4 added 62 characters in body
source | link

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, and taking a modern, less 'essentialist' view of definition, the real problem is why we should carewhy we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevantto be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if someone's 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the animal a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

But both of these serve real purposes. If there is some aspect of dog-status that you wish to retain beyond the name, we don't want encourage you to be the Rachel Dolezahl of the canine world, participating in a marginal way that troubles dogs or those aligned with dogs. And we don't want to just assign you a biological label that might confuse your vet.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, and taking a modern less 'essentialist' view of definition, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if someone's 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the animal a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

But both of these serve real purposes. If there is some aspect of dog-status that you wish to retain beyond the name, we don't want encourage you to be the Rachel Dolezahl of the canine world, participating in a marginal way that troubles dogs or those aligned with dogs. And we don't want to just assign you a biological label that might confuse your vet.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, and taking a modern, less 'essentialist' view of definition, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if someone's 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the animal a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

But both of these serve real purposes. If there is some aspect of dog-status that you wish to retain beyond the name, we don't want encourage you to be the Rachel Dolezahl of the canine world, participating in a marginal way that troubles dogs or those aligned with dogs. And we don't want to just assign you a biological label that might confuse your vet.

3 added 62 characters in body
source | link

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, and taking a modern less 'essentialist' view of definition, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if yoursomeone's 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the thinganimal a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

But both of these serve real purposes. If there is some aspect of dog-status that you wish to retain beyond the name, we don't want encourage you to be the Rachel Dolezahl of the canine world, participating in a marginal way that troubles dogs or those aligned with dogs. And we don't want to just assign you a biological label that might confuse your vet.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if your 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the thing a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, and taking a modern less 'essentialist' view of definition, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if someone's 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the animal a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

But both of these serve real purposes. If there is some aspect of dog-status that you wish to retain beyond the name, we don't want encourage you to be the Rachel Dolezahl of the canine world, participating in a marginal way that troubles dogs or those aligned with dogs. And we don't want to just assign you a biological label that might confuse your vet.

2 added 62 characters in body
source | link

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if your 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the thing a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange.

Socially, we don't care if your 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the thing a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

Leaving the ship of Theseus aside, the real problem is why we should care whether you are a dog? In what context do you want it to be relevant that you are a dog?

If there is no political or ethical way in which you intend to have us treat you like a dog, you are free to be a dog, or an orange, and participate in society without reference to the identity.

Socially, we don't care if your 'dog' is actually a 'coy-wolf', if it serves the same social function. Biologically, we know that it is dog DNA that first allowed coyotes and wolves to interbreed to begin with, so we can actually call the thing a dog if we want to, and we can also call it a coyote or a wolf. How we treat it depends a whole lot on that choice. But the name does not change the animal itself.

There is no essence to what a dog is. There are only cultural and biological conventions around dogliness that help us get along in the world.

1
source | link