Confessions of a Litigious Mind

The random, irrelevant musings of a law school graduate.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

woof woof whimper whimper

an interesting question arose tonight. a friend and i stumbled upon a picture, the caption of which was "every time you stick something up your ass god kills two puppies." we were discussing this canine euthanasia, but we were perplexed by one situation. maybe you can help us out, faithful reader.

if person A were to stick something up person B's ass, which one is responsible for killing the puppies? the one who sticks it up the other's ass, or the one in whose ass the item is stuck? (we are taking for granted that god, though performing the killing, is not responsible for the killing.)

we came up with two possible answers:

1) an equitable solution. since one stuck the object up there, and the other donated the ass, maybe they're each responsible for killing one puppy. this seems to be more of a policy argument than a fault argument. the thinking is probably that even one puppy should not be killed, and so people would be detered both from sticking things up an ass and from lending an ass.

2) you have to look to intent. within this option, there are still several situations:
a) if B asked A to stick a broom up B's ass, then B is clearly at fault and is responsible for the death of both puppies. A simply helped B achieve B's goal. but this also raises the question of A's consent. clearly, when A takes part in the activity, A is contributing to the action, the ultimate consequence of which is the death of two puppies.
b) however, if A snuck up on B and just shoved it up there without B's intent/consent, then it seems A is responsible for the death of the puppies, even though B's ass holds the object.
c) a more difficult situation is if A offers "hey, B, do you want me to stick the remote up your ass?", then B accepts, and it is done. though A had the original intent, it is not A's ass that is penetrated. furthermore, it seems as though B also has the requisite intent upon consenting. this situation might offer more strength to the equitable argument.

so who killed the puppies? and i only hope, dear reader, that you'll think twice from now on.

14 Comments:

At 11/20/2005 10:41 AM, Blogger law monkey said...

i dunno about A and B, but how did helen keller's parents torture her?










by leaving the plunger in the toilet.











so i guess helen keller's the one to blame for all of those dead puppies. or her parents. or both? quite the conundrum, dicta.

 
At 11/20/2005 11:32 AM, Blogger JLee said...

d) all of the above.
e)What if said "object" is a gerbil? That opens a whole new can o' PETA worms, does it not?

 
At 11/20/2005 12:13 PM, Blogger josh said...

does the gerbil bear some responsibility in that case? what if he burrowed up there on his own? good question, jlee. i only wish i had the answer.

and colleen, as far as hellen keller goes, i think she would be to blame. after all, a smart deaf/blind/mute would feel around before he/she sat down.

 
At 11/20/2005 12:23 PM, Blogger JLee said...

I suppose if said gerbil took it upon HIM OR HERSELF to burrow, the responsibility lies with the rodent, and he/she would be responsible for one puppy, or two, depending on the "recipient" (God, I'm glad I'm not in law school....)

 
At 11/20/2005 5:15 PM, Blogger d$ said...

the answer is always debbie. no questions asked.

"Well, the proper girl in the hat just eye-fucked the shit out of me."

 
At 11/20/2005 5:31 PM, Blogger josh said...

i like that. a bright line rule. easy to administer.

 
At 11/20/2005 8:38 PM, Blogger law monkey said...

slight problem there, dicta. you're assuming helen keller was smart. i mean, sure, she could talk with her hands, yada yada yada. but so can your average street urchin or toothless, white-trash hick. perhaps you've heard of their method of communication, so appropriately called "the finger."

so if ms. keller really was dumb as a brick (or hick, depending on your perspective), is she still to blame?



wait wait, i know what you're going to say. yes, of course she's to blame. she's a woman, isn't she?



;)

 
At 11/20/2005 9:00 PM, Blogger josh said...

well if she wasnt so smart she'd just be "that deaf/mute/blind chick" and she wouldnt be a household name. what have you done for me lately helen keller

 
At 11/20/2005 9:15 PM, Blogger law monkey said...

see, i thought that's all she was - the deaf/mute/blind chick. no one ever said anything about being smart. she just figured out a way to adapt to her less-than-desirable circumstances, that's all. moths do that, too. when it gets too cold outside for them, they snuggle up inside my nice warm pantry. until i kill them. bastards.


i can think of one thing keller's done for you lately - she's provided for you a seemingly endless source of derision. for what it's worth.

 
At 11/20/2005 9:20 PM, Blogger josh said...

well she must've done something. i've got to imagine there are other deaf/blind/mute people, and i dont know jack about them.

 
At 11/20/2005 11:09 PM, Blogger d$ said...

well helen was the first deaf and blind person to earn a bachelor of arts. she wrote books and essays, toured the world giving lectures, and raised a lot of money for blind people. other than that she was pretty lazy though.

ps. verification word: jmuglzc

 
At 11/20/2005 11:33 PM, Blogger JLee said...

what about the puppies...what about the puppies??????

 
At 11/21/2005 7:20 PM, Blogger law monkey said...

haha smuggs, for a minute there i thought you'd written that helen keller "tortured" the world giving lectures. toured, tortured. same diff.

dicta, i think hk is noteworthy b/c she figured out a means of communication, and didn't just rot away in her dark, silent world. i dunno.

puppies??? oh, right, those. umm. well, all dogs go to heaven...

 
At 11/21/2005 9:20 PM, Blogger josh said...

what a lazy bitch



jmu representtttttttt

 

Post a Comment

<< Home