Support NeoGAF

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Not sure what you are talking about at all. Cat's do not change their habits after being declawed. You have no idea if they can "feel" that their claws are gone. My cat is constantly doing all the pouncing, jumping around and whatever he likes. Mind you, he is young.

If they are wild animals, they shouldn't be pets in the first place. Let them all be strays. I don't understand your argument at all.

I have a (front paws) declawed cat for six years now, ( I am solely talking from experience) I've had at least one cat in my family at all times since I was four years old (as early as I could remember, at one point my family had seven cats) Believe you me, when I say I am a "cat person"...

I am not even going to argue with you if cats have a wild nature or not and like to go out and hunt and stalk prey just like any other predator. I am not sure what you mean by "wild animals" ?? Last time I checked bears and lions were considered "wild animals" and no, they don't make ideal pets...

Regarding your new young cat: So before you had this cat, did you raise, and grew up with cats? And did these other cats have their claws intact? If the answer is yes, how does this cat's physical behavior, ie: leaping on to trees, high fences, walls, etc compare to the previous clawed cats you owned?

 

[oneils]

It does appear at the very least that many people seem to declaw their cats automatically, because they assume "they're supposed to" and not because it is valuable.

I also think, though, that there are many people who let their cats outdoors because they think they're supposed to when it is often a terrible idea both for the cat and for the surrounding environment.

I also think many of the complaints about cruelty to cats should logically apply to all sorts of other scenarios we don't apply them to.

I've stayed away from the word cruelty because I'm not sure i understand how to define it when it comes to humans and their treatment of animals. My perspective is one of trying to minimize suffering. Animals are raised and slaughtered for food, but it is regulated to the point where it is done in such away that suffering is minimized. The outcome is safe food for human consumption that has been controlled in a humane manner.

But declawing cats? Not sure i see the purpose. We can protect birds and control the population of cats by spaying and neutering them. We kill two birds with one stone (ahem). Declawing cats speaks more about the problems of cat owners(ship) than cat abandonment. Hope that makes sense.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Bad choice of words, it's not so much detrimental (unless their are complications which the surgery, which certainly happens) to their lives as such but it does disrupt their activities, like digging, climbing, marking (can be a combination of scratching/scenting). Then there are the other possible effects:



http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/cats/tips/declawing.html


Also here is a good read on cats and scratching:



More here: http://www.animalbehavior.org/ABSAppliedBehavior/article-applied-behavior/why-cats-scratch-things

It seems (certainly not an expert on the subject) that they lose more of the abilities when they are declawed, rather than taking away the ability to procreate. Which I guess is cruel to a degree. However we have a couple of cats from the same litter, male and female, I am not sure much good would come from letting them breed together, they don't have the smarts to understand the negatives of inbreeding.

Good points. Understanding i'm not saying that I am in favor of declawing, however I find it grossly hypocritical to decry it in one breath while handwaving what is essentially the mutilation of an animal's genitalia, especially when the reasons for both are ultimately the same (convenience for the owner).

 

[Opiate]

What if I don't consider raising animals without mistreatment and simply killing them as humanely as possible for me to eat as unethical? That means I can't find a surgery that maims cats cruel? K.

Correct. It is not logical. Especially when you suggest that animals are raised "humanely" to be eaten. I mean, maybe if I didn't know you lived in the US that would be a plausible argument, and you instead lived in a small country where all pigs and cows are free range and natural.

But your animals are not treated that way in the US, and I find it highly implausible that you wouldn't know that. Yes, it is illogical to object to maiming of cats on (frequently) superficial grounds, but not object to cruel treatment and slaughter of cows/pigs/chickens for similarly superficial reasons.

 

[AOC83]

If you are worried for your furniture don´t get a cat simple as that.

Declawing is like a small amputation since the claws are a fundamental part of a cats body and needed to feel and function well. It´s animal cruelty and should be punishable.

 

[blame space]

"My animals?" Uh what.. ?

 

[Wickerbasket]

Declawing is illegal here in the UK due to it being deemed animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare act.

I don't really understand why anyone would buy a cat if they don't have the time or money required to look after it though.

 

[Opiate]

Killing animal is not the same as torturing them or denied of something they naturally wants to do. The later is worse.

First, I will again point out that I can find no evidence that cats (in aggregate) are less happy as indoor cats than outdoor cats. It's certainly possible that any specific, individual cat might be happier outside, but it's also possible the reverse is true. I caution you avoid the appeal to nature.

Second, the notion that cows, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals are simply "killed" is a rather serious understatement. I want to repeat that, for emphasis: the word killing undersells how poorly most animals are treated in US meat production.

 

[MrToughPants]

"My animals?" Uh what.. ?

blame space?

You don't own space NAYSA does.

 

[Zoator]

What if I don't consider raising animals without mistreatment and simply killing them as humanely as possible for me to eat as unethical? That means I can't find a surgery that maims cats cruel? K.

I think there's just a consistency issue with your positions. Why do you consider unnecessarily ending an animal's life after only a fraction of it is complete more ethical than unnecessarily declawing a cat under anesthesia who may (or may not) experience issues later in their life as a result? If we raised and killed cats for food en masse in the same way that we do cows and chickens, would you find that less ethical?

 

[BrightEyedPanic]

Question: Are those who are claiming that de-clawing is cruel opposed to eating animals? Last time I checked, that was pretty cruel too.

 

[Devolution]

Correct. It is not logical. Especially when you suggest that animals are raised "humanely" to be eaten. I mean, maybe if I didn't know you lived in the US that would be a plausible argument, and you instead lived in a small country where all pigs and cows are free range and natural.

But your animals are not treated that way in the US, and I find it highly implausible that you wouldn't know that. Yes, it is illogical to object to maiming of cats on (frequently) superficial grounds, but not object to cruel treatment and slaughter of cows/pigs/chickens for similarly superficial reasons.

Not logical by your standards. Plenty logical and I don't feel burdened by the fact I don't damage my own pets and eat meat.

 

[senahorse]

Good points. Understanding i'm not saying that I am in favor of declawing, however I find it grossly hypocritical to decry it in one breath while handwaving what is essentially the mutilation of an animal's genitalia, especially when the reasons are ultimately the same (convenience for the owner).

That's fair enough and I guess it is hypocritical to a degree. I just think that not desexing has potential to be a far greater problem than not declawing. Yes they both provide conveniences to the owner, but the former can have far greater ramifications to other people and the environment at large.

 

[Boss Riovane]

In my opinion I don't think a cat should be declawed at all. One of our rescues was declawed before he acquired him. He is the first cat I have ever seen declawed and he plays and actually "baps" the other cats around. I don't know if its just me but he seems to wanna show his dominance more. He is more aggressive then the others. But he doesn't seem to be in pain. It bothers me A LOT that the previous owners declawed him. Thankfully he is inside.

 

[Opiate]

Declawing is illegal here in the UK due to it being deemed animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare act.

I don't really understand why anyone would buy a cat if they don't have the time or money required to look after it though.

Serious question: does the UK have a problem with cat overpopulation? That is, do many cats live their whole lives without owners?

Not logical by your standards. Plenty logical and I don't feel burdened by the fact I don't damage my own pets and eat meat.

Logic is not subject to personal standard -- it is one of the great benefits of logic and reason. You are simply not being logical by objective standards.

 

[AOC83]

Question: Are those who are claiming that de-clawing is cruel opposed to eating animals? Last time I checked, that was pretty cruel too.

Eating animals is natural. Mutilating them for their whole life because you fear for your furniture or other idiotic reasons is not.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Serious question: does the UK have a problem with cat overpopulation? That is, do many cats live their whole lives without owners?



Logic is not subject to personal standard -- it is one of the great benefits of logic and reason. You are simply not being logical by objective standards.

Not that I'm aware of. I've never seen a stray cat and I live in a major city. Most of my friends seem to own cats though, and seem to do fine without declawing them.

 

[triplestation]

Meat really shouldn't have to do with pets....

Ur still feeding a declawed cat meat anyway

Because we eat meat we can do fucked up shit to our pets as long as its not as bad as eating meat? They are pets and our supposed to love our pets not disable them !

 

[senahorse]

Question: Are those who are claiming that de-clawing is cruel opposed to eating animals? Last time I checked, that was pretty cruel too.

We're omnivores, we eat to live. However I do agree that some of the practices used in killing animals leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Opiate]

Meat really shouldn't have to do with pets....

Ur still feeding a declawed cat meat anyway

Because we eat meat we can do fucked up shit to our pets as long as its not as bad as eating meat? They are pets and our supposed to love our pets not disable them !

First, many people do not feed their cats meat.

Second, I don't understand why animals which are commonly taken as pets are given special privilege over other animals which are often more intelligent.

 

[Twilight Gap]

Question: Are those who are claiming that de-clawing is cruel opposed to eating animals? Last time I checked, that was pretty cruel too.

Eh, if we start going down that path, everyone can be called a hypocrite at some point. It boils down to the methods used and where we draw the line.

On that note, I want a pet goat >.>

 

[Opiate]

Not that I'm aware of. I've never seen a stray cat and I live in a major city. Most of my friends seem to own cats though, and seem to do fine without declawing them.

This would significantly reduce any practical value of declawing, if applicable broadly and not just anecdotally.

 

[amr]

Why use someone's apathy about some animals to attack his generosity towards others?

 

[Zoator]

We're omnivores, we eat to live. However I do agree that some of the practices used in killing animals leaves a lot to be desired.

Except nutritional science has come a long way to the point that eating meat is no longer necessary. It is perfectly possible to live a long, healthy life as a vegetarian or vegan, as evidenced by the people who actually do it. However, most people still choose to eat meat in spite of this, because it is easier and/or it tastes good.

 

[Cheska]

I truly believe some of you are stuck in a world where there's only right and wrong. You do realize that there's a middle ground for everything in life right? You're acting like cats are declawed without any anesthetic or pain support. Do I think you should declaw a cat the instant you get one? Hell no! Learn to cut your cats nail. If you can't or refuse to do that, then take them to a groomers. If they're still scratching and ruining your furniture around the house invest in the highly recommended Soft Paws, they work great and are a breeze to apply.

However, let's say you've exhausted every means of deterring your cat from shredding your house, and you choose to declaw them, am I going to judge you? No. You guys are assuming declawed cats aren't given good homes. That declawing them is a form of abuse. You know what would be abuse? Declawing your cat and then throwing them outside. Now that would warrant a one way trip to hell for that poor excuse of an owner.

It's definitely not the most favorable choice, and A LOT of clinics will not do this on an adult cat over 5, but I certainly don't think you can clump every single owner who has declawed their cat into the same category.

 

[filler]

First, I will again point out that I can find no evidence that cats (in aggregate) are less happy as indoor cats than outdoor cats. It's certainly possible that any specific, individual cat might be happier outside, but it's also possible the reverse is true. I caution you avoid the appeal to nature.

Second, the notion that cows, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals are simply "killed" is a rather serious understatement. I want to repeat that, for emphasis: the word killing undersells how poorly most animals are treated in US meat production.

I've worked in a meat processing plant, what goes on in those places is pretty fucked up. The animals are probably begging for death by the time they finally get slaughtered.

 

[thesuperfunk]

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

 

[Opiate]

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.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Hey guys checkout my cute indoor (declawed) cat, isn't she funny and jolly?

She's lounging on a $8,000 genuine Italian leather sofa imported from Naples! XD

I'll invite you all over for a BBQ, but I'm a vegan and don't believe in killing animals for food.

 

[senahorse]

Except nutritional science has come a long way to the point that eating meat is no longer necessary. It is perfectly possible to live a long, healthy life as a vegetarian or vegan, as evidenced by the people who actually do it. However, most people still choose to eat meat in spite of this, because it is easier and/or it tastes good.

There is also the argument that being a vegetarian also has a negative impact on animals and potentially the cruelty employed.

e.g:

A modern factory farm isn’t just going to let their animals die of old age; they kill them at whatever point the farm considers to be the most profit-maximizing. For dairy cows, that’s usually at age 3-5, out of a natural 20-25 year lifespan. For egg-laying hens, it’s usually after one or two laying cycles. And since the males of the laying species are useless to the egg farmer, they’re killed right after they hatch.

The culprit is eggs. While you only need to kill one single steer to get about 450 pounds (405,000 calories) worth of meat, you’d need to kill about 20 chickens to get enough eggs to match that number of calories. So if you’re a vegetarian who eats a lot of omelets, you’re likely responsible for more animal deaths than someone who chows down on burgers and steaks but doesn’t like eggs.

http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/

I have also read articles relating to crops and the damage pesticides do to the local wildlife. At the end of the day mostly everyone is a hypocrite to a degree.

 

[Balphon]

If the ultimate question comes down to whether you're willing to arguably do permanent harm to your pets in order to prevent minor potential damage to your couch, I can't understand why you'd elect to declaw a cat.

I may be misunderstanding the question, though. And I honestly don't really care if my cats claw my furniture.

 

[triplestation]

First, many people do not feed their cats meat.

Second, I don't understand why animals which are commonly taken as pets are given special privilege over other animals which are often more intelligent.

People force their cats to be vegetarian??? That is unfair

Pets are special because people choose to look after them, something in the brain makes people affectionate towards these aminals its as simple as that

U don't have to be smart to be loved!!

 

[Capital_Five]

Moral of this thread is dont have cats, or eat meat.

 

[Mumei]

Cats don't lose their "super cat powers" when they are declawed. They can still grip shit with their paws...they can still hunt and kill easily...climb etc...

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?

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?

 

[BrightEyedPanic]

Hey guys checkout my cute indoor (declawed) cat, isn't she funny and jolly?

She's lounging on a $8,000 genuine Italian leather sofa imported from Naples! XD

I'll invite you all over for a BBQ, but I'm a vegan and don't believe in killing animals for food.

you're a vegan with a leather couch? hehe

 

[Twilight Gap]

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 think it'll always be seen as "wrong" to some until cats and dogs and other "common household pets" are seen as livestock along with other farm animals.

Hey guys checkout my cute indoor (declawed) cat, isn't she funny and jolly?

She's lounging on a $8,000 genuine Italian leather sofa imported from Naples! XD

I'll invite you all over for a BBQ, but I'm a vegan and don't believe in killing animals for food.

haha

 

[Opiate]

People force their cats to be vegetarian??? That is unfair

Pets are special because people choose to look after them, something in the brain makes people affectionate towards these aminals its as simple as that

Well I don't necessarily feel more affectionate towards cats than I do towards Ravens, for example. And I say this as a person who has owned 3 pet cats in my life and 0 ravens. I think the argument that we feel this way "just because" is simply a subjective experience for you personally and which does not necessarily apply to everyone else. The Chinese have eaten dogs and cats for thousands of years, let alone declawed them. If you feel some personal, special attachment to them that is fine, but saying "it just is" doesn't convince other people.

U don't have to be smart to be loved!!

I agree with this, but this is the most reasonable means by which we determine what animals have rights and what do not. The reason why eating vegetables and plants is considered more "moral" than eating any animal is precisely because animals have some level of intelligence. Increasing the nuance, it's also why killing chimpanzees or dolphins (for example) is considered by scientists to be more immoral than killing quail or chihuahuas.

 

[amr]

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.

Most people's views about animal welfare are inconsistent. They ensure the welfare of animals when it's convenient. The inconsistency doesn't annoy me. If we're encouraging people to be consistent, let's encourage them to be consistently generous instead of consistently apathetic and cruel.

 

[catabarez]

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.

People get attached to those animals. They humanize them, what's not to understand? Of course a great many people would believe it is wrong to eat a cat.

 

[duderon]

First, many people do not feed their cats meat.

Second, I don't understand why animals which are commonly taken as pets are given special privilege over other animals which are often more intelligent.

Yes, everyone feeds their cats meat. It's the main ingredient in cat food.

Pets are given special privilege because humans give preferential treatment to animals that they perceive enhance their own life in some way. Cats and dogs have both lived with humans for thousands of years, so these animals are obviously going to be more liked than animals we don't interact with daily.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

We've piloted a jaeger together. Theres nothing to say once you drift with someone.

 

[Opiate]

Yes, everyone feeds their cats meat. It's the main ingredient in cat food.

Thank you for the correction, this appears to be correct.

Pets are given special privilege because humans give preferential treatment to animals that they perceive enhance their own life in some way. Cats and dogs have both lived with humans for thousands of years, so these animals are obviously going to be more liked than animals we don't interact with daily.

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.

 

[triplestation]

Well I don't necessarily feel more affectionate towards cats than I do towards Ravens, for example. And I say this as a person who has owned 3 pet cats in my life and 0 ravens.

What about cats fascinated u enough to be willing to look after them?

 

[Wickerbasket]

This would significantly reduce any practical value of declawing, if applicable broadly and not just anecdotally.

I'm not really sure what the goal of this thread is.

I mean, it's animal cruelty by definition, so are we just looking for reasons to justify it?

If you want to justify it by saying you eat animals too then that's fine; I guess supporting animal cruelty and actually carrying out animal cruelty are near the same level morally. I eat meat, and I'm aware that some animal probably suffered somewhere for me to eat it, I guess that makes me kind of an asshole.

However, I personally wouldn't carry out such actions on a family pet which I loved, but I'm aware not all people feel the same way about it.

 

[Necromanti]

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.

Our values are rooted in our societies and cultures, and will vary accordingly.

While it may not be objectively logical, it is rational within the set of morals and ideologies encompassed within that culture. That is, while the mindset may not be inherently logical, the fact that it exists as it does within that society or culture, meeting the needs of those people (at some point in tome) to some end, is rational. Humans are not entirely rational, and expecting them to be such may in fact be...irrational in and of itself. But yes, it is obviously a very...troublesome area to deal with and try to argue.

I suppose that there is not one single true answer to this problem, and the appropriateness of the answer will vary by the culture it addresses. It is illogical.

 

[Opiate]

People get attached to those animals. They humanize them, what's not to understand?

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.

 

[duderon]

Thank you for the correction, this appears to be correct.



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.

Not everything has to be logical to be true. Humans can't even treat individuals within our own species equally. We may debate the equal treatment of animals in the next century or two.

 

[Harry Potter]

:The thread

 

[triplestation]

Man everyone knows dogs and cats enjoy the company of humans

 

[Opiate]

Not everything has to be logical to be true.

Yes, they do. Or rather, anything which is not logical but which may be "true" cannot possibly be agreed upon by definition. Reason and evidence are the method by which we can reach objective conclusions that supersede our personal feelings. If you "feel" that cats should not be eaten but I "feel" they should, then that's the end of the discussion. The only possible way to bridge the gap between us is to use evidence and logic.

Humans can't even treat individuals within our own species equally. We may debate the equal treatment of animals in the next century or two.

Yes, hopefully that is the case. I can definitely agree with this, and hope that we can accelerate the timeline you've given.