My Cat

[Vaio]

Is harder than your cat

Vaio

[lokken]

i bet your pussy is as wet as the rest of them

[Deffeh]

probably, mine are wimps.

[Black Dog]

I've got 2.

Force of numbers and their ability to take on squirrels hands them the win. Plus they have a weight advantage.

[KaneED]

My cats are dead.


I hate you Vaio.

[Apothos]

Originally posted by Black Dog
I've got 2.

Force of numbers and their ability to take on squirrels hands them the win. Plus they have a weight advantage.

I have 4, and they bring snakes into my house. :/

My cats > your cats.

[queball]

"My cat is handsome
He can play the guitar
He can break my arm in seven places
He can eat a whole watermelon"

[Dante Hicks]

Pets are for the mentally/emotionally deficient.

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Pets are for the mentally/emotionally deficient.

whys that a bad thing?

[LHC]

I have one, it's a right pansy.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Communism are for the mentally/emotionally deficient.

Fixd

Anyways, i dont have pets. Exept fish, but i think they are all dead.

[insane_in_da_membrane]

my cat is excpecting kittens


they'll be evil little bastards

Originally posted by Snurx
Fixd

Anyways, i dont have pets. Exept fish, but i think they are all dead.

your onto something there.
communists are flockanimals who are incapable of having their own opinions. They may claim they have them,but we all know thats a big fat lie.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Pets are for the mentally/emotionally deficient.

When you get old and infirm I reserve the right to remind you of that when I see you in Sainsburys buying cat food

Vaio

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vaio
When you get old and infirm I reserve the right to remind you of that when I see you in Sainsburys buying cat food

I think that would merely reinforce my point about pets (cats in particular) being the refuge of the senile.

And there's nothing wrong with being mentally and emotionally deficient per se Deffeh, and I'd certainly support a programme of supplying pets to retarded people to give them an emotional boost. I just don't see why "normal" people need them.

Originally posted by MikeHunt
communists are flockanimals who are incapable of having their own opinions.

I'll ask the Central Committee if this is true, and when I find out our line on this, I'm going to flame you good.

[warlady]

My cat is currently spewing up half-digested fish over the floor.

[Rids]

If you want to play the numbers game, I have 11 cats.

COME GET SOME, YOU PUSSYS

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think that would merely reinforce my point about pets (cats in particular) being the refuge of the senile.

And there's nothing wrong with being mentally and emotionally deficient per se Deffeh, and I'd certainly support a programme of supplying pets to retarded people to give them an emotional boost. I just don't see why "normal" people need them.I'll ask the Central Committee if this is true, and when I find out our line on this, I'm going to flame you good.

I dont see how you cant be normal and want a companion of some sort. If im not im a good mood, or want a hug, i have a cat right next to me.

Do communists not like hugs?

[Rids]

Originally posted by idimmu
did like your husband die or something?

No, my mum is a crazy cat lady though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Deffeh
I dont see how you cant be normal and want a companion of some sort. If im not im a good mood, or want a hug, i have a cat right next to me.

Do communists not like hugs?

I'll hug my wife personally. If she's not around and I'm desperate, I'm sure some else would oblige.

If I'm just so desperate for a hug then I'll hug a pillow. Basically I don't see how a cat is any more of a companion than a bot running in Quake or one of those stupid Sony robots.

I feel a great deal of sorrow for people who choose a lower animal as a companion when there's so many people in the world. If you really are a norman no-friends then go volunteer at an old folks home, or help out at a local school or whatever. Make a connection with a human being, not the overgrown vermin you call your pet.

[queball]

Have you ever lived with a "lower animal", Dante?

[Deffeh]

im not really sure how in this sense a cat is worth any less than a human. Humans have hidden intentions, ambitions. If you arent 100% completely connected with a human and askthem for a hug, they may question why.

I dont see how its any worse to be dependant on a cat, which cant betray you, than a human, which can.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by queball
Have you ever lived with a "lower animal", Dante?

Comedy "Does such a thing exist?" option.

[Christian]

I like cats.
Dogs on the other hand, yuck, they are so happy middleclass* family oh-the-sun-is-shining-lets-take-the-drooling-violent-arsesniffing-beast-for-a-walk'ish.




*sometimes working class too, if they can afford the horrid bastard

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'll hug my wife personally. If she's not around and I'm desperate, I'm sure some else would oblige.

If I'm just so desperate for a hug then I'll hug a pillow. Basically I don't see how a cat is any more of a companion than a bot running in Quake or one of those stupid Sony robots.

I feel a great deal of sorrow for people who choose a lower animal as a companion when there's so many people in the world. If you really are a norman no-friends then go volunteer at an old folks home, or help out at a local school or whatever. Make a connection with a human being, not the overgrown vermin you call your pet.

so you're insinuating that people may own a pet simply for the pleasure of having one? That people who own pets are unable to form lasting human bonds, so resort to creatures who offer unconditional love to whoever happens to have raised them?

Some people use animals as an emotional backup, but I think it's a bit much to say that this is always or even mostly the case.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'll hug my wife personally. If she's not around and I'm desperate, I'm sure some else would oblige.

If I'm just so desperate for a hug then I'll hug a pillow. Basically I don't see how a cat is any more of a companion than a bot running in Quake or one of those stupid Sony robots.

I feel a great deal of sorrow for people who choose a lower animal as a companion when there's so many people in the world. If you really are a norman no-friends then go volunteer at an old folks home, or help out at a local school or whatever. Make a connection with a human being, not the overgrown vermin you call your pet.

You specieist twat

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
You specieist twat

If you're not a speciest, dating must be quite interesting for you.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Deffeh
im not really sure how in this sense a cat is worth any less than a human. Humans have hidden intentions, ambitions. If you arent 100% completely connected with a human and askthem for a hug, they may question why.

That's exactly why a cat is worth less than a human. "Loving" a cat is the same as loving a bot, or even in some senses loving a piece of rock or mud, or pot plant.

I'm sure for some people (as stated) earlier that kind of connection is more suited (for instance autistic people, or Lenny in 'Of Mice or Men') but I think the way we've elevated pet relationships in this country is pretty worrying. Can't get a husband who'll love you? Well don't worry, go down to your local pet-store today! Have problems connecting with your neighbours? A dog could be your answer. Economics pressures mean you didn't have children ladies? Don't worry, you can get a cat which will somehow be the same for you.

Originally posted by Sandsnake
so you're insinuating that people may own a pet simply for the pleasure of having one? That people who own pets are unable to form lasting human bonds, so resort to creatures who offer unconditional love to whoever happens to have raised them?

Obviously there are always exceptions. A farmer who owns a cat to kill mice (say) is obviously different to someone in a large city who owns a cat to counter alienation.

I'm not even going to guess at the statistics on pet ownership but on an anecdotal level, most people I know who've owned animals have done so for the reasons you outline.

And queball : Yes, I've lived in a household which has had pets, yes.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If you're not a speciest, dating must be quite interesting for you.

Not really.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
That's exactly why a cat is worth less than a human. "Loving" a cat is the same as loving a bot, or even in some senses loving a piece of rock or mud, or pot plant.

Or like loving an infant?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
Or like loving an infant?

Even from a young age, an infant is more responsive than a cat. But if a cat turned into a sentient (for want of a better word) being after a couple of years then obviously it would be different as your emotional investment would take on an enitrely different character.

But yes, for the poor souls who have a child with severe brain damage then yes it is the same (or similar since the social view of it would be different, most would feel sorry for the parents of a brain damaged kid but not for a pet owner).

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Even from a young age, an infant is more responsive than a cat. But if a cat turned into a sentient (for want of a better word) being after a couple of years then obviously it would be different as your emotional investment would take on an enitrely different character.

You're saying that a one week old infant is more responsive than a fully grown dog, and that reponsiveness is what governs how sane it is to love something?

Or are you saying that the infant loves the mother, and a dog is totally indifferent to everything, and that it's more rational to love something that loves you back?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
You're saying that a one week old infant is more responsive than a fully grown dog, and that reponsiveness is what governs how sane it is to love something?

Or are you saying that the infant loves the mother, and a dog is totally indifferent to everything, and that it's more rational to love something that loves you back?

I'm saying that if a one week old infant stayed at the level of a one-week old infant for it's entire lifespan then yes, it would be pointless to invest time and energy into raising/interacting it.

At the same time, there's a different point that "loving" something which has no rational understanding of the world and whose responses are going to be a lot more automatic seems a rather shallow and empty experience. Obviously the individuals concerned can do whatever they wish, but I find it worrying that even a fairly intelligent chap like Deffeh can list the fact that animals are less likely to betray you as some sort of good thing.

On an aggregate level I think the world would be better place if human beings chose to have full-on interactions with human beings rather than depend on relationship-substitutes with animals (or God for that matter, since the phenomenon seems superficially similar to religious devotion).

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm saying that if a one week old infant stayed at the level of a one-week old infant for it's entire lifespan then yes, it would be pointless to invest time and energy into raising/interacting it.

At the same time, there's a different point that "loving" something which has no rational understanding of the world and whose responses are going to be a lot more automatic seems a rather shallow and empty experience. Obviously the individuals concerned can do whatever they wish, but I find it worrying that even a fairly intelligent chap like Deffeh can list the fact that animals are less likely to betray you as some sort of good thing.

On an aggregate level I think the world would be better place if human beings chose to have full-on interactions with human beings rather than depend on relationship-substitutes with animals (or God for that matter, since the phenomenon seems superficially similar to religious devotion).

You have

1. A shallow view of the human psyche
2. Little understanding of/for human values other than your own
3. Inflated optimism
4. Lack of Faith

I won't comment on which of these things are good things. I'd love to hear your reasoning for why love (we're talking the "care for" and "enjoy company of" thingy here, not reproduction and it's associated attractions and effects) at all was a good thing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
I'd love to hear your reasoning for why love (we're talking the "care for" and "enjoy company of" thingy here, not reproduction and it's associated attractions and effects) at all was a good thing.

Well, as far as anything can be listed as a good thing, I'd say the potential intellectual and emotional stimulation from love (or more generally, bonding with other human beings) makes it a good thing. In short, it's enjoyable, thus a good thing.

Sure, loving animals (or blind religious faith) can also bring about satisfaction and enjoyment, but as stated I think a greater potential exists with inter-human relationships.

Basically : While a kind of pathetic slavish juvenille appreciation of the world can merit happiness, only standing upright facing the world and humanity in all it's glory can truly merit the good life. [/Nietzsche]

Oh, and 'Pessimism of the Intellect: Optimism of the Will' and all that.

[W]

So, basically, you'd rob the poor since you want them to be rich?

You sound like a commie...

[Zh|l]

My cat seems quite intelligent.

Obviously Dante doesnt like pets :/

[Apothos]

Originally posted by Zh|l
My cat seems quite intelligent.

Obviously Dante doesnt like pets :/

Maybe he was 'assaulted' by a doberman when he was 12. :o

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
So, basically, you'd rob the poor since you want them to be rich?

Erm....what?

And I've never had any negative experiences with animals that I can recall.

[Radical Edward]

I will just agree with W and save myself the time.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Well, as far as anything can be listed as a good thing, I'd say the potential intellectual and emotional stimulation from love (or more generally, bonding with other human beings) makes it a good thing. In short, it's enjoyable, thus a good thing.

Sure, loving animals (or blind religious faith) can also bring about satisfaction and enjoyment, but as stated I think a greater potential exists with inter-human relationships.

Basically : While a kind of pathetic slavish juvenille appreciation of the world can merit happiness, only standing upright facing the world and humanity in all it's glory can truly merit the good life. [/Nietzsche]

Oh, and 'Pessimism of the Intellect: Optimism of the Will' and all that.

Obviously, having a cat and having human relationships aren't exclusive and my friends seem to care for a few cats or dogs without turning into Russian cat-ladies. We associate as much as possible, with animals or humans, and any prejudice is a minus not a plus. I just see a protectionist fallacy that puts "aggregates" above holistic benefits or real experience; I'm glad you've lived in a household of pets but I'm surprised you hold these views (perhaps you're emotionally and mentally deficient?). For example, a mixed market of cats and men ensures that men must be at least as worthwhile as a cat and speciest peer pressure erodes this effect.

To do the absurdum thingy, why should anyone have plants or a garden when he could be chatting up schoolgirls? Why should he talk to people on the Internet he'll never ****? As for escapism, I strongly feel that the natural world is of roughly equal importance to the human world, certainly as far as mental health, emotional/spiritual development, etc, goes. Maybe this is testable, anyone know of scientific studies of the effect of animals? My point is that you could probably discern some utilitarian difference between any two groups (between men and women?) but that's no reason to reserve the whole of your day and your emotion-space for one class.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Obviously, having a cat and having human relationships aren't exclusive and my friends seem to care for a few cats or dogs without turning into Russian cat-ladies. We associate as much as possible, with animals or humans, and any prejudice is a minus not a plus.

Why not associate with rocks or plants, or whatever? I'm certainly setting up a distinction (prejudice if you like) between humans and everything else - but you seem to be doing the same between humans & animals vs everything else. There have been tales that people have actually enjoyed speaking to Eliza-style chat programs because they can off-load their woes. Undoubtedly this was a positive relationship for these individuals (i.e. it's better they did this than keeping quiet) but I wouldn't say it was a positive thing per se or something particularly to be encouraged.

Of course spending time with humans/animals isn't boolean, as others have noted. I'm sure there are countless souls who own cats and still have numerous friends with whom they dedicate plenty of time with. Which is cool. But as stated, on a social level there is a huge amount of effort/time/emotion/money effectively wasted on pets. Yes, obviously the individuals concerned can do what they want (as I've stated ad nausea). This isn't about having freedom, it's about just saying that maybe there's better ways to use our freedom. I'd fight for your right to own/cuddle/sexually molest your cat, etc, etc. Ultimately, a lot of the anti-freedom rumblings from the animal rights lobby seems to stem directly from the custom of keeping pets.

As for health (mental or physical) I've got no doubt at all that those who have pets (or loving relationships with pets, whatever) would do better in any scientific test carried out thus far. Not because I believe in their healing powers or whatnot, but simply because any test would simply compare, say, those with pets and no friends vs those with no friends. It's fairly obviously which would do better. Similarly, from some studies I've seen, those with strong religious beliefs do "better" in tests for happiness/mental health/optimism simply because they always compare them with some weak agnostic liberal rather than a genuine positive atheist with strong moral values (e.g. a Randroid or Marxist, etc).

Finally, if we (i.e. Westerners) encountered a culture where people kept rocks as pets, or stroked cauliflowers before going to bed then we would be bemused at best. I see no real difference between that kind of behaviour and modern pet ownership.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Why not associate with rocks or plants, or whatever? I'm certainly setting up a distinction (prejudice if you like) between humans and everything else - but you seem to be doing the same between humans & animals vs everything else.

No, that wasn't a complete list and I mentioned plants later. Plants are beautiful and take even less time than cats. I would definitely say I have an emotional connection to at least one tree.

There have been tales that people have actually enjoyed speaking to Eliza-style chat programs because they can off-load their woes. Undoubtedly this was a positive relationship for these individuals (i.e. it's better they did this than keeping quiet) but I wouldn't say it was a positive thing per se or something particularly to be encouraged.

Computers are ace too. The problem with Eliza is it's deception and mimicry. When I'm in a relationship with something I try to see it exactly as it is. Now some people treat their pets as babies, and think it's smling when its mouth curves etc. Well yeah, they're stupid and wrong, and a minority.

But as stated, on a social level there is a huge amount of effort/time/emotion/money effectively wasted on pets. Yes, obviously the individuals concerned can do what they want (as I've stated ad nausea).

Yeah, I don't think it is a waste though. It's like sleeping. People "waste" a third of their life sleeping. You could say sleepers "live" 20 years less than non-sleepers on average (lung cancer mixed metaphor ahoy). The quality of those relationships matters as much as their quantity, and I maintain that the best quality of relationships comes from having a close relationship with as many parts of reality is possible.

I get the political freedom thing, I'm saying your claims are akin to unreasonably saying British Beef is best, or such.

On the nature of tests: yeah, I was suggesting it as a call to arms for a psychology student looking for a dissertation.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by queball
Now some people treat their pets as babies, and think it's smling when its mouth curves etc. Well yeah, they're stupid and wrong, and a minority.

how do you know they aren't?

[queball]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
how do you know they aren't?

Smiling as in happy. I "know" because I used to have a cat and it seemed pretty obvious that its mouth-shape didn't correspond to usual human expressions.

[SbOlly]

Originally posted by queball
Yeah, I don't think it is a waste though. It's like sleeping. People "waste" a third of their life sleeping....

Last time I checked, wasting time on pets has no positive effect. Where wasting time on sleeping is sorta neccesary to not go fecking CRAZY.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by queball
Smiling as in happy. I "know" because I used to have a cat and it seemed pretty obvious that its mouth-shape didn't correspond to usual human expressions.

so does that mean that people with deformed faces cannot smile?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by SbOlly
Last time I checked, wasting time on pets has no positive effect.

pretty crap study you did then.

[Jah]

i dont have a cat...

PHP Code:

<?php

?>

[queball]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
so does that mean that people with deformed faces cannot smile?

Is this going anywhere?

The issue is that people mis-read emotions. If someone has a sufficiently distorted face you will have to adjust your preconceptions of smiling. Like you might think the typical person with Down's syndrome is always happy and act wrongly towards them because of this.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by queball
Is this going anywhere?

The issue is that people mis-read emotions. If someone has a sufficiently distorted face you will have to adjust your preconceptions of smiling. Like you might think the typical person with Down's syndrome is always happy and act wrongly towards them because of this.

I am just trying to clarify the difference between a "smiling" animal and a happy one. I am not sure whether you were saying that people who think that animals are capable of emotion are stupid or not.