Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Didn't mean the first question to be ambiguous. And the vast disparity of answers makes me wonder if that would continue if the question was clearer.

An adult, non mentally retarded person is about to gleefully torture and kill a random cat by frying it in a microwave. You can stop it, but if you do, the person somehow loses his hand. How doesn't matter. Would you stop the execution?

I phrase the question this way because I believe I am right at the line for most people. Almost no one would kill any human to save a cat that wasn't their pet. Very few would kill an innocent human, even painlessly, to keep a random cat from dying painfully. Most would not maim even a scoundrel to keep a random cat from dying peacefully.

On the other hand most people would subject themselves or others to moderate discomfort to keep a cat from dying tortuously. And most would subject the actual prospective torturer, to serious discomfort or pain, to stop his deed.

The question I asked is in between those parameters.

PS I don't think it is useful to bring up the fact that the torturer may one day be a neurosurgeon or that he deserves maiming. I'm really only asking what lengths you would go to, to save the cat, if there is a non innocent human hurt in the process.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Save the cat, f the dude's hand.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I'd chop his hand off for sure.

He may not be mentally retarded...but he has some serious issues if he 'gleefully' put a cat in a microwave.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

If it's an innocent human, the cat fries. This is a non-innocent human, so save the cat and he can lose his hand.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

i feel somehow that you must warn the dude that he is going to lose his hand if he continues. even among torturers/delinquents there is a continuum. he may only be 51% sure he wants to continue. the real sickos will ignore your warning.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

The dude IS a sicko if he is gleefully frying a cat. The guy deserves to be punished and I don't even like cats.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Is it a house cat or a feral cat?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

So my gut reaction is that I'd save the cat. [censored] the guy.

However, I would not support a criminal punishment of losing a hand for the crime of torturing an animal. I think you could reasonably assume that if this was the punishment it would save at least some animals lives.

Whats the difference?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it's an innocent human, the cat fries. This is a non-innocent human, so save the cat and he can lose his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the whole freakin point of the question. Does the fact that this person is killing a cat gleefullyand for no other benefit than to give him pleasure make him non-innocent?

I say the dude's hand goes.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would not support a criminal punishment of losing a hand for the crime of torturing an animal. I think you could reasonably assume that if this was the punishment it would save at least some animals lives.

Whats the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a difference in that a criminal law takes the judgement out of your hands. There is an uncertainty that I personally find uncomfortable when giving judgement up to other, however qualified.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Isn't torturing animals a precursor to doing the same to humans? Even if this guy doesn't get around to kidnapping kids, I can almost gaurantee he is an absolute [censored] to people around him.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

How cute is the cat?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I'd say let his hand go, but not because I'm appealing to some delicate utilitarian balance. It's because my sense of justice says screw the guy. If it were some other scoundrel who had nothing to do with the cat that's about to be fried, then the cat is toast.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

This question is way too easy. obv. f*** the guy's hand.

It would be more interesting, although slightly more convoluted, if the guy who would lose his hand was guilty of something less sinister, completely unrelated to the cat, but we still had to choose between taking his hand or letting the cat die. Obviously if he's choosing to do something as screwed up as frying a cat in the microwave, most will think he's a sicko who deserves to lose a hand.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

A finger is worth more than a cat. Looks like a cat is getting fried here. I can't see a cat being worth the pain or suffering to a person.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

uhh it seems like even if I arrived late and the cat already died id prob still want to cut of the guys hand..

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I analyse this on 2 levels:

1) Under a pure legal point of view whet he is doing is a criminal act and it has to be stopped, he therefore has to be selfconscious of the consequences of his actions against the law.
In the end: yes I will stop him and yes I won't have regrets.

2)On a more subtle level:I assume that if the guy is doing so he, in a certain way, finds pleasure.
Under these circostances I also assume he will do it again.
This is enough for me to stop him.
I can but I dont assume that this vicious pleasure might escalate to humans.

A possible solution would be reporting the guy to police saving his hand and letting the cat die, but I would have been witness of a criminal act, had the chance to stop it with no risk for myself.

I do definitely stop the guy and I don't care of his hand.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
.

However, I would not support a criminal punishment of losing a hand for the crime of torturing an animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an intersting point: surely the punishment of losing a hand for for torturing an animal is way out of line, but here you are not punishing the guy, you are stopping his action and doing so he loses his hand.

If we assume that first we have to stop the action because the action is clearly wrong in principle we cannot be responsible for the consequences of doing something which is towards the law.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
surely the punishment of losing a hand for for torturing an animal is way out of line

[/ QUOTE ]

why is that out of line?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

If it were up to me, he'd lose the hand.

Then his hand, preferably microwaved, will be fed to the cat.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Because is not alligned with our standards of punishments.

In modern western civilization, apart from the deviation of death penalty, there is not any physical act towards the criminal besides reclusion.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
How cute is the cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

This made me lol.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't mean the first question to be ambiguous. And the vast disparity of answers makes me wonder if that would continue if the question was clearer.

An adult, non mentally retarded person is about to gleefully torture and kill a random cat by frying it in a microwave. You can stop it, but if you do, the person somehow loses his hand. How doesn't matter. Would you stop the execution?

I phrase the question this way because I believe I am right at the line for most people. Almost no one would kill any human to save a cat that wasn't their pet. Very few would kill an innocent human, even painlessly, to keep a random cat from dying painfully. Most would not maim even a scoundrel to keep a random cat from dying peacefully.

On the other hand most people would subject themselves or others to moderate discomfort to keep a cat from dying tortuously. And most would subject the actual prospective torturer, to serious discomfort or pain, to stop his deed.

The question I asked is in between those parameters.

PS I don't think it is useful to bring up the fact that the torturer may one day be a neurosurgeon or that he deserves maiming. I'm really only asking what lengths you would go to, to save the cat, if there is a non innocent human hurt in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?!?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

save the cat.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Has the cat been vaccinated?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

As long as the hand or cat is throughly microwaved and then consumed as food it's a wash.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Is this Schrodinger's cat? If so, is the microwave the box? Because that cat is dead already.

Also, it would seem to depend where you live. If I'm in south east Asia, it might be ok to eat a cat where I am at. But, I guess the OP did state that it was purely to torture that cat, so this argument is irrelevent.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I think the correct answer here is to microwave the cat, and then feed it to its executioner.

-J

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

Fried catfish, fried cat, what's the difference?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
I analyse this on 2 levels:

1) Under a pure legal point of view whet he is doing is a criminal act and it has to be stopped,

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you just blindly agree with the law because it's "The Law"?

[ QUOTE ]
he therefore has to be selfconscious of the consequences of his actions against the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you making this assumption?

[ QUOTE ]
2)On a more subtle level:I assume that if the guy is doing so he, in a certain way, finds pleasure.
Under these circostances I also assume he will do it again.
This is enough for me to stop him.
I can but I dont assume that this vicious pleasure might escalate to humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you feel you can justify any action with appropriate assumptions? I assume you will kill three old ladies, this is enough for me to shoot you in the head.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a house cat or a feral cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious about this as well. People kill unowned animals for sport every day.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it's an innocent human, the cat fries. This is a non-innocent human, so save the cat and he can lose his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I'd hand him a second cat and cut off both his hands. Bingo no repeat offenders and my work is done for the day.
Damn being a super hero kicks ass

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I think the question needs to stipulate the fact that there will be no other punishment besides the man losing his hand. No one will be around as a witness and no criminal charges will be pressed.

I still think inspite of this that a hand is probably a bit much. A finger seems more appropriate. If he does it again then take his hand.

If we could punish him by our laws then I would go that route.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I'd save the cat, f the guys hand because he's obviously a dick if he's torturing a cat. I consider cruelty morally wrong so he gets punished - oh well.

On the other hand if I knew the cat to be a bastard (microwaving mice or something) then I may not save it.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

screw the cat and screw the guy thats killing it...mass genocide is the answer

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

I don't think this question is about punishmnent.

Most people don't want to cut off another person's hand. But would you go this far to save a cat? He's not asking if someone who tortures a cat deserves their hand removed, is he?

I'm wondering how differently people would have responded if he replaced cat with dog?

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering how differently people would have responded if he replaced cat with dog?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I was thinking the same thing...

- Ok. Some philosophers might argue that it is wrong to interfere with another man's actions. Therefore, stopping the man from killing the cat would be considered wrong. However, the man has already interfered with your life by inserting thoughts of pain/cruelty into your mind (by preparing to kill the cat)... So. What now? hmmm...

What would Jesus do? Judging from many Bible stories I imagine Jesus would not do anything to this man. He would let him kill the cat knowing that the man would someday get what he deserved (hell)... If you dont believe in Hell, then maybe you believe in bad carma or "what goes around comes around". Therefore it might be wise to let the man kill the cat as he will probably suffer later in life for his actions...

But if you decide to cut off his hand, then maybe you could make it up to him by putting his hand in the microwave. This way he still gets to see a show and you can still be buddies.

(love the books David. Im on page 139 of "Hold Em Poker".)

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

carma = karma oops

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

If my only options are hack off hand/not hack off hand (as opposed to calling the police, beating him up, saving the cat, blah blah blah), then I have to go with:

Not hack off hand.

Would I want to hack off his hand? Most certainly. Just like I would literally kill that lady that was recently on trial for drowning all her kids. But, I'm not allowed to kill her because we have a system in place for dealing with things.

Why even have laws to protect us, and a system in place for delivering justice (hey, it's not perfect, but could it ever be?) if we can't abide by it?

Lastly, there are two main reasons you should not hack off his hand. One...you're not Police Enforcement or the Law, you have no right to take the law into your own "hands." And, Two...he is going to sue your @$$, and I'm about 85% sure he would win a substantial amount of money off of you.

Re: Cat Microwave Question More Explicitly Stated
 

what if he's in your house with your cat?

now you can have your way with him, no?