Well, so goes the treatment. If a cat is damaging, we remove its claws. If a dog is killing, we usually put it down.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Declawing cats
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
- Status
I agree with this.
I don't know where or why but somewhere along the line we have jumped from talking about declawing cats to the pro's, con's and morality argument's of eating meat.
There's one hell of a fucking jump between saying it's wrong to declaw a cat and questioning why people eat meat.
systemfehler
Member
Look I like both cats and dogs and both have certain issues which you know before. I can see how someone would resort to a surgery as the last possible option. However first I would look if my cat would even start scratching stuff. Most cats I know got a special rug/object where they can do whatever they like - and most of them don't jump on tables/furniture because someone teached them not to do so. If that all doesn't work you might need a surgery if it is that bad for you and your belongings. I personally would rather have a few scratched chairs and sofas but like I said before in the end it is each owners personal option.
Yes dogs don't scratch as much as cats do but they seem to bite and chew a lot on things. How about pulling a few teeth? They still can eat that soft food and won't bite the neighbours cat anymore. I don't have statistics on either "problem" but both seem rather radical for the original issue.
Paper Sparrow
Member
I feel like first world countries should eat less meat in general. I don't agree with how most livestock are treated. However, I don't see the problem in raising and killing an animal humanely for food. In fact, I'd have no problem if people did that with cats.
Anyway, I don't see with what this has to do with declawing cats. This seems to have gone onto being vegetarian, which is okay, I guess.
Well, of course I wouldn't just declaw a cat as soon as I got it. Some cats seem to just avoid damaging behavior with their claws. Others can be easily trained. But if the cat is repeatedly hurting guests and causing thousands of dollars worth of damage, I think it's something that should be done. The cat'll be fine. (Unless someone shows me statistics saying otherwise, still a little unclear on that, people were claiming it earlier in the thread)
^^this is completely burrocratic.
I think the explanation for the comparison has been made repeatedly, and by several people: because much/most meat consumption in first world countries is done for convenience. Many people eat meat because they just find it tastier than salads and beans and tofu, and not because it's an important part of a balanced diet (And certainly not because it's less expensive). If you object to declawing for the purpose of human convenience, then logically you should object to most meat eating for convenience, too.
I will repeat this, as well: I think many people viscerally object to declawing both because cats are cute and because cats are inside our homes living with us. By contrast, pigs bred for consumption are not as cute and live and die in a tiny box somewhere in Texas. The treatment of cats has a more immediate impact on us emotionally.
if you don't care about mutilating your cats, why do you care about wild rodents?
Paper Sparrow
Member
Apparently Washington State did a study, but I couldn't find it directly. Here it is from another site:
Personally, I don't like cats getting declawed.
However, if the difference between a kitten getting gassed at the local pound and a family adopting it is the choice to have it declawed, then declaw away. The cat will get over it and it will live a long life with a family, hopefully.
However, if the difference between a kitten getting gassed at the local pound and a family adopting it is the choice to have it declawed, then declaw away. The cat will get over it and it will live a long life with a family, hopefully.
Devolution
Member
But you eat meat is going to be the logical response now to every question of unethical animal treatment. Glorious.
Opiate drew a very clear comparison. If you have a logical reason why this comparison is invalid, let us know.
I do care about mutilating cats. I am not suggesting that we should declaw cats capriciously or frequently.
I am instead arguing that declawing cats is not obviously inhumane in a special unique way and that this conversation is more complicated than "declawing is evil and anyone who does it is bad." My point was to show that there are upsides to declawing cats, and to simultaneously show that we are holding a cats' happiness sacrosanct while completely ignoring that this happiness may include the needless slaughter of many other animals.
Again, cats are invasive species, unlike most rodents. I will repeat again that this does not mean I don't care about cats; it just means I think we give them special consideration that we are very clearly not affording other animals -- including other animals which are kept as pets or which are smarter than cats -- and this isn't logical.
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
I remember playing with cats, and my thought every time one would just jump on my lap is "for the love of god don't sink your claws into my crotch."
So yeah, I'm totally for declawing cats.
So yeah, I'm totally for declawing cats.
Devolution
Member
Other than livestock not being the same as something you qualify as a pet which in turn he'll say "why are some animals deemed pet worthy and not others?" And it will just turn into a cyclical dumb thing. As I said before, people eating meat doesn't tell me much. Declawing being outlawed in a bunch of countries and forcing a living animal under you care to suffer, tells me plenty.
Paper Sparrow
Member
I have owned pigs, I have owned rats, I owned birds, I have owned dogs, and I have owned cats. I am okay with killing animals for meat as long as the animal is not mistreated. I am not okay with cats having to live without their claws. I am not okay with deforming animals for no reason.
Bren McGuire
Member
Using intelligence as a measurement of value is just as arbitrary as anything else. Why should that increase their value to us?
That sounds ridiculous. If dolphins were granted human rights would dolphins raping and murdering other dolphins be treated the same way human murderers and rapists are?
We hold human rights highly because we are humans.
It is acceptable to kill humans in a vegetative state when they lost their awareness. It is not legal to kill people that are highly unintelligent but still aware of their surroundings.
Opiate said yesterday that he's highlighting this inconsistency because it shows that we could, logically, extend our generosity to more animals, not extend our apathy to include cats too.
Well, that is the appropriate response, isn't it? Are animals without owners inherently less valuable than those with owners?
Dolphin courts man
So do you feel McDonalds should be shut down? Taco Bell? Because the meat provided to virtually every fast food chain is not treated very humanely. The amount of meat which is not mistreated in the US is extremely small.
Again, if you never eat at fast food chains and are careful to restrict your meat intake and work hard to make sure your animals don't kill capriciously when let outside, that's completely fine. You have uniformly high standards of animal rights and I think that's great.
What I want to avoid are people who hold inconsistent animal rights; people who are extremely angry when cats or dogs are mistreated but seem to be completely oblivious to rampant mistreatment of pigs and cows and chickens (for the sake of food) and rodents and birds (because cats find it fun to kill them even if they aren't hungry).
My guess is that we actually agree on this. I think it would be great if we all had a uniformly high standard of animal rights. What I'm trying to avoid are animal rights being applied inconsistently because people care more about cats than birds, even though cats are an invasive species and birds aren't, and even though some bird species are actually smarter than cats.
It's only cyclical if you are unable to find a logical way to argue the point.
let's ignore that we are talking about cats for a moment. you care more about your family members than some strangers you see on the street, right? it's the same principle. at this very moment you are trying to argue against human nature and emotional bonds/investment with/in something. to be honest, this sounds very irritating.
This is, again, an argumentum ad populum and is not valid.
"One hundred million customers can't be wrong!"
Devolution
Member
No it's cyclical because we have different opinions on animals and their uses in general.
I'd never declaw a cat. Completely unneeded in my opinion. Mind you, my cat stays outside a lot of the time. He spends more time indoors lately because he's 16 and doesn't walk too well anymore. But i'd never dream of having a cat declawed. It'd cut down on the amount of dead rats/voles/moles/birds i have to scrape off the front path but it wouldn't be worth it in my opinion.
Emotionally, yes, but when applying ethics, it is not okay to allow those emotions to dictate what is right and what is wrong. The stranger on the street and your family member have the exact same rights afforded by the law and society.
Why would you be sad that your father dying? Do you have any idea of how many people die every day? Is your father inherently more important than any of these other human beings? In fact, why be sad about people dying at all? They're sacks of meat, would you cry if a sack of potatoes filled with raw beef was dropped from a bridge? My lack of understanding of human emotion is perfectly logical and not at all worrying.
Paper Sparrow
Member
I think I do agree with you, which is sort of funny. All animals should be treated with respect, I do everything in my power to make sure of that.
It's terrible most people ignore what happens to livestock, but we got to start somewhere, and bringing attention to things that can harm animals under your direct care is an easier thing to affect.
MilesWebber
Member
Would you amputate a child's fingers at the first knuckle because he drew on the wall with crayons?
Cats scratch shit. If you want a cat this is what you deal with. Don't put the animal through that.
Cats scratch shit. If you want a cat this is what you deal with. Don't put the animal through that.
A cat hurting people and causing thousands of dollars of damages would clearly be a case where declawing could be appropriate, but this behaviour is not the norm.
As I wrote before, here in Europe declawing is often illegal, there are tons of cats and people deal with it. I don't see why an informed US/Canadian cat owner knowing this fact wouldn't want to try to avoid the procedure, even if his vet recommended it to him.
I know! Which is why I said that stuff.
I'm not FOR declawing any more than pro-choice folks are FOR abortion. I'm just saying it's an option, if needed.
That is correct, that is what I'm saying.
But I also recognize that not everyone can have uniformly high standards of animal rights. Not everyone can fight every righteous fight, and in many places in the world the fight for animal rights has to take a backseat for now to fights for basic human health and safety.
So I am okay with some people not considering animal rights a priority. All I'm asking is that you apply your standards (whatever they are) uniformly, and don't make special exception for cats or dogs or horses or whatever animals you like because you find them more personally appealing, but turn a blind eye to billions of birds dying at the hands of cats every year or pigs being slaughtered to bring you delicious bacon or fish dying en masse in oceans so that we can get our iPhones and TVs made more cheaply in high pollution factories.
In short, I am definitely okay with uniformly high standards of animal rights, and I am sort of okay with uniformly low standards. Again, not everyone can fight every righteous fight. What I am not okay with is people applying animal rights in a visceral and limbic fashion.
I'd wager trimming them is a whole lot easier than applying those. Besides if it's an indoors cat you have to trim them eventually. Don't want them to grow too long either.
of course they have the same rights, that doesn't mean that we will have the same connection to them.
and this is exactly where the "you can't criticize anything related to animal abuse if you eat animals" falls flat. that we care about our cats doesn't mean mistreating animals for food is alright, neither can it deflect every criticism about animal abuse. but unfortunately we as human beings are more inclined to ignore things that don't effect us or our lives specifically.
edit: i can't write today...
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
You can do both. Trim their nails and then put these on. I think you have to change them every six weeks or so, so you can take them off whenever you want to trim. Plus you don't have to worry about them scratching up furniture at all.
I should add I don't own a cat and can't vouch for them myself, but they seem to get good reviews and work for a lot of people. So it could be another option.
While I cannot speak to these particular devices directly (are they comfortable for cats? Are we sure they'd prefer to wear "gloves" their entire life than have their fingers amputated? I don't think the answers to that are obvious), I do agree generally that technology may make the argument moot eventually anyway.
At some point, it's likely we'll figure out more humane ways to keep cats from slaughtering our furniture and our birds without mutilating the cats in the process, in which case everyone wins and you get all the upsides of declawing with none of the downsides. That may not come tomorrow, but given how fast humans are making technological advancements it's certainly a reasonable possibility in the coming decades.
systemfehler
Member
Is furniture really that important to you or do you have had a bird killed by a cat? Animals do eat other animals - that is in their nature. Same goes for humans but over the years we evolved and changed to a point where some of us don't want/need to eat meat anymore. This is a choice - something animals don't have or are unable to even grasp.
Somehow I have the feeling that you want either option A or option B without the possibility to do a little better/worse in a certain case. Should I stop recycling because I still own a gas fueled car? You are right people tend to go their own way - often the easy one. I do the same but even if I can't bring myself to stop eating meat why should I at least make the life of a certain animal groups or even individual animals better? Am I inconsistent - of course I am but the implications are that at least some animals have a better life without changing the natural order of cats eating birds (sorry birds). On the other hand someone could make life for the birds easier by letting his cat stay inside or in the worst case make the cats life worse by declawing it and the birds still get ripped apart because the cat has paws and teeth still left.
Well the number of housecats and their uncared for offspring are destabilizing ecosystems in more than a few areas due to all the dead birds moles, voles, and rats that we don't care about. Someone is missing them.'
I think we just need to find a way to declaw a cat that doesn't effectively mutilate them, but still removes their ability to regenerate sharp claws.
We should give them some kind of pill, or maybe gene therapy so they grow a softer form of keratin in their paws maybe. So they don't pierce human flesh, or they dull more easily and don't stay sharp. Or maybe inject a keratin growth inhibitor. Might have to make sure it doesn't affect their fur or give them some weird psoriasis or something though.
edit: I don't so much mind the scratching of stuff. It's me that I mind getting clawed or scratched. Or other people.
Red Liquorice
Member
It really is as simple as this.
SolidusDave
Member
I still don't get this main/only benefit of declawing.
So yeah, you haven't bought a cat-scratch-tree for your indoor cat to and/or haven't been able to teach your cat not to scratch the furniture. You probably also leave your indoor-only cat alone (=no second cat) while you work the whole day.
You're not good at keeping cats, congratulation.
But let's assume for the discussion, you have untrainable cat(s) that regularly, create a lot of damage to your stuff.
In the OP it is mentioned that this is apparently about people who are too poor to buy new furniture. First of all, are these the people who would care about some scratches on a chair? Please explain what kind of cat can render furniture literally unusable. Soft couches I guess yeah, but you could e.g. buy a couch-cover. That will also help when you spill stuff. Don't forget that a declawed cat can still bite, pee, shit and throw up.
Also, are these the people who buy some sort of expensive furniture that can't be replaced anyway?
In short, I don't get for whom declawing their cat is actually a necessity. There is a good reason why it's illegal in Europe. Basically the laws prevent any amputations (like the cosmetic stuff on dogs). Would you also recommend removing a dog's vocal cords because he's too loud. It's also necessary I guess...
If you have a pet, simply be prepared to have collateral damage. I've seen households with dogs that have doors that were almost fully perforated by scratches of said dogs (much worse that what any cat could do, not to mention dogs can't retract their claws and you often get slight unwanted damage). If you have rabbits, they will bite every single cable and other stuff in reach.
Etc. Etc.
and regarding the OP's comment about recommending cats to be indoor only: That seems to be a US thing because in Europe IMO the opinion is more like that you're a "bad" cat holder if you keep it indoors (alone). In fact, the cliche is that this is only done by old women in city apartments. At the very least you should have more than one cat or it will be bored to hell (and destroy your stuff while you're gone
).
Obviously there is a higher risk of them dying/running away, but it depends on your perspective. Do you also want to keep your kids locked in a golden cage, too? The fun part about cats as pets is that they are mostly independent. They come as they please and live their own life and make you part of it if they like you (and your food).
last edit:
I'm pretty sure different breeds of cat also have a very different temper / common characteristics. I bet there are some that generally are less playful and/or can be trained easier. (or even ones that don't have the urge to constantly sharpen their claws - which is the main drive behind scratching wooden furniture). So buy those instead.
So yeah, you haven't bought a cat-scratch-tree for your indoor cat to and/or haven't been able to teach your cat not to scratch the furniture. You probably also leave your indoor-only cat alone (=no second cat) while you work the whole day.
You're not good at keeping cats, congratulation.
But let's assume for the discussion, you have untrainable cat(s) that regularly, create a lot of damage to your stuff.
In the OP it is mentioned that this is apparently about people who are too poor to buy new furniture. First of all, are these the people who would care about some scratches on a chair? Please explain what kind of cat can render furniture literally unusable. Soft couches I guess yeah, but you could e.g. buy a couch-cover. That will also help when you spill stuff. Don't forget that a declawed cat can still bite, pee, shit and throw up.
Also, are these the people who buy some sort of expensive furniture that can't be replaced anyway?
In short, I don't get for whom declawing their cat is actually a necessity. There is a good reason why it's illegal in Europe. Basically the laws prevent any amputations (like the cosmetic stuff on dogs). Would you also recommend removing a dog's vocal cords because he's too loud. It's also necessary I guess...
If you have a pet, simply be prepared to have collateral damage. I've seen households with dogs that have doors that were almost fully perforated by scratches of said dogs (much worse that what any cat could do, not to mention dogs can't retract their claws and you often get slight unwanted damage). If you have rabbits, they will bite every single cable and other stuff in reach.
Etc. Etc.
and regarding the OP's comment about recommending cats to be indoor only: That seems to be a US thing because in Europe IMO the opinion is more like that you're a "bad" cat holder if you keep it indoors (alone). In fact, the cliche is that this is only done by old women in city apartments. At the very least you should have more than one cat or it will be bored to hell (and destroy your stuff while you're gone
).Obviously there is a higher risk of them dying/running away, but it depends on your perspective. Do you also want to keep your kids locked in a golden cage, too? The fun part about cats as pets is that they are mostly independent. They come as they please and live their own life and make you part of it if they like you (and your food).
last edit:
I'm pretty sure different breeds of cat also have a very different temper / common characteristics. I bet there are some that generally are less playful and/or can be trained easier. (or even ones that don't have the urge to constantly sharpen their claws - which is the main drive behind scratching wooden furniture). So buy those instead.
In the UK declawing is illegal and with good reason.
Its animal cruelty pure and simple.
Don't want a cat clawing you stuff, DON'T GET A CAT!
I can't believe anyone would try and defend it.
So doing anything to your pet is ok because its your property?
You can't be serious?
Its animal cruelty pure and simple.
Don't want a cat clawing you stuff, DON'T GET A CAT!
I can't believe anyone would try and defend it.
So doing anything to your pet is ok because its your property?
You can't be serious?
Or option D: Do some fucking research and decide if and to what extent you are capable of dealing with the downsides of owning an animal (Oh my god my cat scratched my sofa, holy shit check out the claw marks on my arms!) before you go ahead and buy one anyway and choose to deform it for no reason other than the preservation of your shitty furniture.
Deforming the cats feet isn't a logical, fair or moral solution to any single problem a cat might put upon you. None. Re-homing the cat or returning it to the shelter is a more suitable solution than declawing.
Chainsawkitten
Member
No, it isn't. It's a living, feeling animal. It's as much "yours" as your child is. If you can't properly take care of your pet, you shouldn't have one. Doesn't matter how much you love it.
I'm shocked the circumcision debate hasn't cropped up yet.
What an utterly abhorrent attitude to life.
Pet ownership should come with more stringent checks.
- Status