27 ms·
On the multistate bar exam there is a invariably a version of this question: “Susie raised a pet squirrel from birth. It was very well-trained, calm, and seeme
by lurquer 6y ago
On the multistate bar exam there is a invariably a version of this question:
“Susie raised a pet squirrel from birth. It was very well-trained, calm, and seemed to think it was a dog. It would come when called, could do tricks, etc.”
There would be some scenario that would follow where the test-taker would be asked to decide whether this indubitably gentle creature was a “wild animal.” The answer is always yes... training, temperament, etc. has nothing to do with it.
(The issue comes up in legal cases — albeit, rarely — due to the different levels of responsibility one has towards others when one’s pet or livestock causes damage or injury. For a “domesticated animal”, the owner usually needs to be negligent in some way. But, for a “wild animal”, the owner is always strictly liable.
Which is odd in many ways... you may have less liability when your vicious pit bull attacks than when your pet sloth lashes out at someone tormenting it. For, the sloth is by definition “wild” and the dog is, by definition, “domesticated.”
- SilasX 6y agoIs there a clear process by which the law will recategorize some species into domesticated?
- andylynch 6y agoNot really- it’s incredibly rare for this to happen - looking at Wikipedia the only newly domesticated species in over a century are some silver foxes in Russia as part of a scientific research program, and pet hedgehogs in the USA.
- type0 6y agoProbably not. Take for example reindeer herding by Sami people, it's usually said that those animals are half domesticated, so you shouldn't draw a line like that.
- bmlzootown 6y agoTo be fair, I'm not entirely sure that humans shouldn't be classified as "wild animal(s)" as well if that's the case.
- m463 6y agoI have more respect for middle school principals nowadays.
- Aeolun 6y agoI guess this was true when we were still practicing slavery? The owner would be held strictly liable for slave inflicted attacks, so humans would be wild animals by that definition.
- lurquer 6y agoWhat do you mean by “we”?
- solarengineer 6y agoSlave suppliers - those at the start of the chain - often sell those from their region. Across centuries, humans from all parts of the world have enslaved each other.
- lurquer 6y agoAn infinitesimal fraction of humans have ever owned a slave. I know how the pronoun was intended to be used, and I’m not attributing any ill-intent. It’s perfectly appropriate to use “we” when referring to humans in general; such as “back before we discovered nuclear power” or “back when we discovered antibiotics.” But, for something as recent (and ongoing) as slavery, you may want to think twice before using such a sweeping pronoun. A good portion of the US, for instance, have great-grandparents who literally fought in a war to abolish slavery. More subtly, the use of “we” seems to impute blame or responsibility on those living for actions taken by a very small group of people. It’s neither accurate nor useful.
- Aeolun 6y ago> More subtly, the use of “we” seems to impute blame or responsibility on those living for actions taken by a very small group of people. It’s neither accurate nor useful. Saying that it was a very small number of people sounds a mite ridiculous to me. Multiple cultures throughout history have supported/accepted it. It is also a reminder. These weren’t storybook monsters, they were humans, and we should be reminded of that lest we regress. We’re certainly not to blame, but we are responsible for not going back there.
- jeegsy 6y agoOnce I read the story, I could easily predict the comments that would follow on HN: > because there is no controlling a 200-pound angry wild animal when its upset: >I'm not sure it's fair to call a gorilla a "wild animal" when they've been so socialized that they live in a human home