Support NeoGAF

[shira]

That isn't a compelling argument. Why is that so?

If you want an animal/pet you don't modify the animal so it fits your life, its the opposite.

 

[Wickerbasket]

It's pretty logical to cut a thieves hands off, but I thought we'd moved past that as a society. Using pure logic could lead to a lot of wrong conclusions

 

[Manus]

Declawing house cats is fine.

So I'm guessing the people who are against declawing don't have a spayed or neutered cat? Because you're all saying it's horrible to the cat, well so is cutting off its balls. Even the vets suggest you do it.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

if you care about your furniture more than your pet then don't have a pet. don't mutilate your animals period.

Declawing house cats is fine. So I'm guessing the people who are against declawing don't have a spayed or neutered cat? Because you're all saying it's horrible to the cat, well so is cutting off it's balls.

my cat is indoors, she's never going to go out into the streets (as I wouldn't let her living in NYC) and guess what? while I am for spaying her my girlfriend is not so we've left it at that.

 

[catabarez]

It's not logical. If I said you shouldn't keep a pet dog because I personally "felt" it was wrong and they deserved to roam free and be unshackled by human constraint, you wouldn't find that argument compelling.

If we just go by what we personally "feel," then you may say that cats shouldn't be eaten because it feels wrong to you, and someone else may say cats should be eaten because it feels okay to them. At that point, there is absolutely no way to resolve that dispute using your stated premises. You have different "feelings," and that's that.

The only possible way to bridge that gap is to use evidence, logic and reason. For example, do dogs actually live longer if allowed to roam free? Is there any real evidence that free dogs are actually happier? If not, then my personal subjective "feeling" that they should be allowed to roam free is invalid and wrong. Logic is always correct, feelings are often wrong.

Not everything is logical Spock.

We don't live in a world where everything is dictated by logic.

 

[MrToughPants]

Right. So why do it? The only reason seems to be monetary, and there are other ways to prevent your cat from ruining all your possessions besides declawing them. If there weren't, every pet owner would declaw their indoor cats, right?

If you only have one cat I can understand not declawing as it's easier to control.

We've always had 4-5 cats in our family homes along with other pets such as dogs, turtles, bunnies etc.. Cats fight especially among females or the male will try to impose himself among the females. If you have a dog they will fight the dog or swat at it while sitting from a higher vantage point like a stool, perfect way to scratch your dogs cornea. Cat scratches are notorious for causing infections because despite cleaning and grooming themselves all day they're still dirty little fuckers. Cats are also clumsy idiots and we've had some rip out a claw entirely hanging off something like a window curtain.

And Opiate, it doesn't require a significant amount of training to do what I'm suggesting. You give a cat a scratch post, it'll scratch it. Scratching is a natural behavior, after all. If you are not home to supervise, you can crate the cat. If you cannot afford to train the cat, cannot afford to watch the cat, cannot afford to spend a bit of money on some scratch posts and a crate (in which case: How are you affording the vet bill for declawing?), why do you have a cat?

We have 3 cat scratching posts our newest cat of 2 years still scratches the furniture, she just doesn't give a shit. Spray her with the water bottle and she wants to play...

Also I would consider caging a cat torture more so than declawing. I can barely keep my cats in the house without them crying for the door at 5am.

 

[Twilight Gap]

Declawing house cats is fine. So I'm guessing the people who are against declawing don't have a spayed or neutered cat? Because you're all saying it's horrible to the cat, well so is cutting off it's balls.

The latter procedures mellow the animal's behavior and prevent unwanted illnesses/complications during pregnancy/heat. They also prevent you from having 3-8 new kittens running around the house, which most people are going to end up giving away. I think it's more cruel splitting siblings apart, but that's just me.

 

[filler]

if you care about your furniture more than your pet then don't have a pet. don't mutilate your animals period.

Guess I won't be spaying or neutering then!

 

[Opiate]

It's pretty logical to cut a thieves hands off, but I thought we'd moved past that as a society. Using pure logic could lead to a lot of wrong conclusions

It is not necessarily logical, actually. Severe penalties often increase crime rates, not decrease them. For example, many of the countries which still retain the death penalty also have the highest crime rates -- surely if severe penalties reduced crime, that correlation wouldn't exist? Second, what is the stated goal of the amputation? If the goal is to increase crime rates, then logically you may have made the right decision.

Building on that, I am absolutely for ethical treatment of animals, I am only asking that those treatments be applied consistently. I am not saying it's illogical to treat cats as humanely as possible; I am only saying it's not logical to insist on ethical treatment of cats but then not care at all if millions of pigs are tortured and slaughtered every week.

You can logically disagree with torturing both of them or neither of them, but you cannot logically contest one but not the other. Logic cannot necessarily tell us what is right or wrong, but it can certainly tell us when our sense of rightness is being applied unevenly or incoherently.

 

[Devolution]

It is not necessarily logical, actually. Severe penalties often increase crime rates, not decrease them. For example, many of the countries which still retain the death penalty also have the highest crime rates -- surely if severe penalties reduced crime, that correlation wouldn't exist?

Secondly, I am absolutely for ethical treatment of animals, I am only asking that those treatments be applied consistently. I am not saying it's illogical to treat cats as humanely as possible; I am only saying it's not logical to insist on ethical treatment of cats but then not care at all if millions of pigs are tortured and slaughtered every week.

You can logically disagree with torturing both of them or neither of them, just not with one or the other. Logic cannot necessarily tell us what is right or wrong, but it can certainly tell us when our sense of rightness is being applied unevenly.

Not all things are worth being applied universally nor are people in a position to ensure that. Mutilating a pet in your care that you supposedly love or docking ears says more about a person than being a carnivore.

 

[amr]

That isn't logical. I mean, I understand that this may be how many people's brains operate, but it doesn't make it valid reasoning.

There's nothing reasonable about why we treat some animals better than others. It's cultural. But, again, why use someone's apathy about some animals to attack his generosity towards others? Unless you're indifferent and don't think generosity towards all animals is the ideal?

 

[triplestation]

Op

Spoiler

iate

Logic is cool and all but people don't normally go balls deep into thought about simply bonding with a pet

Emotion is what makes u human

I have a lizard and I Eskimo kiss that bitch

 

[Necromanti]

Secondly, I am absolutely for ethical treatment of animals, I am only asking that those treatments be applied consistently. I am not saying it's illogical to treat cats as humanely as possible; I am only saying it's not logical to insist on ethical treatment of cats but then not care at all if millions of pigs are tortured and slaughtered every week.

You can logically disagree with torturing both of them or neither of them, just not with one or the other. Logic cannot necessarily tell us what is right or wrong, but it can certainly tell us when our sense of rightness is being applied unevenly.

I would hope most people would agree with this. I guess it's just a matter of how much we can actively have a meaningful decision in, since dismantling and changing a multibillion dollar industry possible feels more futile to people (without greatly changing their habits, at least, so I guess people will always be hypocritical to a degree). It would indeed be nice if animals were consistently and universally treated humanely, though.

 

[oneils]

I'm interested in exploring why people feel that traditional "pet" animals (i.e. excluding things like ravens or foxes or eagles which can be tamed but not are not necessarily domesticated) should be granted special privilege over other animals which are not.

Do you feel that the Chinese, for example, are immoral or wrong for eating dogs? Is it wrong to eat horses? If so, why? Obviously if you are a vegan then no explanation is necessary.

I've tried to stay away from terms like "right" or "wrong." Mainly because I personally never feel comfortable defining what they are. To me, declawing just seems unnecessary. Cats with claws are not that inconvenient, really.

I don't think pets should be granted "special privilege." I just think if we are going to domesticate animals, we should not put them through unnecessary procedures.

As for livestock, well, I think about it from several angles. I am not a food/agricultural expert. So I come at from the layman's perspective.

1. Is eating meat necessary? Looks like there is an argument to be made that animal protein is beneficial for people as they grow up. However, maybe this can be satisfied through dairy products/substitues. Also seems to me that there are ways we can supplement the minerals/vitamins of red meat through other means nowadays.

2. Is meat production efficient? It is grossly inefficient. I seem to remember that it takes 30lbs of grains to create one lb of beef. Chicken and pork are more efficient in that respect.

3. Is vegetarianism practical/efficient? I eat meat. However, I do so because being a vegetarian seems to me to be a full time job. That is, there are so many obstacles in the way of vegetarians (not so many obstacles in front of people with cats that have claws). The deck is kind of stacked against them.

4. Do animals suffer throughout the meat production process? The process has been designed to minimise suffering. That is not to say that the process is being followed as designed. There are plenty of documented cases that demonstrate that there is suffering during meat production. I don't think that means we simply ban it. I think it means we exert more control over the process. But that might make it even more inefficient.

The more I think about meat, the more I come to realise that its days are numbered. Have no clue when it will happen, but eventually people will change practices. It only seems logical. We just aren't there yet.

What does that mean for me? Don't quite know, yet.

 

[kingkitty]

I'm interested in exploring why people feel that traditional "pet" animals (i.e. excluding things like ravens or foxes or eagles which can be tamed but not are not necessarily domesticated) should be granted special privilege over other animals which are not.

Do you feel that the Chinese, for example, are immoral or wrong for eating dogs? Is it wrong to eat horses? If so, why? Obviously if you are a vegan then no explanation is necessary.

There's nothing morally wrong eating a cat, unless it's my cat, then I would be a little mad.

If people are into the taste of dogs, cats, horses, then more power to them.

I believe pets should be snip snipped to control the population. And declawing is okay if like, medically you have to do it, or it's the only way to keep a cat from being thrown into the death chamber. Otherwise declawing is too much. Neutering/spaying actually benefits the cat health wise, less risk of cancer/infections. And of course, less future cats that might end up unwanted. There isn't a real health benefit for a cat to have their claws ripped off.

More people could probably keep their dogs in their apartments if they just debarked all of them, but like declawing, there isn't a medical benefit.

 

[GhaleonEB]

When I was young, we had two cats. My parents eventually got one declawed in the front paws, not the back. The other was not decawed.

The reason for the declawing of the one (my cat, Whiskars) was he was injuring people, seemingly accidentally. When he would get in your lap, he'd knead it with his paws and would always use his claws to do so, slashing up the person he was on. Likewise when being held, when jumping off you, etc. He was a super gentle, mellow cat and very seldom ever clawed on purpose or with any kind of aggression. But everyone in the house was bleeding and scratched up daily from him.

So it was get rid of him, or declaw him. My parents went for the latter.

I didn't know what went into the procedure at the time, I thought the surgery was more precise than what I've read in this thread (through the first 200 posts). I'm not sure I'd make the same decision now. But it wasn't a situation I'd seen described. We didn't make the call based on property damage (a scratching post solved that problem) and it wasn't something we did to every paw or even cat. Just the ones that were causing physical damage to the family.

The options were to have the cat put down, give him away to a shelter where the receiving family might make the call to put him down - if he did find a family - or declaw. In the end my parents (mom in particular) thought declawing was the more humane choice.

 

[amr]

It is not necessarily logical, actually. Severe penalties often increase crime rates, not decrease them. For example, many of the countries which still retain the death penalty also have the highest crime rates -- surely if severe penalties reduced crime, that correlation wouldn't exist? Second, what is the stated goal of the amputation? If the goal is to increase crime rates, then logically you may have made the right decision.

Building on that, I am absolutely for ethical treatment of animals, I am only asking that those treatments be applied consistently. I am not saying it's illogical to treat cats as humanely as possible; I am only saying it's not logical to insist on ethical treatment of cats but then not care at all if millions of pigs are tortured and slaughtered every week.

You can logically disagree with torturing both of them or neither of them, but you cannot logically contest one but not the other. Logic cannot necessarily tell us what is right or wrong, but it can certainly tell us when our sense of rightness is being applied unevenly or incoherently.

Let me just make sure I have this right.

You are for the ethical treatment of animals, and you're attacking the inconsistency because you want people to be generous to more animals.

If yes, then we're on the same page. It's people's apathy that should be attacked, not their generosity.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

OP I have the answer to all your problems ... cat shoes ...

They're called KITTEN MITTENS.

 

[Opiate]

Not everything is logical Spock.



We don't live in a world where everything is dictated by logic.

I don't think you understood my point. My point is that reason,evidence and logic are the only methods by which we can reach objective standards and consensus.

If you "feel" something is wrong while I "feel" it is right, then there is no possible way to resolve our dispute. Feelings, by themselves, are not necessarily right or wrong. There's no discussion to be had because there are no testable arguments.

How would you argue with someone who feels it's totally okay to eat cats? "No, you're wrong?" "I think that's gross?" Those arguments hold no explanatory power. Obviously, he does not feel he's wrong and does not think it's gross or he wouldn't be eating cats.

If you're going to persuade him he's wrong, you'll need to use logic and evidence to persuade him. If the argument is just "I think it's gross to eat cats" vs. "I don't think it is," then there is no way to reach consensus.

Let me just make sure I have this right.

You are for the ethical treatment of animals, and you're attacking the inconsistency because you want people to be generous to more animals.

If yes, then we're on the same page. It's people's apathy that should be attacked, not their generosity.

In this particular part of the discussion ,that is what I'm arguing, yes.

I did, however also argue earlier in the thread that the real world is not ideal and things which are cruel to animals may be acceptable in today's world but which hopefully will be reduced over time. For example, there are still large portions of the world which cannot reasonably expect to eat vegan; in such cases, the choice is not between a salad and a hamburger, but meat or starvation. It's far more difficult and messy to insist on animal rights then. Similarly, consider GhaleonEB's example above when choosing to declaw his cat; hopefully science will advance such that in the future such choices don't even have to be made.

To wit: I do hope we can continue to progress animal rights, but I would also add that I think animal rights are something which can and should evolve as technology and the global economy grow. Lastly, I think these rights should be applied evenly and with logical consistency as much as possible.

 

[Wickerbasket]

It is not necessarily logical, actually. Severe penalties often increase crime rates, not decrease them. For example, many of the countries which still retain the death penalty also have the highest crime rates -- surely if severe penalties reduced crime, that correlation wouldn't exist?

Secondly, I am absolutely for ethical treatment of animals, I am only asking that those treatments be applied consistently. I am not saying it's illogical to treat cats as humanely as possible; I am only saying it's not logical to insist on ethical treatment of cats but then not care at all if millions of pigs are tortured and slaughtered every week.

You can logically disagree with torturing both of them or neither of them, just not with one or the other. Logic cannot necessarily tell us what is right or wrong, but it can certainly tell us when our sense of rightness is being applied unevenly.

That guy won't be stealing again though, not with those hands; can't deny the logic in that.

I'm just saying that mass killing of animals is more of a necessity for society to continue existing, if it stopped tomorrow we'd probably all starve. So I can justify the cruelty to myself, because to me it seems unavoidable, even if it makes me a shitty person.

I have much harder time justifying animal cruelty to cats just because I don't like my furniture scratched. That ones easily avoidable to me, so I won't do it.

It's a lot easier for me not to abuse cats than it is for me to stop eating meat. I'm not going out of my way to perform animal cruelty.

Edit: Basically it all comes down to justification; if you can morally justify your reasons for doing it to yourself then you don't need others telling you that your doing the right thing.

 

[Camp Lo]

I've been around some cats that weren't assholes so I can't be 100% for declawing. That being said, 80% of cats are complete assholes so for those, declaw away.

When I was young, we had two cats. My parents eventually got one declawed in the front paws, not the back. The other was not decawed.

The reason for the declawing of the one (my cat, Whiskars) was he was injuring people, seemingly accidentally. When he would get in your lap, he'd knead it with his paws and would always use his claws to do so, slashing up the person he was on. Likewise when being held, when jumping off you, etc. He was a super gentle, mellow cat and very seldom ever clawed on purpose or with any kind of aggression. But everyone in the house was bleeding and scratched up daily from him.

So it was get rid of him, or declaw him. My parents went for the latter.

I was in this situation but I had to get rid of the cat because it was really aggressive and while I didn't mind that, I wasn't fucking with him and those claws.

 

[amr]

In this particular part of the discussion ,that is what I'm arguing, yes.

I am however also arguing that the real world is pretty complicated and things which are cruel to animals may be necessary in today's world but which hopefully will be reduced over time. For example, there are still large portions of the world which cannot reasonably expect to eat vegan; in such cases, the choice is not between a salad and a hamburger, but meat or starvation. In such cases, it's far more difficult and messy to insist on animal rights. In short, I do hope we can continue to progress animal rights, but I would also add that I think animal rights are something which can and should evolve as technology and the global economy grow.

Thumbs up.

 

[oneils]

I've been around some cats that weren't assholes so I can't be 100% for declawing. That being said, 80% of cats are complete assholes so for those, declaw away.

Lol, you have the perfect avatar for that post.

 

[RiccochetJ]

I'm not going to really judge anyone if they decide to get their cat declawed. Like you said Opiate, neutering/spaying could be considered just as cruel and I don't even think twice about that.

However, I did decide to go with softpaws because it was an alternative to the surgery. Other than having permanent scars from the first time I put them on her, I've actually gotten good at the whole procedure and it only takes minutes to put on new ones after I figured out how to swaddle her in a towel first!

Plus there's the benefit of giving her sparkly purple nails to make her extra purdy.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

I've been around some cats that weren't assholes so I can't be 100% for declawing. That being said, 80% of cats are complete assholes so for those, declaw away.

Haha!

 

[Camp Lo]

Lol, you have the perfect avatar for that post.

 

[Aesius]

Buy this: http://www.amazon.com/SmartCat-3832-Ultimate-Scratching-Post/dp/B000634MH8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373783310&sr=8-1&keywords=ultimate+scratching+post

Put it next to your couch/area where you cats like to scratch. Watch in awe as they no longer target furniture and instead only scratch this thing.

 

[Opiate]

It is now bed time for me, which I feel the need to explain so it doesn't seem as if I'm ducking out on an ongoing discussion I started.

I want to again thank those who brought to my attention the numerous possible complications involving declawing a cat, particularly the long term complications. I also want to give particular thanks to Bangai-O (again) and Duderon for correcting misinformation.

 

[Adam Blade]

If you are declawing your catcircumcising your son, you are indeed, a dick.

You decide to get a cat into your life. This is your decision alone.
You think this gives you the right to do whatever you please with that being's life just because you "can"? No one forced you to get a catson. If they did, you can give it to a shelter or to someone who will care for it better than you do.


How can someone in their right mind put their furnituresaesthetics above the happiness of another animal and choose amputation as a way to not have a scratch on a fucking sofa circumcised member?

They get stuffed with meds during the operation to make you think that it's okay because he didn't feel anything, but what the catdoc may not tell you is that the nerve endings will hurt for months and that it will fuck up his jointsnerve endings for the second part of his life, making him achenumb every time he has to jumphave sex.

I don't get how some countries can allow that, but I'm not surprised the US is one of them.
A lot of vetsdocs in the US start to move away from the procedure and refuse to operate, but this is, after all, the land of consumerism and comfort. God forbids there is a scratch on a table or a door.
And if you're afraid of a getting harmed, grow a fucking pair or don't get a catson in the first place. If you need a fucking hug, get a plush. A catson is not a toy.

You were born into materialism and it shows. This is fucking sick and you should be ashamed.

Are those against declawing also against circumcision?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Declawing a cat makes it so the cat kills less animals, even if it's let outside. If you let your cats outside with claws, then you are greatly assisting its ability to kill lots (And lots) of birds, which presumably have a right to life, as well.



Because it's obviously cruel to the animal, and frequently is done for very superficial reasons; people choose to eat a hamburger instead of a salad because they like the taste better and not because they actually need the specific nutrients in a hamburger in any real way.

So if you're a vegan, obviously you object to both and your position is coherent. But if you want to make the argument that cutting off a cat's toes is cruel -- and for what are often relatively superficial reasons -- then surely you also object to eating animals -- which, in the first world, is typically done for superficial reasons, too (i.e. you just prefer the taste of meat over beans, even though beans have lots of protein too).

I am asking for logical consistency, or, alternatively, asking why those positions are different. I feel we apply different standards to cats, both because 1) they are cute, and 2) we keep them as pets and actually see them alive, unlike the cow which we never see and only see in delicious hamburger form.

Do you have any stats on the bird/animal deaths? Like percentage of owned cats that are inside only? I get the feeling that most of the killing is from stray cats and not from owned cats depending on what that split is. Seems that would be important when talking about the impact on the bird population.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Are those against declawing also against circumcision?

I can't speak for the others, but yeah, I find that cruel. There's been whole other threads on that topic though.

Edit: I apologise if I don't reply, but I have to go out. Have fun conversing

 

[TuXx]

Declawing procedure. If you're still fine with declawing a cat after watching this, eat a dick

That video is hard to watch, but what surgical procedure isn't graphic and fucked up to watch.

I don't co-sign declawing cats for petty reasons, but if your cat is aggressive and you have small children, then it would be understandable.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Do you have any stats on the bird/animal deaths? Like percentage of owned cats that are inside only? I get the feeling that most of the killing is from stray cats and not from owned cats depending on what that split is. Seems that would be important when talking about the impact on the bird population.

Here's at least one study:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html
In it they estimate that, "domestic cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals annually"

I don't think you can solely attribute that to strays.

Edit: But they do go on to say, "Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals."

 

[HiiiLife]

Lol. Oh boy.

 

[Slavik81]

It's pretty logical to cut a thieves hands off, but I thought we'd moved past that as a society. Using pure logic could lead to a lot of wrong conclusions

I don't think it's logical to cut a thief's hand off. That sort of punishment would not only be vastly disproportional, but also result in permanent disability that costs society as well.

But to take deeper issue with your point, if you say you reject logic, that is to say that you reject giving reasons for things. That is what logic's about: reasoning. If you reject giving a reason for believing what you believe, the discussion starts and ends with a single statement and nobody has any reason to change their mind.

 

[TuXx]

Edit: shit wrong thread, but anyway, it's fucked that some cats have to be declawed, but sometimes there's no other alternative. There better off being declawed then being euthanized or getting thrown to the street

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

I don't get this "bird and mammal" killing business,

Are certain birds or rodents making the endangered species list because of cats?

I mean are domesticated cats that much of a threat to nature? really?

My cat killed and ate a baby rabbit a month or two ago...

and today as I opened my front door I almost, literally stepped on a (full grown) rabbit, freaked me out ( we both freaked each other out, as the rabbit ran off)

As soon as I gathered my thoughts, I started to think.... Well clearly my cat's not eating enough rabbits in the damn neighborhood.

Spoiler

Sorry if my tone is "cruel"

 

[bangai-o]

I don't get this "bird and mammal" killing business,

Are certain birds or rodents making the endangered species list because of cats?

I mean are domesticated cats that much of a threat to nature? really?

My cat killed and ate a baby rabbit a month or two ago...

and today as I opened my front door I almost, literally stepped on a (full grown) rabbit, freaked me out ( we both freaked each other out, as the rabbit ran off)

As soon as I gathered my thoughts, I started to think.... Well clearly my cat's not eating enough rabbits in the damn neighborhood.

Spoiler

Sorry if my tone is "cruel"

there was a thread some months ago that revealed cats and dogs (mostly cats though) are responsible for deaths of tons of other animals. waitaminnut... your cat ate a baby rabbit recently, and this morning a full grown rabbit was waiting outside your door? i hope your cat is ready for a fight.

 

[nimbus]

Declawing house cats is fine.

So I'm guessing the people who are against declawing don't have a spayed or neutered cat? Because you're all saying it's horrible to the cat, well so is cutting off its balls. Even the vets suggest you do it.

Can we ban users who use this shitty argument?

 

[Camp Lo]

Can we ban users who use this shitty argument?

How's it shitty? It's been explained that both could be considered equally cruel although most don't even think twice about spaying and neutering.

 

[Zampano]

It's really straightforward to trim a cat's claws - declawing seems like a lazy and cruel option.

 

[NinjaTehFish]

These strike me as reasonable concerns. It may be worth making a pro/con list to see which is better and under what circumstances.

Are you a robot?

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

there was a thread some months ago that revealed cats and dogs (mostly cats though) are responsible for deaths of tons of other animals. waitaminnut... your cat ate a baby rabbit recently, and this morning a full grown rabbit was waiting outside your door? i hope your cat is ready for a fight.

But there are rabbits in my yard all the time, (during Spring and Summer seasons) this specific one happened to be at my doorstep when I opened it...I think it was trying to eat the flowers in the clay flower pots. Lotta cute wild brown rabbits running around, most of the time my cat just watches them from inside, she can't be bothered... They weren't kidding when they came up with the saying "fuck like rabbits."

Are you a robot?

Oh c'mon, that's uncalled for, of course he's

Spoiler

half

human

Spoiler

, half Vulcan.

 

[akira28]

opiate, it is wrong to deny an animal with its own basic rights, whether it's a pet or it's livestock that you never see.

pet population control recognizes this fact, and exists in addition to it. i'm going to log out before you ban me for posting in your thread for trolling.

A cat has a right to attack you for trying to rub it's belly, and it won't be able to do that without it's front claws to set you up for it's back claws. This is America.

 

[Sheeshor]

One of the things I'm honestly schocked that this is somehow still allowed in the US.

Also some people here are apparently living with tigers, not cats.

 

[foodtaster]

strangely enough, this thread serves as a great example of why we'll never get anywhere with abortion law in this country. I knew all of these arguments sounded familiar

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's really straightforward to trim a cat's claws - declawing seems like a lazy and cruel option.

As an adult looking back at the decision my parents made when I was younger, and with the understanding of what declawing involves, I wish we had just gotten a pet nail trimmer and been diligent about trimming. Or at least trying, I don't recall it even being attempted.

We trim the nails of our rabbit and lizard currently, with no issues.

 

[Slavik81]

Are you a robot?

What use would a robot have for a cat?

Opiate thinks carefully and articulates his conclusions clearly. We could use more people like him.

 

[Cipher]

What use would a robot have for a cat?

 

[Wolves Evolve]

I'm interested in exploring why people feel that traditional "pet" animals (i.e. excluding things like ravens or foxes or eagles which can be tamed but not are not necessarily domesticated) should be granted special privilege over other animals which are not.

Do you feel that the Chinese, for example, are immoral or wrong for eating dogs? Is it wrong to eat horses? If so, why? Obviously if you are a vegan then no explanation is necessary.

I don't think it is immoral for Chinese people to eat animals which aren't the same animals that anglo countries eat, no. The 'intelligence' argument is terrible because all sorts of animals display high intelligence - obviously pigs and horses and dogs and cats and squid are all intelligent in measurable ways so clearly the question is cultural.

Cruelty to living animals is something I believe can be called immoral, in that it makes for a less morally culpable world in concrete ways. I believe in eating meat being okay, but we should invest in treating animals humanely up to the point of their death.

I've had some veterinarian training (years ago, before I dropped out) and knowing what I know about cats, having put down sick and unwanted cats, I would never declaw a cat and I would encourage all cat owners to find solutions to declawing cats. Cats show responses to pain different to many animals and while laser treatment is better, I consider it cruel.

Something which may interest Americans. Cat declawing is called "The American Practice" , though obviously other countries practice it. It is considered, partially, a financially-motivated procedure by the vet industry here. I don't think that's fair but certainly, that sort of lunacy is why I dropped out.