Well, if the animal, or mutant, isn't sapient, than the trope doesn't apply in that case - perhaps some sort of related one.
You'll never find out who I am
"Barring perhaps a precocious vegetarian child who Speaks Fluent Animal." Vegetarian? Fern Speaks Fluent Animal, and she's shown eating bacon. "If they could just get the humans to understand, maybe they wouldn't be killed and eaten." Why wouldn't they? Just because practices such as branding, ear tagging, and castration would seem cruel? It wouldn't be impossible to eliminate these practices without eliminating the meat industry altogether.
"Vegetarian" should be removed, and "maybe they wouldn't be killed and eaten" should be changed to "maybe they would get to live a decent life before being killed and eaten".
Check out my forum game: Rate the above YMMV.
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.
Edited by alockwood1 Hide / Show Replies
But they're eating for nutrition, not sexual pleasure! Get your mind outta the gutter!
"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.
Edited by VVK Hide / Show Replies
Sentience is the baseline of consciousness and the ability to think and feel.
@VVK Sorry for my snappy reply. But Tom and Jerry ARE indeed sapient. Despite not being able to talk, they do things that require sapience, such as use tools, or weapons, and purchase items. A dumb cat wouldn't be able to how dynamite works. Seriously, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Would scavenger (carrion eaters) species count as a Downplayed Trope example if they draw the line at killing sapient beings for food, but sapient beings that died for other reasons (say, if they're taking part in a war, corpses of friend and foes alike who died during the fighting) are fair game to devour?
Edited by ElodieHiras Hide / Show Replies
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.
Hide / Show Replies
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).
Edited by dotheroar
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.
Edited by BURGINABC
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.
@dotheroar I'm sorry for my rudeness, but Tom and Jerry are shown to perfectly understand human speech. That's like saying a mute human isn't sapient! Do you see the fault in that logic?
Non-sapient animals wouldn't be able to use explosives, baka! The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.
This trope is all over the place. Animals eating each other, people eating animals, animals eating people, people eating anthropomorphic food, aliens and monsters eating people... I feel like it would be a good idea to split this into several tropes and make this page a disambig.
Check out my forum game: Rate the above YMMV. Hide / Show Replies