It's only a word game for people that wish to twist and redefine words to suit themselves. "Personality" refers to the qualities and traits that make a person a person. As I stated, individual animals have their own physical and behavioral qualities, but they are not persons. They may exhibit traits that suggest personality but that's merely an analog to make it easier for us to describe and communicate...it's like saying a person has a "wolf-like" appetite...we don't mean the person would literally chase down an elk with his pack and eat it raw, but there are elements of his appetite that remind us of a wolf. When we say a cat has a great "personality" we might simply mean that it's gentle, people-friendly, and calm, but those characteristics in and of themselves do not ascribe it personhood.
That was my point in the first place. To say they don't have "personality" is meaningless if all one means to say is that they aren't people. If they think we owe animals nothing because they aren't people, say that.
Most people understand the word personality differently. And why did they qualify it as "individual personality"? Could an animal have collective personality? What is that even supposed to mean?
It is clear when they say "individual personality", they mean individual traits of character, behavoir, likes/dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. It's pure bunk, and I stated at the outset.
Had they meant to say we owe animals nothing because they are not people, they'd have said that.
Soooo....just because they aren’t persons/humans we don’t owe them consideration in an act of cruelty as we must focus only on the human perpetrator?
We need to define cruelty.....random acts of senseless cruelty which causes needless pain or death for NO reason at all other than the pleasure the tormentor feels....
That is nowhere in the same category as hunting and killing deer for food, or killing a chicken to put it on the table for dinner.