I’m not saying it’s weird. Im saying it’s delusional. I’m also not trying to be super rude or dismissive here, I’m just not trying to affirm any delusions, because that can be dangerous (see, for example, ChatGTP, and how its tendency to validate everything someone says can cause a mental health crisis in some users).
Here’s my thinking: but you agree that you are biologically not an animal. And you must agree that you have the mind of a human (we are conversing in a human language, and using the internet, which requires abstract human reasoning to do). And you have the body of a human (you seem to admit as much). So there’s a human mind in a human body. So what’s left? Isn’t that enough to make you demonstrably human?
Denying someone’s identity can also be very dangerous, because it can cause social identity dysphoria. I wasn’t taking the piss when I drew a simile between otherkin and trans people, I was being serious. If you manage to succeed in talking an otherkin out of their identity (which would make it by definition not a delusion, because delusions are beliefs not changed by evidence) all you would accomplish is worsening their emotional state and exacerbating any dysphoria-related mental conditions such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
It’s very difficult to talk someone out of a delusion, but not impossible (thats what things like cognitive behavioural therapy are for).
Can you answer my question tho? If you have a human mind and a human body then in what sene are you an animal? Maybe I will understand better if you explain this to me
I’m an antirealist, and that means I think everything is subjective, and should be subjectively interpreted in a fair and just way that helps beings. Humanity is a social construct. Applying that construct to people who don’t want it applied to them causes hurt feelings. So I reconstructed My interpretation of the construct as follows: A human is a being who chooses to identify as human. Therefore, those who don’t want to be human, aren’t. And nothing of value is lost.
Is all species membership defined by self-identity? What about animals who do not have the mental capacity required to self identify. Like, is an oyster an oyster because it can self identify, or because it has an oyster genome?
In the absence of available self-identification, we can default back down to physical characteristics. But even those can fail. For example, scientists have declared that mules have no species.
I’m not saying it’s weird. Im saying it’s delusional. I’m also not trying to be super rude or dismissive here, I’m just not trying to affirm any delusions, because that can be dangerous (see, for example, ChatGTP, and how its tendency to validate everything someone says can cause a mental health crisis in some users).
Here’s my thinking: but you agree that you are biologically not an animal. And you must agree that you have the mind of a human (we are conversing in a human language, and using the internet, which requires abstract human reasoning to do). And you have the body of a human (you seem to admit as much). So there’s a human mind in a human body. So what’s left? Isn’t that enough to make you demonstrably human?
Denying someone’s identity can also be very dangerous, because it can cause social identity dysphoria. I wasn’t taking the piss when I drew a simile between otherkin and trans people, I was being serious. If you manage to succeed in talking an otherkin out of their identity (which would make it by definition not a delusion, because delusions are beliefs not changed by evidence) all you would accomplish is worsening their emotional state and exacerbating any dysphoria-related mental conditions such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.
It’s very difficult to talk someone out of a delusion, but not impossible (thats what things like cognitive behavioural therapy are for).
Can you answer my question tho? If you have a human mind and a human body then in what sene are you an animal? Maybe I will understand better if you explain this to me
I’m an antirealist, and that means I think everything is subjective, and should be subjectively interpreted in a fair and just way that helps beings. Humanity is a social construct. Applying that construct to people who don’t want it applied to them causes hurt feelings. So I reconstructed My interpretation of the construct as follows: A human is a being who chooses to identify as human. Therefore, those who don’t want to be human, aren’t. And nothing of value is lost.
Is all species membership defined by self-identity? What about animals who do not have the mental capacity required to self identify. Like, is an oyster an oyster because it can self identify, or because it has an oyster genome?
In the absence of available self-identification, we can default back down to physical characteristics. But even those can fail. For example, scientists have declared that mules have no species.