The UEG-Space Command wrote:*snip*
Correct, however it is heavily flawed, for example all many living things, humans included are animals, it is backwards to state otherwise. Then there is the fact that it is not logical to list something as non sentient when it shows all signs of being sentient, I am more than sure there would be multiple species that would not count humans as being sentient, and thus, anthros if you call them such, should be noted as being sentient, as to avoid hypocrisy, though it would only count if you wish to stay on a high note, so this could be invalid, in that case then, it could be a sign of arrogance from the culture which does not recognizes their sentience. Either way, since both anthros and humans are animals, your animal rights case is null on the ground of the term animal.
Hm, I sense inconsistency, slight, but it should be checked upon. Either way you may choose to discuss it further, and hopefully I will check myself by then for a bug.
You appear to misunderstand premise 3. This does not state that creatures regarded as sentient are not also regarded as animals, rather it states that there are special laws that apply to sentients. Dyelli Beybi is not a human majority state, but we see no need to alter our legislation to be inclusive towards 'anthros'. 'Hypocrisy' and 'forward thinking' are both entirely irrelevant in logic. These creatures may or may not be sentient, but until such time as they are deemed to be so by the legislature, as far as the law is concerned, they are not.
This legalistic attitude serves the state well as it clearly establishes which creatures are to be treated in which manner. For instance, an animal rights activist cannot claim that a farmer who shoots a lion has committed murder as the lion is not listed as a sentient.