Animal cruelty is cruelty _to_ animals rather than _by_ animals?
You learn something new everyday. Today it’s yet another exception in interpreting sentences.
Depends. Are we talking animal cruelty as in cruelty *to* animals? (And this begs the question of whether sapients such as H.T. should be counted as animals!) or are we talking about cruelty *by* animals such as Sweetheart? o_O
(Again, assuming that a sapient such as Sweetheart counts as an animal! ^_~).
While I acknowledge that I’m a speciest [I eat meat], no way should talking animals be treated as anything less then a peer sentient, even if they don’t have citizenship. It is ironic though that the minimum rights they should be given are normally referred to as ‘human rights.’
A better question here is whether the shadow government rep is using unnecessary force against an illegal combatant? H.T. easily qualifies as a terrorist after all.
You get these oddities in legal language when there’s only one tool-using sapient species with full linguistic capacity in the area. If and when we ever find aliens, we’ll probably need to adjust things in a hurry.
Anyway, I’d say that it’s OK to shoot HT in self-defense, but not OK to turn his skin into a rug. The former is unfortunate but ultimately necessary; the latter is just *icky* at this point.
There is a website where the author has done a lot of SF world building, most of the worlds having multiple intelligent species. Go halfway down this page to ‘People or Not’ for one place he discusses the issue. http://www.worlddreambank.org/T/THAPEOPL.HTM
It’s a simple fix. Personal rights instead of human rights works just as well.
As far as excessive force goes, she’s so far out of her jurisdiction that it probably doesn’t matter, but yes, that’s excessive force. It’s the Dirty Harry question: in extreme circumstances is it better to preserve the admissibility of the evidence so the suspect will be stopped in the future at the expense of the immediate victims, or stop him right now and risk losing a conviction to the Fourth Amendment but end the currently existing crisis?
Remember, she’s not in law enforcement, so she doesn’t have a right to use any amount of force beyond that of a regular person, and she’s also not in the US.
I’m not sure that Sweetheart’s actions in respect of someone who poses no immediate threat are actually reasonable, but I’m convinced that there isn’t a court in the land which would convict her.
When you think about the fact that Capt. Bram created the dogs to conquer America, and he also created the bioweapons, it’s reasonable to think he created the weapons so that the dogs could use them, so H.T. would be able to as well.
A bear trap is deadly force, as John Crichton can tell you. There’s a pretty high standard of use there, especially when HT isn’t presenting an immediate threat, only a potential one.
Although it’s cruel, it’s not as cruel as trapping a non-sapient animal would be. HT can talk his way out of the trap. He won’t have to resort to gnawing off his own leg in order to escape.
Of course it is! But only if it’s not an animal doing it.
Well, no. If it’s an animal which is being cruel in any way shape or form, then that is – by definition – animal cruelty.
See, for clarity we need to bring back the older, more accurate terminology “cruelty to animals”, which fell out of favor some time back in.
Our current usage of “animal cruelty” only works in context where animals themselves cannot be cruel. The Narboniverse lacks that context.
Animal cruelty is cruelty _to_ animals rather than _by_ animals?
You learn something new everyday. Today it’s yet another exception in interpreting sentences.
Depends. Are we talking animal cruelty as in cruelty *to* animals? (And this begs the question of whether sapients such as H.T. should be counted as animals!) or are we talking about cruelty *by* animals such as Sweetheart? o_O
(Again, assuming that a sapient such as Sweetheart counts as an animal! ^_~).
While I acknowledge that I’m a speciest [I eat meat], no way should talking animals be treated as anything less then a peer sentient, even if they don’t have citizenship. It is ironic though that the minimum rights they should be given are normally referred to as ‘human rights.’
A better question here is whether the shadow government rep is using unnecessary force against an illegal combatant? H.T. easily qualifies as a terrorist after all.
(The answer to the question is no 🙂 )
You get these oddities in legal language when there’s only one tool-using sapient species with full linguistic capacity in the area. If and when we ever find aliens, we’ll probably need to adjust things in a hurry.
Anyway, I’d say that it’s OK to shoot HT in self-defense, but not OK to turn his skin into a rug. The former is unfortunate but ultimately necessary; the latter is just *icky* at this point.
There is a website where the author has done a lot of SF world building, most of the worlds having multiple intelligent species. Go halfway down this page to ‘People or Not’ for one place he discusses the issue.
http://www.worlddreambank.org/T/THAPEOPL.HTM
It’s a simple fix. Personal rights instead of human rights works just as well.
As far as excessive force goes, she’s so far out of her jurisdiction that it probably doesn’t matter, but yes, that’s excessive force. It’s the Dirty Harry question: in extreme circumstances is it better to preserve the admissibility of the evidence so the suspect will be stopped in the future at the expense of the immediate victims, or stop him right now and risk losing a conviction to the Fourth Amendment but end the currently existing crisis?
Remember, she’s not in law enforcement, so she doesn’t have a right to use any amount of force beyond that of a regular person, and she’s also not in the US.
This is not animal cruelty. This is reasonable force. In fact, dealing with H.T. will probably require the use of even greater force.
I’m not sure that Sweetheart’s actions in respect of someone who poses no immediate threat are actually reasonable, but I’m convinced that there isn’t a court in the land which would convict her.
Considering that H.T. is trying to access Captain Bram’s stockpile of bioweapons, I would say the he does indeed pose an immediate threat.
A threat, but not an immediate one.
Whoever possesses both the bioweapons and the ability to operate them would be an immediate threat.
When you think about the fact that Capt. Bram created the dogs to conquer America, and he also created the bioweapons, it’s reasonable to think he created the weapons so that the dogs could use them, so H.T. would be able to as well.
A bear trap is deadly force, as John Crichton can tell you. There’s a pretty high standard of use there, especially when HT isn’t presenting an immediate threat, only a potential one.
Although it’s cruel, it’s not as cruel as trapping a non-sapient animal would be. HT can talk his way out of the trap. He won’t have to resort to gnawing off his own leg in order to escape.
I saw that tail wagging.
and the simle
or a misspelled smile…… whatever
the fact that she needs to specify it’s loyal dogs suggest things haven’t improved too much
I’d ask why Dr. Bram had bear traps in his armory, but I’m afraid that someone would give me the answer.
He gave lil puppy Sweetheart poisoned sausages for no explained reason. So I really don’t want to know either.
Judging from that candy-colored “SNAP”, Dr. Bram’s bear traps may be… “interesting”.
Because rural Canada?