4 ms·
> We don't need categories to be so rigid. For the purposes of law we do. > I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship w
by shliachtx 8y ago
> We don't need categories to be so rigid.
For the purposes of law we do.
> I don't particularly like the idea of laws getting in the way of my relationship with animals, even if they are wild.
And yet there is a case to be made for these laws to prevent animals from abuse, etc. These kinds of laws are usually well-served by having an attached definition of what constitutes a pet as it is used in the law. The more defined a law is, the less likely it is to get in the way where it isn't supposed to.
- circlefavshape 8y ago> For the purposes of law we do No we don't. That's why we have judges
- scarface74 8y agoAnd judges never give out different sentences based race or affluence....
- reaperducer 8y agoIs squirrel a race now?
- scarface74 8y agoNo but the person going in front of the judge is where the less clear the law is, the more of a chance for bias.
- ozzmotik 8y agosure if you mean it by the old sense of a species (cf. the human race)
- shliachtx 8y agoJudges are not lawmakers. They serve to interpret the laws accurately. Of course, often the laws are not codified very specifically, so it is left to judges to interpret it as straightforwardly as possible.
- gerbilly 8y agoMeh, I'm just talking about everyday interactions with squirrels in the yard. You're not telling me I'm going to need a lawyer to negotiate that, are you? :-) It's consensual, the squirrels enjoy the interaction and so do I. Either is free to defect anytime. Fun fact. Squirrels in most north american cities are not wild creatures, they were deliberately introduced into parks to create what was called 'communal pets'. The thinking was that the need to care for them would be a positive influence on people. There is a paper on it: The Urbanization of the Eastern Gray Squirrel in the United States Etienne Benson J Am Hist (2013) 100 (3): 691-710.
- shliachtx 8y agoOf course. I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. But if the law is there, it should be codified properly, so that you shouldn't need a lawyer to deal with something the law was never intended to address.
- anigbrowl 8y agoFor the purposes of law we do. Law is a good servant and a bad master. Ultimately decisions are imposed by humans and unthinking obedience to the law is just as totalitarian as unthinking obedience to a leader. It's the unthinking obedience bit that's the problem.
- emilfihlman 8y agoI will much, much rather have a clear cut law than uncertainty. It is not hard to make clear laws but it's impossible to make "interpretation" clear and always the same. I hate the Finnish judicial system.
- shliachtx 8y agoAs I mentioned in another comment, I am not addressing whether or not the law is appropriate. Any law is better served by being more specific, thus reducing the chance that it is inappropriately applied. Of course, there is always the recourse to change the law. (I am going to assume for the purposes of this discussion that we are not discussing what might be termed immoral laws, where the argument can be made (quite strongly) that they should be disobeyed even if it is the law.)