must be reported. No Limit.
Of course, that\'s just some examples from my story, and other people have their own rules.
"Please note that all sapient beings are sentient, but not all sentient beings are sapient."
Philosophical zombies could be sapient but not sentient. A fictional being like a robot might count as a philosophical zombie if the author described it that way.
This is more of an observation, though. I don't propose changing it. I think that warning as it is is such a good Lie To Children that it's better than a confusing more detailed and technically correct explanation.
Calling Tom and Jerry and Dragon sapient is like calling the Hulk sapient. They're not supposed to be sapient. They should be removed from the page.
From what I've seen of Tom and Jerry, they seem to have human-like intelligence even though they don't talk. I think it's an example.
Well I've always known that Tom & Jerry are intelligent- the problem is, according to mr.whim, the word "sapient" refers to characters who talk. In the original draft: "* This situation can avert this trope by having both talking and non-talking versions of animals, even of the exact same species. Only the non-talking animals will be comestible."
My point was that mute characters don't belong on this page (Dragon, Tom & Jerry, Taz, Wile E. Coyote & Roadrunner, Felicia).
I don't think that's an accurate definition. I think it's more about intelligence than speech.
Why are you so sure that this "mr.whim" is correct?
According to most dictionary definitions I've seen, sapient seems to be a synonym of "wise" or "intelligent".
In this context, it refers to human-like intelligence in a non-human being. It's related to the fact that our species name is homo sapiens ("wise man").
I don't think speech enters into it.
Philosophers like to claim that thinking implies language, but from what I've seen, it either ends up being implausible or defining thinking as a kind of language.
I'm sure it's enough if we see something showing clear signs of human-like or greater intelligence.
Crosswicking in progress, finished Film-Animated items
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?