History Main / SapientEatSapient

There are some ways to keep the predators from being unsympathetic though. The most famous is by having them choose to eat insects and fish or any other non-sapient targets (see NoCartoonFish for more about that trope). This is impossible, only if ''every'' living thing and organism is sapient. Another more unrealistic one, is by giving them the possibility to turn into a VegetarianCarnivore at any time. A more realistic alternative is that [[PredationIsNatural it is acknowledged that the predator must eat meat to survive]], even if it means killing other sapient beings; often the creatures follow a "Law of the Jungle" which states that killing for food is morally acceptable but killing for other reasons is not. Lastly, they can be shown as feeding only on evil creatures in the same spirit of FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire.

Often a result of CarnivoreConfusion or LetsMeetTheMeat.

* ''WesternAnimation/SpongeBobSquarePants''. In one episode, the Flying Dutchman decides that Spongebob and Patrick aren't making good crewmen after all, so he decides to just eat them. Even when they magically wish him into being a vegetarian, he just turns them into fruits to make good on his threat.

There are some ways to keep the predators from being unsympathetic though. The most famous is by having them choose to eat insects and fish or any other non-sapient targets (see NoCartoonFish for more about that trope). This is impossible, only if ''every'' living thing and organism is sapient. Another more unrealistic one, is by giving them the possibility to turn into a VegetarianCarnivore at any time. A more realistic alternative is that [[PredationIsNatural it is acknowledged that the predator ''has'' to eat meat to survive]], even if it means killing other sapient beings; often the creatures follow a "Law of the Jungle" which states that killing for food is morally acceptable but killing for other reasons is not. Lastly, they can be shown as feeding only on evil creatures in the same spirit of FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire.

There are some ways to keep the predators from being unsympathetic though. The most famous is by having them choose to eat insects and fish or any other non-sapient targets (see NoCartoonFish for more about that trope). This is impossible, only if ''every'' living thing and organism is sapient. Another more unrealistic one, is by giving them the possibility to turn into a VegetarianCarnivore at any time. Lastly, they can be shown as feeding only on evil creatures in the same spirit of FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire.

* In the ''{{Discworld}}'', the Amazing Maurice is a perfectly normal feral tomcat. Until he forages on the dump where wizards have discarded centuries of old magic and eats a rat who has been living on that particular dump. Having ignored a rat pleading with him not to eat it, Maurice acquires its sapience and ability to speak Human as a sort of unwelcome magically-assisted indigestion. Life then begins getting complicated - and profitable - for a cat who has realised sapient rats are now off the menu.

** The story even has an example where the predator is the hero and the prey are the villains: the monkeys that kidnap Mowgli are the antagonists, and Kaa rescuing Mowgli by hypnotizing and eating the monkeys is treated as a heroic act.

There are some ways to keep the predators from being unsympathetic though. The most famous is by having them choose to eat insects and fish or any other non-sapient targets (see NoCartoonFish for more about that trope). This is impossible, only if ''every'' living thing and organism is sapient. Another more unrealistic one, is by giving them the possibility to turn vegetarian at any time. Lastly, they can be shown as feeding only on evil creatures in the same spirit of FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire.

There are some ways to keep the predators from being unsympathetic though. The most famous is by having them choose to eat insects and fish or any other non-sapient targets (see No Cartoon Fish for more about that trope). This is impossible, only if ''every'' living thing and organism is sapient. Another more unrealistic one, is by giving them the possibility to turn vegetarian at any time. Lastly, they can be shown as feeding only on evil creatures in the same spirit of FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire.

* ''{{WesternAnimation/Shrek}}''. While Dragon is TheVoiceless through the entire franchise, she's plenty intelligent, and [[JustEatHim removes Farquad from the equation]] at the climax of the movie. He even sings [[TheBeeGees Stayin' Alive]] in the after-party sequence while she holds the microphone against her [[RibcageStomach stomach]].

* ''{{Disney/Zootopia}}''
** The entire movie is predicated on this trope. The most significant conflict occurs between species who were 'predators' or 'prey', in antiquity, while it is implied any contemporary instances of predation are few-to-none.
** Ultimately zigzagged, in that the missing predators [[spoiler: are missing because they went savage and attacked other citizens, and are believed to be spontaneously reverting to their primal, predatory instincts]]. But, it turns out [[spoiler: they were being chemically robbed of their sapience and driven to savagery via a HatePlague toxin. The BigBad, who is a prey species, targeted them in order to incite fear of predators in the populace]]. Furthermore, [[spoiler: the flower the HatePlague is derived from was able to cause the same behavior in a rabbit, a prey species. Rather than causing him to become meek and skittish, like an actual rabbit, eating one of the flowers whole caused him to attack and bite his own sister(-in-law?), proving the induced savage mania is not unique to predator species.]]

[[/folder]]

[[folder: Film - Live Action]]
* ''{{Film/Babe}}''. It takes some help from the other animals on the farm, but Babe eventually figures out that humans eat the animals who don't have another job.

* ''Disney/Zootopia''

** Nearly all under-water creatures, from krill to whales, are sapient. This, of course, includes the carnivores. Our protagonists happen upon a group of sharks who have [[VegetarianCarnivore vowed never to eat fish again]], and view the desire as a HorrorHunger. They're fine with eating dolphins, though.
** The barracuda and the angler fish, on the other hand, seem to show no sign of sapience.
** The film also has Nigel the pelican, who regularly has conversations with fish, but also apologizes to Nemo in case he "took a snap at [him] at one time". He also would have been fine letting Marlin or Dory get eaten until he learns that Marlin is Nemo's father.
* ''WesternAnimation/FreeBirds''. Turkeys resort to [[{{TimeyWimeyBall}} screwing with time]] to escape being slaughtered every November by humans.

While this does not strictly count as [[ImAHumanitarian cannibalism]], (such as a talking wolf eating a talking sheep), anthropomorphism by definition puts a character on a level of humanity that the audience is meant to identify with. An intelligent animal ceases to be an environmental hazard and becomes a character; [[WhatMeasureIsANonHuman a person]]. "That bear is trying to eat that rabbit" transitions very quickly to "That man is trying to eat that little boy" when the audience identifies with both bear and rabbit. This makes a very short road to PredatorsAreMean, particularly if the predator takes the time to taunt its prey with their intended fate, or if they decide to be 'sporting' and invoke HuntingTheMostDangerousGame.

* In a setting where humans are either [[MouseWorld not directly involved]], or are otherwise [[LionsAndTigersAndHumansOhMy placed alongside]] FunnyAnimals, PettingZooPeople, and any manner of [[WhatMeasureIsANonHuman humanoid creatures and aliens]]. This puts all prospective predators and prey on an near-to-level playing field in their given society. Predator and prey can carry on full conversations about how one considers the other fully edible, no matter how they protest. More sympathetic characters can at least go the route of saying that [[FindingNemo friends are not food]], and only ''strangers'' are acceptable meals.

* Film/FindingNemo

'''[[{{AssociationFallacy}} Please note that]] all ''sapient'' beings are ''sentient'', but not all ''sentient'' beings are ''sapient''.'''

* ''WesternAnimation/TinyToonAdventures''. Much like their progenitors, the Tiny Toons are frequently threatened with being devoured by polygamist southern alligators, nonverbal hick possums, a pale-faced hitch-hiking escaped convict, a riverboat captain toad, quibbling condor brothers, animate candy bars, an outlaw coyote gang, and [[{{TheLastOfTheseIsNotLikeTheOthers}} a wolverine]].
* ''WesternAnimation/TomAndJerry''. Tom's motivation is usually just to ''catch'' Jerry, though eating him has been an implied as a possible result of their endless game of wits.

** Nearly all under-water creatures, from krill to whales, are sapient. This, of course, includes the carnivores. Our protagonists happen upon a group of sharks who have [[TheAlcoholic vowed never to eat fish again]], and view the desire as a HorrorHunger. They're fine with eating dolphins, though.

** ''Henery Hawk'', plus any incidental family, are always trying to catch Foghorn Leghorn or the chickens on his farm for dinner.

RollingUpdates

-----

reply:
Maybe call it PreyingOnTheSapient.

reply:
[[AC:Literature]]
* In the ''{{Discworld}}'', the Amazing Maurice is a perfectly normal feral tomcat. Until he forages on the dump where wizards have discarded centuries of old magic and eats a rat who has been living on that particular dump. Having ignored a rat pleading with him not to eat it, Maurice acquires its sentience and ability to speak Human as a sort of unwelcome magically-assisted indigestion. Life then begins getting complicated - and profitable - for a cat who has realised sapient rats are now off the menu.

reply:
Dungeons and Dragons provides a weird example in the Beastlands. It is a neutral good afterlife where people attuned to nature go and they got reincarnated as talking animals. Since they becoma a part of the local ecosystem they naturally hunt and kill each other, but don't see anything wrong about it and are overall decent guys - they will also cooperate to gang up on any stupid visitors who try to hunt them for fun.

reply:
Laconic should change. It isn't about cannibalism at all, even if they're sapient.

reply:
I think this qualifies as a SubTrope to CarnivoreConfusion.

reply:
Wait a minute, isn't this just '''PredatorsAreMean'''?

reply:
^ that's when, well, predators are mean. It doesn't say anything about them actually preying on anything (aka CarnivoreConfusion). Here, predators may be affable and still preying on some things.

The focus here is that either the predator, the prey, or both, is/are portrayed as sapient. (Or at least that's how I intepret it.)

Though the ZCEs really doesn't help here...

reply:
Does this count? In this case the prey is human, but the predator is a sapient animal:
* In ''WesternAnimation/FernGullyTheLastRainforest'', a purple lizard sings a song to a miniature human about how he is going to eat him.

reply:
What does the title mean?

reply:
^
Sapor == taste/flavor
sapientis == intelligence/wisdom/the wise [in the possessive tense]

So roughly, wisdom's taste. I think it is meant to be a pun on sapiens sapientis which means a wise sage. It wouldn't be a clear name even if we (or any major population) were fluent in Latin. Definitely needs a better name.

reply:
It was supposed to be an alliterative play on homo sapiens, except I decided to be clever and make sapiens the genitive case sapientis, trying to make it a rough translation of "tastes like it has sapience=>sentience" ... in any case, obviously didn't work.

reply:
Title ideas:
Person on Person Predation ;
Cartoon Cannibalism ;
If I'm Gonna Eat Somebody (it may as well be you) ;
Preying on the Sentient ;
Sentient Sustenance

reply:
[[AC: Webcomics]]
* In ''Webcomic/KevinAndKell'' the fact sentient carnivores must prey on sentient herbivores is accepted as a fact of life, although herbivores will take reasonable precautions to prevent it applying to them personally. One storyline was based around a body being discovered that ''hadn't been eaten'', making it murder.

reply:
I'm not seeing how this is different from CarnivoreConfusion, which is about a sentient predator meeting sentient prey.

reply:
Because CarnivoreConfusion has this:

* A increasingly popular option in fiction has been to render the carnivore's prey in a realistic, non-cute manner. The prey does not talk — the prey is not humanised in any way. Fish, in particular, are nearly always a viable mealtime option, unless they're major characters.

reply:
^ As just one of several ways the trope can play out. Still not seeing what about this is distinct from CarnivoreConfusion to the point of needing a separate trope.

reply:
The small AllBlueEntry at the end of the first paragraph is a nasty little jumble of {{Sink Hole}}s. Recommend finding a way to just mention the linked tropes instead of sinkholing them into a four-word parenthetical aside.

reply:
Sentience =/= sapience.

Again, call it SapientsPreyingOnEachOther

reply:
[[AC: Webcomics]]
* In ''Webcomic/TwentyFirstCenturyFox'' pretty much every animal, including insects, is sapient. It was generally relegated to jokes like the fox main characters dealing with annoying bunny bellhops by eating them until one arc where the Supreme Court declared predation unconstitutional. Carnivores were required to eat [[ArtificialMeat Scientifically Produced Animal Matter]] grown in vats from tumors, which turned out to taste better than "real" meat so most continued to eat it after the ban was repealed.
* ''DocRat'' initially dodged the question of what carnivores eat. But it eventually came to envelop the rest of the comic with a wolf character who married a rabbit and is attempting to start an anti-predation movement.

reply:
Kinda irked with using "person" in the title. It sounds like plain cannibalism.

reply:
^ I agree that the word "person" implies human.

This very often overlaps with PredatorsAreMean, since killing and eating another sapient being is usually considered evil.

reply:
^ what id predators are AffablyEvil, though?

reply:
^ I think PredatorsAreMean covers both examples where the predator is monstrous and where the predator is an AffablyEvil DesignatedVillain.

reply:
How about "Sapient Predator, Sapient Prey" as the trope name?

reply:
* In ''Literature/TheJungleBook'', both predators and prey are sapient; however, they both follow the Law of the Jungle which allows predators to eat their prey species when they are hungry. PredatorsAreMean is averted: predators who keep the Law of the Jungle, such as the wolves or Bagheera, are good, and only predators who break it, such as Shere Khan and Tabaqui, are evil.

reply:
New title is muuuuuch better.

reply:
Film: Animated:

* ''Animation/VukTheLittleFox'' combines this with ProtagonistCenteredMorality. Vuk is a sapient fox and TheHero; he eats equally sapient chickens, geese and ducks, but since he's the protagonist, nobody questions this morally.

reply:
* In Film/FindingNemo, apparently ever under-water creature, from krill to whales, are sapient. This, of course, includes the carnivores. Our protagonists happen upon a group of sharks who have [[TheAlcoholic vowed never to eat fish again]], and view the desire as a HorrorHunger. They're fine with eating dolphins, though.

reply:
^ FindingNemo also has Nigel the pelican, who regularly has conversations with fish. But he would have eaten Marlin or Dory until he learns that Marlin is Nemo's father. The barracuda and the anglerfish, on the other hand, seem to show no sign of sapience.

reply:
* ''WesternAnimation/SittingDucks'': The alligators and the ducks they prey on have human-level intelligence and live in their own modern towns. The plot centres around Bill and Aldo, a duck and an alligator who actually manage to become friends after the former is almost eaten by the later. Aldo only manages to stay friends with Bill by restricting his diet to fish which are apparently non-sapient.

reply:
Does this trope include stuff like in ''WesternAnimation/SamuraiJack'', where the titular character is hunted by a bunch of alien hunters, in the exact same manner an animal would be hunted?

reply:
^ Isn't that ToServeMan?

reply:
^ They weren't hunting him to eat him, but rather to hand him over to the BigBad. But they were using methods fit for hunting an animal, since this is what they always did before.

reply:
^ Perhaps, but you can hunt an animal for reasons other than to eat it. (Such as in their case.) But they never expressed any desire to eat him, if I remember, so I don't think it applies. I think that's more HuntingTheMostDangerousGame.

reply:
^ Ah, I knew I've seen a trope like this before. I think it should be added to the description here.

reply:
I'm pretty sure "predators" in the traditional sense of the term are explicitly hunting to eat. I agree that the Samurai Jack example is more HuntingTheMostDangerousGame.

reply:
Tiny point: the Grand Duke from ''WesternAnimation/RockADoodle'' has no qualms about eating a human boy, and says as much to Edmund's face. The Duke transformed Edmund into a kitten as a matter of preference: "Kittens are more digestible." The Duke and his minions show delight at dining on the smaller sapient farm animals, waiting only for the flashlight's batteries to die.

reply:
TheJungleBook even has an example where the predator is the hero and the prey are the villains: the monkeys that kidnap Mowgli are the antagonists, and Kaa rescuing Mowgli by hypnotizing and eating the monkeys is treated as a heroic act.

reply:
Literature:
* In the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in ''Literature/ThroughTheLookingGlass'', the Walrus cheerfully convinces the oysters to come and take a walk with him, with the intention to eat all of them. The poem also made it to Disney's ''Disney/AliceInWonderland'', and is a surprisingly dark scene for a Disney movie, since the Walrus actually succeeds in eating the oysters.

reply:
Bump.

reply:
Not a subtrope of CarnivoreConfusion. When Donald Duck eats a turkey for dinner, the reader is expected to understand it is an ordinary turkey of the real-life kind, not a sapient TalkingAnimal like Donald himself is. He is not eating a sapient being.

reply:
^ I suggest you read the description of CarnivoreConfusion instead of just looking at the image. It's now defined as a very broad SuperTrope that covers all kind of predator-prey relationships involving {{Talking Animal}}s, from PredatorsAreMean through VegetarianCarnivore to NoCartoonFish.

reply:
I see. Which leads me to ask how SapientPredatorSapientPrey is different from CarnivoreConfusion. Methinks "problems of having both sapient predators and sapient prey appear in the same show" is the essence of CarnivoreConfusion.

reply:
...So first it's completely unrelated, now it's too similar?

reply:
^ Those are both realistic possibilities depending on the description. I don't understand the confusion. Especially from the guy who proposed the trope.

reply:
^Because I feel like I've already defended the position of subtrope in that CarnivoreConfusion is a broad SuperTrope, which this trope is a specific, tropeable instance thereof. And what's confusing is to see someone go from "this trope isn't related" and "this trope is exactly the same" in less than a day.

reply:
^ That's what discussion is for, to approach it from different angles and try to ferret out the issues that need to be fixed.

Personally I'm still fuzzy on the difference between the two tropes, but I think I have the idea. Mostly that's just because CarnivoreConfusion has an unhelpful name and doesn't even strike me as a trope so much as a specific type of FridgeLogic.

In my eyes, if I'm understanding it correctly, ''this'' trope is what CarnivoreConfusion ''should be'', except that CarnivoreConfusion is (appropriately) confusing.

reply:
^ I agree that CarnivoreConfusion seems more like a type of FridgeLogic, but given the things that the trope currently specify (such as the NoCartoonFish solution) make them different. This trope is about a sapient character specifically wanting/attempting to eat another sapient character (or succeeding). CarnivoreConfusion is about the unfortunate implications of worlds where talking animals co-exist and how different types of media address the issue (or ignore it).

reply:
^ I follow you. I'm just saying I understand the confusion of others.

All you can really do is address the questions, not just drop incredulous expressions of disbelief that people are having trouble grasping the concept.

Anyway, since I'm pretty confident I have the idea: @LordGro: No, "Sapient predator and sapient prey" is not the essence of CarnivoreConfusion. CarnivoreConfusion is about the various ways in which works with anthropomorphized animals handle the fact that some of those animals are carnivores. It ''may'' involve this trope, but it could just as easily involve NoCartoonFish.

reply:
@mir.whim: What's strange about me changing my opinion? I was wrong about the definition of CarnivoreConfusion, as Snicka rightly pointed out. Also, I never said the tropes are unrelated; nor did I say they are "exactly" the same.

As for what CarnivoreConfusion is, let's look at that page's trope description:

->If everyone can talk, and everyone at least implicitly has the same thoughts and feelings as everyone else regardless of species, does this mean predatory creatures are forced to engage in a form of murder to eat?

Now when a show makes clear that in its universe, there are both TalkingAnimals and realistic non-talking animals, and that the talking ones only eat the non-talking ones--as is the case in NoCartoonFish--then that means ''not'' everyone can talk and not everyone has the same thoughts and feelings, and in accordance with the above description that means that there is no CarnivoreConfusion. Furthermore, "everyone can talk and has the same thoughts and feelings, regardless of species" is a paraphrase of SapientPredatorSapientPrey.

And yes, I know that a few lines below CarnivoreConfusion is contradicting itself by describing possibilities of sidestepping CarnivoreConfusion by actually making the prey animals ''non''-sapient. Which, by its own definition, should be a ''different'' trope. Like so many 'tropes' on the wiki, CarnivoreConfusion is not clearly defined. It probably has been expanded several times by different tropers, without regard to whether what they were adding fits the original definition of the trope. And because it's not clearly defined, we cannot know what it is, because it doesn't know either.

Unfortunately tropers are generally more likely to create new tropes instead of fixing the old ones. This eventually creates a confusing thicket of closely related tropes that are "similar but not quite the same" and kind of blur into each other. TheSameButMoreSpecific, in other words, which is kind of the case here.

Your description is also rather scanty. Note that CarnivoreConfusion already describes several variants of SapientPredatorSapientPrey ''besides'' PredatorsAreMean: You can make the prey bad guys instead; you can invoke the 'law of the jungle', where all animals accept that predators have to eat meat; you can treat it with BlackHumour; you can avoid it by never showing the predators eat. And yet your draft doesn't mention any of these. If this is a subtrope to CarnivoreConfusion, shouldn't be the subtrope be ''more'' specific and detailed than the supertrope, instead of the other way round?

reply:
^ I think you've unintentionally interpreted CarnivoreConfusion as being more specific than it is. Look at the Laconic, please, it does a decent job of summarizing the trope. Not ''all'' the animals in a setting need to be anthropomorphized, but if ''any'' of them are anthropomorphized, and ''any'' of them are carnivores, then the creators are forced to somehow deal with the issue of implied "cannibalism" among intelligent creatures. The most obvious way to deal with it is NoCartoonFish or some variant thereof. NoCartoonFish is not an aversion of CarnivoreConfusion, it is simply one method of dealing with it. Again, CarnivoreConfusion is really a type of FridgeLogic, and this more of an audience reaction than anything. The name is not very indicative and the description is rambly and sweeping.

reply:
So... TRS time?

reply:
^ I think the trope's definition is valid and doesn't need to change, it just needs a revision to how it's written. Does that need a trip through TRS?

reply:
^ either that or Trope Description Improvement Drive.

reply:
^ Yeah, that would probably be better. I'll take it there. Meanwhile, do we agree that that IS in fact the definition of CC, so that we can agree this trope is a valid SubTrope?

reply:
I very much disagree that the description is okay. The description is not a trope; it's more of a philosophical statement, which may be a kind of FridgeLogic but doesn't contain any useful information to distinguish itself from CarnivoreConfusion. How many examples from that trope also go here?

reply:
^ This is a SubTrope, so technically, none of the examples on CC should also go here; an example that fits both should go here, since this is the more specific SubTrope.

I'm not sure if the description has changed recently, but I agree that it's not describing the trope at present, which is summed up by the name: basically CarnivoreConfusion when all the relevant characters are sapient, not just some, like in NoCartoonFish. We've been arguing over the definition of CarnivoreConfusion as well.

I would like to clarify that I think the ''definition'' of this trope is good, but not so much the ''description'' as written. In my ^^^^ second-to-last comment, the trope I'm referring to is CarnivoreConfusion, not this one.

EDIT: If anyone else is interested, I'm not wild about being the only one championing this thing. If no one else wants to justify its existence, then I'm just going to drop it. Currently being discussed [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13164954120A97000100&page=56#1398 here]].

reply:
[[AC:Webcomics]]
* Beginning with chapter 15 "Lunch and Bunnies," space alien Sam Starfall of ''Webcomic/{{Freefall}}'' learns that LEGOGenetics Bowman's wolf Florence Ambrose regards him as edible. Sam will always adjust his behavior to avoid becoming a wolf-girl's meal.

reply:
@SolipSchism: "A type of FridgeLogic" does not make a trope. If it is no trope, it cannot have subtropes.

I did look at Laconic.CarnivoreConfusion ("Issues that arise from having carnivores and meat products among anthropomorphic animals") before I posted my first comment, and it contributed (apart from the image) to me getting a wrong idea of what it is about (insofar there is a wrong idea of a 'trope' that is not clearly defined to begin with). "Meat products among anthropomorphic animals" does, in fact, not capture all the possibilities that are listed on CarnivoreConfusion: A roast turkey or a piece of ham are meat products; a live [[WesternAnimation/TomAndJerry mouse]], [[Literature/TheThreeLittlePigs pig]], [[Disney/TheLionKing antelope]], [[WesternAnimation/LooneyToons roadrunner]], [[Disney/FindingNemo clownfish]] etc are not. And many of the examples referenced in the main description of CarnivoreConfusion do not actually use anthropomorphic animals, or use only mildly 'anthropomorphized' animals. Donald Duck is a duck-shaped human; Tom and Jerry, Mufasa and Simba, Nemo etc have certain human traits but are still animals. The laconic definition and the page description are simply not in line with each other.

Now, I don't know if CarnivoreConfusion is ever going to be fixed, but what this YKTTW lacks is any good argument why it should be split off from CarnivoreConfusion, or how it is a trope at all (it doesn't have to be subtrope of CarnivoreConfusion to be a trope). What makes this a trope, as opposed to just a constellation that is bound to occur among sapient animal characters? Is it about chase scenes, with the predator taunting his intended prey, or the 'prey' trying to talk the predator out of eating them? There's very little actual description, and frankly I find the second paragraph incomprehensible ("When humans are involved, they are usually not privy to the animals' full intelligence due to blatant AnimalTalk, with perhaps a single vegetarian child that SpeaksFluentAnimal.") It also says this "usually overlaps with PredatorsAreMean"; are there cases when it does ''not'' overlap? For if there are not, it might just as well ''be'' PredatorsAreMean.

reply:
^^ Florence doesn't actually consider Sam food. She's too ethical for that. She just wanted him to think that she did so he would pay for dinner after Helix released the non-sapient bunnies she was going to eat.

reply:
^^ There are examples which do ''not'' overlap with PredatorsAreMean: for example, the ones where there's a "law of the jungle" that allows predators to eat sapient prey without guilt, like in ''Literature/TheJungleBook''.

reply:
^^ I've already made all the arguments I'm going to make for this trope, both here and on the thread I linked in my last comment, to which almost nobody felt like contributing, so consider yourself right for all intents and purposes.

Pretty much all you're doing now is pointing out that both this and CC are poorly-written, which I've already said. I'm not discussing write-ups or terminology anymore. I'm addressing the actual definitions of the tropes, because, as mentioned, they are poorly-written and can't be improved without first figuring out ''what they are'', which has ''nothing'' to do with the descriptions. A trope is an idea, not a paragraph describing that idea.

Also, this helps absolutely nothing because I've already given up on supporting this trope, but you are '''seriously''' misunderstanding the word "anthropomorphized". It simply means "attributing human traits to animals". Speech and complex emotions are human traits. All of the examples you mentioned that "do not use anthropomorphized animals" do, very much so, use anthropomorphized animals. Donald Duck is not a "duck-shaped human", he is a highly-anthropomorphized duck. I don't even see how you can seriously argue that point.

As to your last question... PredatorsAreMean is about a personality trait of anthropomorphized animals that are members of a predatory species such as alligators, sharks, etc. A non-predatory animal like a ''duck'', for example, would be an instance of CarnivoreConfusion and an implicit example of this trope if it were eating other fowl, but not PredatorsAreMean because a duck is not a predatory species.

reply:
^ For the definition of "anthropomorphized", see SlidingScaleOfAnthropomorphism. Anything can be called anthropomorphic, from a NearlyNormalAnimal to a LittleBitBeastly person.

reply:
^^ To communicate ideas, we use language. To know what the idea is, we need to describe it. For all practical purposes, the definition of a trope ''is'' its description (which is to say, its write-up). Figuring out what a trope on TV Tropes is has ''everything'' to do with the description. If the description is self-contradictory or unclear, the trope is unclear and lacks definition.

CarnivoreConfusion is not just 'poorly written', it's broken, because it cannot convey the reader a consistent idea of what it is. When you argue that CarnivoreConfusion "is [X]", you are really just making assumptions. Someone else might make different assumptions.

I don't think wordmincing about the scope of the term "anthropomorphic" changes the validity of my statement that the current Laconic.CarnivoreConfusion is not in line with the description at Main.CarnivoreConfusion, and does not support the "broad supertrope" view of CC. Live animals that are preyed upon are still not "meat products". Or am I seriously misunderstanding the term "meat product", too?

My remark on PredatorsAreMean was not so much a question than an example of how the draft above is poorly written. I don't expect you to explain it to me, I expect whoever thinks this YKTTW should become a trope to write a description that explains it to all future readers of a potential trope page.

And, [=SolipSchism=], there's no reason for you to sound so irritated. The purpose of YKTTW is to make drafts ready to launch. This is not ready to launch, no matter how you slice it. It's the sponsor's job to defend and improve a draft. I won't give a hat to a YKTTW that has obvious faults. And I would have posted in TropeTalk if I had had more spare time over the last few days, but it would not have changed my view of the matter.

reply:
CC needs to go to TRS asap.

reply:
* Vampires in classic literature are this. A sapient predator that preys on a sapient prey.

* In the Creator/PeterWatts novel, ''Literature/{{Blindsight}}'', vampires were a sub-species of humans that evolved to feed on the rest of humanity. The advent of architecture caused them to become extinct tens of thousands of years ago, because the way their brains were wired caused them to have deadly seizures when they saw right angles. Science brought them back from extinction and gave them drugs to counteract their seizures, and it is implied they took over and drove regular humanity to extinction.

reply:
^^ Agreed. TropeRepairShop should fix it.

reply:
There. Hopefully I didn't go overboard.

Has anyone taken CC to TRS? I'm still getting the hang of YKTTW's...

reply:
Thanks, the draft has improved greatly stylistically. But there are still some problems you'll have to sort out.

Firstly, "predator" and "prey" suggests we are talking about animals. But you explicitly include "humans eat sapient animals" settings. The current name is too narrow for that definition; what you really describe is SapientEatsSapient. I suggest a rename, unless you want to specifically exclude humans.

There is a contradiction in the third bulletpoint (my italics):
[[quoteblock]] where it's the humans who are the designated prey, ToServeMan is usually in use, ''regardless of whether the man-eaters are intelligent or otherwise.'' [[/quoteblock]]
As the premise of the draft is 'sapient beings eating each other', the man-eaters ''must'' be intelligent, or they do not count. I am inclined to believe this is just an oversight.

I do not think it is necessary to bring CarnivoreConfusion to TRS before this can be decided on. A trope should always be written in a way so that it stands on its own. Which is the reason why I would entirely avoid a sentence like
[[quoteblock]] it adds a layer to CarnivoreConfusion that other methods like NoCartoonFish avoid. [[/quoteblock]]
because it can only be understood if the reader reads CarnivoreConfusion first (and with the current state of CC, that would not actually help them). For the same reason I would omit or shorten the last paragraph ("As a subtrope of CarnivoreConfusion, this trope is one of several methods for addressing the supertrope's question..."). This is not CarnivoreConfusion, so it should not spend so much time recapitulating it. It is enough to describe what ''this'' trope is.

Two more formal flaws I would like to see gone:
* Get rid of the second-level bulletpoints. The first one you can delete entirely, because if there are non-sapient fish alongside sapient ones, and a sapient shark eats a non-sapient fish, there is no eating of a sapient being by a sapient being. You should clarify whether you regard IAmAHumanitarian as a subtrope of this or another trope entirely. I am currently not sure which is the case.
* The bolded note on the meaning of 'sapient' at the top is super-ugly and should go. If you feel the word needs explication, I suggest you add a hottip to the first instance of 'sapient' in your description.

reply:
^ [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation#As_predators Humans are Predators]]

reply:
@zarpaulus: Believe it or not, but I actually know that. But let me ask you a question: what would you prefer -- a short name that expresses clearly and unmistakably what the trope is about, or a longer and clumsier name that can be misinterpreted by readers who are not familiar with scientific zoological terminology?

reply:
^ The shorter one could be construed as eating intelligence. I.e. something like BrainFood and VampiricDraining.

Also, Sapient is a descriptive word, not a noun. A sapient creature is a Sophont.

reply:
Sapient ''can'' also be used as a noun. [[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sapient#Noun Source.]] Intelligence would be "sapience".

Furthermore, "predator" and "prey" in conjunction with each other suggest an act of hunting. But a farmer/butcher who slaughters chickens, turkeys, pigs etc does not hunt them. Man is not "preying" on domestic animals.

Thirdly, "predation" does not strictly imply eating. Just a few posts above [=JohnnyB=] argued that "Vampires in classic literature are this. A sapient predator that preys on a sapient prey." Which is kind of radically expanding the scope of this trope. An expansion which I disagree with for various reasons that I would discuss here, should it be necessary.

reply:
^ The wikipedia article counts farming as predation.

reply:
So what? This 1) does certainly not reflect usage of the word among non-biologists, and 2) undermines what you are (seemingly?) trying to prove, namely that SapientPredatorSapientPrey is somehow clearer than SapientEatsSapient. If I 'predators' encompasses farmers and herbivores, then what does SapientPredatorSapientPrey mean? Farmers planting and harvesting sapient potatoes? Or that sapient farmers that prey on potatoes are simultaneously the sapient prey of man-eating tigers?

reply:
^ An organism that derives sustenance from another organism. Including herbivores and parasites. Why not expand it? Vampires are parasites and I'm pretty sure there's some examples of PlantPeople being eaten by other sophonts (and many more cases of the inverse).

And SapientEatsSapient sounds like BrainFood.

reply:
PlantPeople getting eating by sapient herbivores is covered by SapientEatsSapient, thank you very much.

And it's funny how you are worried that readers might confuse 'sapient' for 'sapience', while you reject any concern that 'predator' could be interpreted too narrow. So people know that farmers and herbivores are predators, but they cannot distinguish 'sapient' and 'sapience'? Gotcha.

As for your push to expand this trope to sapient parasites like vampires and intelligent tapeworms etc; I take it you are already preparing a whole new write-up that takes this fundamental change into account? Because until now, we have been exclusively talking about sapient beings ''eating'' others.

reply:
^ No, don't gotcha. People understand that predators eat other organisms. But "Wise Eats Wise" sounds confusing.

Also, you're the one who brought up vampires.

reply:
Zigzagged on ''WesternAnimation/TimonAndPumbaa''. Their usual diet consists of non-sapient, non-anthropomorphized bugs, but occassionally they have no qualms about eating talking insects. However, one episode has the duo meeting a talking snail, with Timon stating that they can't eat him because of it, and spend the rest of the episode keeping it from being eaten.

reply:
On ''Series/{{Dinosaurs}}'' everything in the fridge waiting to be eaten is a smart mouthed prey animal. Occasionally the main cast is hunted for food by dinos or other monsters even higher up on the food chain than they are. About the only animals that don't talk on ''Dinosaurs'' are the cavemen, which normally aren't prey animals.

reply:
Bump

reply:
* In ''WebOriginal/OrionsArm'', some polities, such as the Burning Hunger habitats in Sadalmelik, allow carnivorous sophonts to hunt and eat other sophonts. [[DeathIsCheap This being Orion's Arm civilized space]], sophonts killed this way can simply be [[BodyBackupDrive restored from backup]]. Indeed, many of these habitats have a brisk tourist business catering to those who wish to experience the hunt from either or both sides.

reply:
I guess I should still pay attention to this occasionally, huh...?

reply:
I realize the new title is probably gonna get shot down, but, maybe we'll actually get some discussion from people pointing that out?

Title ideas:
* SapientEatingTheSapient
* {{Sophont-Eat-Sophont}}
* {{Sapient-Eat-Sapient}} (Previous)
* {{Person-Eat-Person}}
* ConversableAndComestible
* SophontEsophagusPhilosophy
* IfImGonnaEatSomebody
* TransapientFoodChain
* FoodNotFriends

reply:
^ Launch a Crowner, maybe?

reply:
SapientEatSapient plz, the rest either has Stock Phrase problem, being unclear, or just suck.

reply:
Agreed with SapientEatSapient.

reply:
End of markup