https://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sentience:
you fail for specifically arguing on behalf of Ewoks
Ewoks have the ability to reason (thinking intelligently), use tools and speak, though.
Therefore, my original claim is outrageous, that none of those creatures is sentient. It should be discarded as a joke. But the post remains comprehensible thanks to the common misconception of sentient. Star Trek has a deficit of non-sapient species.
If that’s not enough, of course ewoks are sapient. We see an ewok mourn his fallen comrade, dramatically in the midst of battle. If you don’t remember this scene, you shouldn’t have the right to vote*[/size].
- in this poll[COLOR=‘DarkSlateGray’]†[/size][/size]
[COLOR=‘DarkSlateGray’]† on second thought, if you don’t remember this scene, you shouldn’t be able to vote for anything, you heartless bastard[/size]
Monkeys are sentient:
The problem arises with your link and its definition of “sentience” in the Star Wars sense. Your link defines sentience as:
“A sentient was a being with the ability to think intelligently, commonly determined by the being’s ability to speak, manipulate tools, and reason. Species that lacked this ability were classified as non-sentient, or sometimes as sub-sentient.”
Ewoks had the ability to think intelligently. In fact, I believe they were MORE intelligent than, say, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.
Sure, sentience and sapience have different meanings OUTSIDE the Star Wars universe, but if you’re using in-universe definitions for words to define in-universe creatures…
I wasn’t referencing the flawed in-universe notation. I was citing the case that “most animals are sentient” using a trusted in-universe source.
How one can care to follow a link and read it but not bother to read the four words that have been quoted, I do not know.
“Thus most animals are sentient” is simply referencing that the in-universe definition is flawed.
…Which is why I quoted that tidbit instead of the flawed definition. It concisely puts the point I tried to get across.