Another Animal Axiom Question

[boycottfood]

Absolutely. I'd do it with repercussions, too.

"Leaving it up to the law" is funny, also. Would you stop a man from raping a woman? Nah, that's what we have laws for. That's obviously an extreme example, but laws aren't for preventing these sort of things. They're for punishing the people who do them.

[The Bandit Fish]

Cruelty for the sake of cruelty deserves the same back in spades.

[ill rich]

no repurcussions for me?

of course i would, and i hope they would be in alot of pain too.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
laws aren't for preventing these sort of things. They're for punishing the people who do them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good rape example. However, I strongly disagree with this comment. General and Specific deterence are the two most important reasons to have laws IMO. They may not be the most important in your opinion, but you have to admit that they are reasons regardless.

In this situation, I think that specific deterence is of utmost importance.

[PantsOnFire]

I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

[boycottfood]

Right, I didn't mean to say that laws aren't for preventing those acts, because that's exactly what they're for. All I meant was that in this specific scenario, it's obvious that the laws aren't effectively preventing the act. I think what's important is preventing the act now and essentially punishing them for it at the same time, dissuading them from considering similar things in the future.

[boycottfood]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't do it unless I explained to the guy what was happening and he agreed to it (perhaps it was his cat).

Actually, even if it was my cat and it was my hand in the gun sights, I still wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well some guys would agree to have their hand blasted off with a gun to save their cat while I wouldn't. Is this what you meant?

So basically, if you see my cat about to be tortured and you need to blast my hand off to stop it, please don't do it. Thanks in advance.

Similarly, if it your cat and you want me to blast you hand off to save him, I will happily oblige. If you cannot give me the go ahead then I am not going to blast your hand off no matter whose cat it is.

Is that more clear?

[boycottfood]

I see that Sklansky's original post was unclear about whose hand was to be blown off to save the cat. I wouldn't hurt anyone but the people who are about to torture the cat, and I don't think anyone else should either. It's not really a serious question if we're just blowing off some random person's hand to save the cat.

[The Dude]

Absolutely not. And anybody who thinks they would needs to either pull their head out of their ass and get back to reality, or they're really sick.