Wolf/Dog Rape

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:17 am

Slade wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote: You are a female human being who likes sex with horses. Which is worse? Letting your prize stallion have sex with a mare who clearly doesn't want it, or allowing that same stallion to mount you when you (and he) clearly DO want it?

Because one of those is illegal and one isn't, but the why is very murky to me.
Whoa, explain to me how she knows that the horse wants her to have sex with it?
Is she the horse whisperer? Can she read minds? If not, than you assuming way too much.

All I'm assuming is that when an animal has a rampant hard-on and tries to mount you, it wants to fuck. Is that an unrealistic assumption?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:44 am

Catharz wrote:You're getting someone to consent under false pretenses, at the very least.

False pretenses may make you a scoundrel, a bounder, and a cad, but they don't make you a rapist. Implying that you have a lot of money when you really don't may get you laid, ad it may make you a jerk, but you're not a rapist. But the thing is, even false pretenses don't automatically disqualify you from being completely in the clear.

If a woman uses perfume and makeup, and wears a pushup bra with padding and high heels, then that is to an extent false pretenses. She doesn't really smell like that, she is hiding her skin blemishes, her real boobs are smaller than they appear and in reality she is shorter than she appears. But that's not rape. And when you see and smell her in the morning, you may regret your decision to sleep with her, but that's still not rape. It's not even morally wrong.

So when we're talking about something that does not exist that makes people want to agree to have sex with you, who is to say it's any different from a lady's perfume or blemish covering makeup? It doesn't exist, but there are already many things you can use that will make other people want to agree to have sex with you that do exist. Unless you're part of the Phelps family, we don't seriously consider these things immoral.

Which of course is why FatR's argument is so fucking stupid. Since magic that makes people want to have sex with you does not exist, and it would be moral if it worked similarly to makeup and perfume and it would be immoral if it worked similarly to threats of violence, it really is your choice which you want to describe it as. Which means that FatR is complaining that he personally chose to put a lot more rape into his games and is accusing other people of hypocrisy because they chose to put less rape in instead.

Lago wrote:Frank, this isn't related to this thread, but do you believe in the gradualism principle when it comes to sapience for animals/robots/whatever or do you think that there's a cutoff line (you can put it anywhere, I just want to know your reason for it) in which anything below it doesn't get entitled to donkey dicks while everything above it experiences an explosion in rights?

I believe in the gradualism principle. I also believe that for purposes of law you need an arbitrary cutoff. In reality there are very mature 15 year olds and there are very isolated and naive 18 year olds, but the law has to use a completely arbitrary age cutoff plus mental competence. This creates border conditions where something can be legal and immoral or illegal and still moral. But in general it works most of the time.

Politenewb wrote:All I'm assuming is that when an animal has a rampant hard-on and tries to mount you, it wants to fuck. Is that an unrealistic assumption?

You've never owned a dog, have you? That assumption is completely wrong.

-Username17

-Username17

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:04 am

Something about fatr's magic rape argument... and what frank wrote just now hit me kinda weird. Note Frank is right about it, really, but check this out. . .
In D&D terms
People mention shit like Charm, and Dominate person, making it rape. . .
Would Fatr consider it rape if instead I was very ugly but used shit like ... Eagles Splendor, and glibness, or whatever spell gives you a bonus to diplomacy, or hell that warlock power that give a bonus to charisma related checks.
Then just ask "have sex with me?" after "Mechanically" you're going to get a yes cause you happen do be dead sexy.
Would you still say thats rape?
I mean are you saying that if I cast charm person on them, it's rape, where as it'd be totally okay to put on a cloak of charisma +6 and whatever else to "convince people"?
You assuredly have to see the flaw in your position.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:06 am

Midnight_v wrote:You assuredly have to see the flaw in your position.

This is, in all times, all places, all circumstances, and with all people, assuredly false. He will not see any flaw in his position.

Midnight_v · Post by **Midnight_v** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:21 am

Kaelik wrote:
Midnight_v wrote:You assuredly have to see the flaw in your position.
This is, in all times, all places, all circumstances, and with all people, assuredly false. He will not see any flaw in his position.

Come on now, that implies that ALL people would fail to reconize thing and would never change an opinon once formed. I'll give you that no he doesn't HAVE to see it, but humans/Self-analysis, as a whole we're resistant to it no impervious to it. uhm... right?
Whatevre lets not get off on a tangent.

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:17 am

PoliteNewb wrote:Because one of those is illegal and one isn't...

Not where I live.

Dominicius · Post by **Dominicius** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:53 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Politenewb wrote:All I'm assuming is that when an animal has a rampant hard-on and tries to mount you, it wants to fuck. Is that an unrealistic assumption?
You've never owned a dog, have you? That assumption is completely wrong.

-Username17

Ok just because his example is not the best does not make his point invalid Frank. Here is an example of an experiment that happened in 1958:

For the Love of Dolphins wrote:Perhaps the most troubling experiment in recent history is the dolphin-intelligence study conducted by neuroscientist John C. Lilly in 1958. While working at the Communication Research Institute, a state-of-the-art laboratory in the Virgin Islands, Lilly wanted to find out if dolphins could talk to people. At the time, the dominant theory of human language development posited that children learn to talk through constant, close contact with their mothers. So, Lilly tried to apply the same idea to dolphins.

For 10 weeks in 1965, Lilly’s young, female research associate, Margaret Howe, live with a dolphin named Peter. The two shared a partially flooded, two-room house. The water was just shallow enough for Margaret to wade through the rooms and just deep enough for Peter to swim. Margaret and Peter were constantly interacting with each other, eating, sleeping, working, and playing together. Margaret slept on a bed soaked in saltwater and worked on a floating desk, so that her dolphin roommate could interrupt her whenever he wanted. She also spent hours playing ball with Peter, encouraging his more “humanoid” noises and trying to teach him simple words.

As time passed, it became clear that Peter didn’t want a mom; he wanted a girlfriend. The dolphin became uninterested in his lessons, and he started wooing Margaret by nibbling at her feet and legs. When his advances weren’t reciprocated, Peter got violent. He started using his nose and flippers to hit Margaret’s shins, which quickly became bruised. For a while, she wore rubber boots and carried a broom to fight off Peter’s advances. When that didn’t work, she started sending him out for conjugal visits with other dolphins. But the research team grew worried that if Peter spent too much time with his kind, he’d forget what he’d learned about being human.

Before long, Peter was back in the house with Margaret, still attempting to woo her. But this time, he changed his tactics. Instead of biting his lady friend, he started courting her by gently rubbing his teeth up and down her leg and showing off his genitals. Shockingly, this final strategy worked, and Margaret began rubbing the dolphin’s erection. Unsurprisingly, he became a lot more cooperative with his language lessons.

Discovering that a human could satisfy a dolphin’s sexual needs was the experiment’s biggest interspecies breakthrough. Dr. Lilly still believed that dolphins could learn to talk if given enough time, and he hoped to conduct a year-long study with Margaret and another dolphin. When the plans turned out to be too expensive, Lilly tried to get the dolphins to talk another way—by giving them LSD. And although Lilly reported that they all had “very good trips,” the scientist’s reputation in the academic community deteriorated. Before long, he’d lost federal funding for his research.

Now, dolphins are the the second smartest animal on the planet (second only to humans) so much in fact that we are considering giving them "non-human persons" status. In your own words, the smarter an animal is the more abhorrent is the idea of having sex with it, yet the idea of an animal being perfectly capable of wanting sex with a human all by itself does not jive with this statement. At all.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:22 pm

Dominicius wrote: Now, dolphins are the the second smartest animal on the planet (second only to humans) so much in fact that we are considering giving them "non-human persons" status. In your own words, the smarter an animal is the more abhorrent is the idea of having sex with it, yet the idea of an animal being perfectly capable of wanting sex with a human all by itself does not jive with this statement. At all.

Uh... what? A 13 year old boy is perfectly capable of wanting to have sex with a grown man. But it's still wrong.

Now personally, I don't keep up on Dolphin intelligence studies. If someone is holding forth that they have the intelligence of an adult human, then it would be OK to have sex with them if that were true. But that's the argument that you'd have to be making. You can't just say "It wanted me to put my penis in its mouth!" and have that excuse anything if it didn't also meet the criteria of adult human intelligence and mental competence.

I personally have no desire to have sex with any cetacean. But if on had adult human intelligence and it consented to sex the that would be "OK". Not something I personally want to participate in or be told details about, but not morally objectionable.

-Username17

Dominicius · Post by **Dominicius** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:34 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: I personally have no desire to have sex with any cetacean. But if on had adult human intelligence and it consented to sex the that would be "OK". Not something I personally want to participate in or be told details about, but not morally objectionable.

-Username17

Then just say that dogs in WoD are similar to dolphins in that they (maybe) have human level intelligence but no civilization of their own.

Problem solved!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:42 pm

Dominicius wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote: I personally have no desire to have sex with any cetacean. But if on had adult human intelligence and it consented to sex the that would be "OK". Not something I personally want to participate in or be told details about, but not morally objectionable.

-Username17
Then just say that dogs in WoD are similar to dolphins in that they (maybe) have human level intelligence but no civilization of their own.

Problem solved!

But that's specifically not how dogs work in WoD.

The actual way they solved this problem was to have nWoD Werewolves not have any dog sex. They mate with humans exclusively and can't even sire offspring with non-human mates. Problem solved.

Now, Werewolf the Forsaken is a terribad game. But they really honestly did identify and solve the "dog fucking" problem of Apocalypse.

-Username17

Dr_Noface · Post by **Dr_Noface** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:44 pm

i dumb

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:38 pm

So, how do you classify normal animal mating? If dolphins/wolves/whatever aren't competent, how does the species continue in a moral way?

Separately, it looks like everyone is strawmanning Frank's position on "magical seduction". He seems to be saying that we don't have information on whether the mechanism is equivalent to taking steroids or to handing out roofie-coladas. Because from a consent perspective, one of those is totally okay and the other is totally not. That's not the same as asserting that dominate-based sex is kosher "because magic".

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:41 pm

Dominicius wrote:Now, dolphins are the the second smartest animal on the planet (second only to humans) so much in fact that we are considering giving them "non-human persons" status.

No one is actually considering giving dolphins non human person status.

Except you, but frankly, you are stupid and your opinion doesn't count.

Some scientists who specifically study dolphins are all up in arms about how smart they are. Some scientists who study rats are all up in arms about how smart they are. This is an issue of lack of perspective, nothing else, and scientists don't get to actually make decisions about who is or is not a person.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:59 pm

Tangentially, octopii are really smart. Like, tool using, lock opening, long-term memory smart. Look it up, it's really cool.

But they also die fast.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:34 pm

Kaelik wrote:Some scientists who study rats are all up in arms about how smart they are.

No. Nobody who studies rats considers them intelligent enough to warrant any protections. People who study rats kill them en mass. People who study rats cut their babies' heads off with scissors. People who study rats deprive them of sleep until they give up and die.

Scientists who actually give a shit about rats' rights don't study rats. The only scientists who study dolphins and act that way are Japanese.

Mice, but related

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:19 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Some scientists who study rats are all up in arms about how smart they are.
No. Nobody who studies rats considers them intelligent enough to warrant any protections. People who study rats kill them en mass. People who study rats cut their babies' heads off with scissors. People who study rats deprive them of sleep until they give up and die.

Scientists who actually give a shit about rats' rights don't study rats. The only scientists who study dolphins and act that way are Japanese.

Mice, but related

No one is claiming that Rats deserve personhood, but so what, People who study rats think rats are smarter than people who don't study rats think.

They don't care about them, they think they are smart. Dolphins have faces that make us think they are happy, so of course people care about them. That doesn't mean that they are smart enough for it to matter. People are biologically inclined to like dogs, cats, and dolphins based on the shape of their faces.

People who study Octupi think they are the smartest animals. People who study Chimps think they are. People who study Orangutans think they are. And people have been trying to claim that Chimps, orangutans, or Gorillas (whichever one they happen to study) deserve personhood for decades. People who have a lot of cats or dogs treat their cats and dogs like people sometimes, and generally think they are "sooooooooo smart".

The fact that some people who make a living studying animals who look like they are smiling think they are smart enough to count as people doesn't mean they are smart enough to count as people. It means that people who spend lots of time with one animal species come to like that species, especially when it is one that is biologically attractive to humans.

The actual results of that study are "Dolphins can perform some tasks that are symptomatic of rudimentary intelligence slightly better than Chimps."

Whoopdee fucking do. Only idiots like you, and idiots who are like you, but journalists, and so paid to say stupid sensational things actually think they are "Smart enough to be persons!"

norms29 · Post by **norms29** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:26 pm

This first came to mind as a joke, but now I seriously want the answer

Frank, it's already been asked why creatures who both do not and never will have the requisite mental competance these rights which can be violated? which is what is required for the dog fucking to be morally wrong. do inanimate objects also have these rights? and if not, does dogrape some how become more moral if the animal is killed first? because that seems to logically follow (because then it's an inanimate object being fucked, not an animal)

also; the more I think about this, the more I realize I really can't think of any reason to morally equate raping a person or molesting a child to fucking an animal. non of the surrounding harms or violations seem to carry over. when it's done to a person it can be described as violating certain rights people are assumed to have which animals don't (right to control of their own bodies, right to control their sexuallity, etc) nor does it seem to have the potential to do the same kind of psychological harm to the "victim"

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:34 pm

Kaelik wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:Let your own moral compass guide you there.
I would if I weren't a Psychopath. But you know. Oh well.

There's a difference between choosing to be an asshole because you don't see it as wrong and not even understanding that "being an asshole" is a thing.

I've known quite a few people that were medically diagnosed as such. I was even married to one for 5 years (I believe I have expanded my thoughts as to why I wouldn't recomend it so I won't do so again here).

Psychopaths tend to be frustrated, miserable people because they literally don't understand why people react to them so negatively when they fuck them over. A psychopath literally is as able to recognize that using someone then abandoning them is wrong as I am able to teleport. That's not the same as choosing to do so because you put yourself above everyone else. A psychopath literally is unable to realize other people have their own goals.

You're not a psychopath. You're a spoiled brat. Big difference.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:58 pm

Kaelik wrote:No one is claiming that Rats deserve personhood, but so what, People who study rats think rats are smarter than people who don't study rats think.

They don't care about them, they think they are smart.

I'm not going to believe this until I see some evidence. Knowing that rats can learn mazes or die of cancer is not the same thing as thinking that they're smarter than most people think. Especially when normal people grow up on Redwall, The Rescuers, and The Rats of NIMH.

Kaelik wrote: Dolphins have faces that make us think they are happy, so of course people care about them. That doesn't mean that they are smart enough for it to matter. People are biologically inclined to like dogs, cats, and dolphins based on the shape of their faces.

Yes.

Kaelik wrote: People who study Octupi think they are the smartest animals.

Again, I call bullshit until I see evidence. Sure, people who study octopodes seem to think that the 8-legged slimeballs are pretty damn' smart--probably the smartest molluscs--but that's a far cry from being the smartest animals even if you take Homo out of the equation.

Kaelik wrote: People who study Chimps think they are. People who study Orangutans think they are. And people have been trying to claim that Chimps, orangutans, or Gorillas (whichever one they happen to study) deserve personhood for decades. People who have a lot of cats or dogs treat their cats and dogs like people sometimes, and generally think they are "sooooooooo smart".

My cats are goddamn retards. I see piles and piles of evidence confirming this every day. One of them is smarter than the other, but they're still both dumb as rocks.

Great apes are pretty smart. While the researchers almost certainly show bias, I'm not ready to dismiss it as unreasonable. I could care less about great apes; unless they go extinct or start a war on humanity I'll mostly ignore their existence. Ape researchers do care, and so it makes sense that they'd have a better formed (as well as informed) opinion than the average schmuck.

Kaelik wrote: The fact that some people who make a living studying animals who look like they are smiling think they are smart enough to count as people doesn't mean they are smart enough to count as people. It means that people who spend lots of time with one animal species come to like that species, especially when it is one that is biologically attractive to humans.

The actual results of that study are "Dolphins can perform some tasks that are symptomatic of rudimentary intelligence slightly better than Chimps."

Whoopdee fucking do. Only idiots like you, and idiots who are like you, but journalists, and so paid to say stupid sensational things actually think they are "Smart enough to be persons!"

It seems like you're confusing multiple semi-distinct issues here.

[*]Firstly, do researchers have a higher opinion of the intelligence of their "smiling" model organisms than the average person does? You've taken this as a fact, but you haven't actually given serious evidence.
[*]Secondly, if the above is true, are the researchers wrong? After all, it's possible that most animals are smarter than most people think.
[*]Thirdly, does the level of intelligence inferred by researchers entail personhood? What should entail personhood?

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:28 pm

I googled "octopus intelligence" and this popped up. Check the comments for examples of people waxing rhapsodic over how smart they are. http://m.boingboing.net/2010/02/01/the- ... octop.html

NOVA recently released a program on how dogs are smarter than chimps. "Dogs Decoded", you can get it on netflix. It also has a bunch of nature/nurture reasearch.

Whether or not these animals are "the smartest", there are people who say they are. And whether or not they should be some sort of person, there are people who think they should be.

Purely as a factual rebuttal to "no-one thinks that."

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:38 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Again, I call bullshit until I see evidence. Sure, people who study octopodes seem to think that the 8-legged slimeballs are pretty damn' smart--probably the smartest molluscs--but that's a far cry from being the smartest animals even if you take Homo out of the equation.

Clearly you have never dealt with anyone who studies octopi, or read anything about them. They are indisputably the smartest molluscs, they are disputably the smartest non human animal. Get a Octopi, Dolphin, Chimp, and Orangutan researcher in the same room. See if you can get even a single one to agree that their animal isn't the smartest.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:It seems like you're confusing multiple semi-distinct issues here.

[*]Firstly, do researchers have a higher opinion of the intelligence of their "smiling" model organisms than the average person does? You've taken this as a fact, but you haven't actually given serious evidence.
[*]Secondly, if the above is true, are the researchers wrong? After all, it's possible that most animals are smarter than most people think.
[*]Thirdly, does the level of intelligence inferred by researchers entail personhood? What should entail personhood?

No, I am talking about different issues, I am not confusing them.

What sort of evidence do you expect? You have provided literally zero evidence for the assertion "Dolphins exist" in this conversation. You'll notice I haven't disputed that. It is obviously true if:

1) Most people do not think Dolphins are smart enough to warrant personhood.
2) The consensus of Dolphin researchers is that they are smart enough to warrant personhood.
3) Dolphin researchers have the same conception of personhood as the average person.

That Dolphin researchers have a higher opinion. You are seriously questioning your own premise that Dolphin researchers think Dolphins are smart enough to be people, when you question this.

Now, obviously, of the above premises, both 2 and 3 are false. It's not the consensus, and Dolphin researchers almost certainly don't mean the same thing by person that the average person does. But fuck it.

2) Of course all animals are smarter than most people think they are. Most people are fucking stupid, and have been trained to think of animals as input output machines, with very simple programs no more than five steps. They are of course, all wrong, because people are stupid. But the fact that animals are smarter than the average calculator is not evidence that they are smart enough to count as persons.

3) No. What kind of Personhood. Legal Personhood is different from moral personhood is different from descriptive personhood. Dolphins currently meet none of those qualifications, but it's trivially true that if enough people decide that they should, they can achieve 1.

Slade · Post by **Slade** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:41 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:[
Mice, but related

Onion is not news. They are a joke company. Fake news and all.
If it wasn't fake:
Mice are pretty similar genetically to humans though (more than pigs). So if you think about that says a lot about those scienticist feelings about humanity.

I'll admit this made me chuckle a little:
As a physicist, I don't really have much cause to use mice in my regular research, which mostly requires the use of theoretical math," said Dr. Thomas Huber, author of the 1996 study Mouse Elasticity And Kinetic Rebound In High-Acceleration Collisions. "But when I have the time, I like to send them flying into walls. Even just seeing them in a cage makes me feel kind of good inside. I like knowing I'm depriving them of their freedom, even if my research doesn't provide me the opportunity to cut them open."

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:52 pm

I'm pretty sure Cathraz posted that knowing full well what it was...

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:42 pm

fectin wrote:Purely as a factual rebuttal to "no-one thinks that."

Fair enough.

Kaelik wrote:Clearly you have never dealt with anyone who studies octopi, or read anything about them. They are indisputably the smartest molluscs, they are disputably the smartest non human animal.

Yeah? Why don't you tell me a little bit about octopus social structure.

Kaelik wrote:No, I am talking about different issues, I am not confusing them.

What sort of evidence do you expect? You have provided literally zero evidence for the assertion "Dolphins exist" in this conversation.

Here you go.

Kaelik wrote:It is obviously true if:

1) Most people do not think Dolphins are smart enough to warrant personhood.
2) The consensus of Dolphin researchers is that they are smart enough to warrant personhood.
3) Dolphin researchers have the same conception of personhood as the average person.

That Dolphin researchers have a higher opinion. You are seriously questioning your own premise that Dolphin researchers think Dolphins are smart enough to be people, when you question this.

Now, obviously, of the above premises, both 2 and 3 are false. It's not the consensus, and Dolphin researchers almost certainly don't mean the same thing by person that the average person does. But fuck it.

2) Of course all animals are smarter than most people think they are. Most people are fucking stupid, and have been trained to think of animals as input output machines, with very simple programs no more than five steps. They are of course, all wrong, because people are stupid. But the fact that animals are smarter than the average calculator is not evidence that they are smart enough to count as persons.

3) No. What kind of Personhood. Legal Personhood is different from moral personhood is different from descriptive personhood. Dolphins currently meet none of those qualifications, but it's trivially true that if enough people decide that they should, they can achieve 1.

Because you say so? When did the Gold Standard of Truth on TGD switch from "Frank said so" to "Kaelik said so"? You've got no standards for determining what should qualify as a person. All you have is your own gut feelings of misanthropy (and misdelphinthropy).

Slade wrote:Mice are pretty similar genetically to humans though (more than pigs). So if you think about that says a lot about those scienticist feelings about humanity.

Genetic similarity has nothing to do with the discussion. Even if that was true, pig genome sequencing isn't complete, so you couldn't know that.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:23 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Here you go.

I don't know if you are actually that dumb, or just trying to be cute. The point was that things that are obviously true don't require evidence.

Now do you admit that it is obviously true that Dolphin researchers have a higher view of Dolphins than the average person, and there is no reason for me to present evidence for that since you yourself agree with all the premises that make it true?

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Because you say so? When did the Gold Standard of Truth on TGD switch from "Frank said so" to "Kaelik said so"? You've got no standards for determining what should qualify as a person. All you have is your own gut feelings of misanthropy (and misdelphinthropy).

I assume you are accepting 1 and 2, and skipping straight to 3, since that has nothing to do with 1 and 2.

I'm confused at how you think that has anything do with anything?

I presented 3 types of personhood that exist, Obviously legal personhood is 100% a popularity contest based on consensus, so no they don't have it, and maybe they could get it, but no one besides dolphin lovers should even care.

Moral personhood is just one more made up thing that people have made up for shits and giggles to confine actions. It isn't real for anyone, and each person makes the decision whether they want to accept that or not.

Descriptive personhood is where we use person to specifically distinguish between humans and animals. So of course a Dolphin isn't and can never be a human instead of an animal. In it's own way it's as false as moral personhood, but that doesn't stop people from using it.

Once again, I didn't say "It's X, because I said so." I said "What the Fuck do you mean by person?" and then described the obvious truth about whether a Dolphin is a person based on some example definitions.