Corwood Rep
Member
If you don't like dogs, I don't like you.
And that's no lie.
And that's no lie.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Scientists say dogs over cats
- Thread starter Shawsie64
- Start date
- Status
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgha73u_i60
here's my cat and dog playing hide and seek (2:10 forward is awesome)
that being said, I have trouble deciding between the two
here's my cat and dog playing hide and seek (2:10 forward is awesome)
that being said, I have trouble deciding between the two
Bootaaay said:So what you're saying, New Scientist, is that dogs are willing to become de facto slaves out of some misplaced need for affection from their owner, whereas cats don't give a shit and still get the same affection that dogs crave? Now who's the smart one
See that argument just doesn't work. It's like 5 year olds arguing and in the end the wrong one going "but I don't care so I win anyway!".
Let's say the cat really doesn't care to help and so it just lies around acting all smug. The fact is it's still not doing anything for you so you lose either way.
Dogs don't do these things because of some 'misplaced need for affection', because they like to be slaves, or because they are dumb. They do it because they are pack animals and it is one of their very basic instincts. They do this because this is how the species survives. They work in teams, they help each other out. Humans to a dog are just part of the pack, part of the team.
So dogs are pack animals and cats are solo hunters. Neither you can really say is better than the other. They are both just methods used to stay alive. But you can say one of the methods benefits more than just the individual.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
The article is misleading because we all know Tiger's have more sex with white women.
José Mourinho
cocknose
I like both but own a cat. It's affectionate, fun and I don't have to clean up after it. So cat's for me thanks.
Lucky Forward
Member
Cats can spell?JDSN said:
xxjuicesxx
Member
Dogs are way fucking better.
Cats are so stupid and useless, they are like women without tits and blowjob holes basically.
Cats are so stupid and useless, they are like women without tits and blowjob holes basically.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Lucky Forward said:
Mee-Ow.
Sinatar said:
Well played good sir.^^ Anyways...I like cats a lot more because you really have to earn their trust - like a good friend. It´s just a lot more rewarding when a cat likes you. edit: plus I have a lot less work with my cat than I would have with a dog. Cats mainly care for themselves - I like independent beings.
When I was younger someone told that men and women are very much alike. They have the same motivations/needs/desires but women (apparently) had the "volume" turned down ever so slighty on these drivers.
Well now that I have a dog and cat I think the same is true of these pets. Cats = women; dogs = men.
Guess I'm really basing this on their need for affection...
Someone shoot this theory down.
Well now that I have a dog and cat I think the same is true of these pets. Cats = women; dogs = men.
Guess I'm really basing this on their need for affection...
Someone shoot this theory down.
Lucky Forward
Member
Max@GC said:
It's because you can do manly things with your dog, like hiking, camping, hunting, or just riding around in your pickup.
Also...
...you never see any movie heroes roaming a post-apocalyptic wasteland with a cat.
Pandaman said:
Right back at ya.
The earliest you could even argue for a dog being domesticated is 31000 BC considering that's basically when the dog first came to be
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27240370/
Interaction with wolves = domestication? I certainly hope a "scientist" isn't reaching as far as you are with that sentence. And last I checked we were talking about dogs specifically, not all canidae in general, unless you want to include human interaction with all felidae into the equation as well.
But like I said, giving a point to dogs for being domesticated earlier is just stupid. It's like they couldn't find another factual superiority about dogs themselves over cats, so they added this to give dogs the edge on top of their subjective points like "bonding".
This seems like a jolly good time to mention the destructiveness of cats. Dogs smash stuff too, but cats are on another level entirely, at least in my experience.
Still, I adore cats. They're awesome. I would not exchange my old tattered dog for any cute kitten in this entire world, obviously, but the cats versus dogs issue has always been a close shave for me. Interesting study, though I won't let it affect my views in any way.
Still, I adore cats. They're awesome. I would not exchange my old tattered dog for any cute kitten in this entire world, obviously, but the cats versus dogs issue has always been a close shave for me. Interesting study, though I won't let it affect my views in any way.
TheCardPlayer
Likes to have "friends" around to "play cards" with
So this survey proved that cats are more popular than dogs, as well as being more intelligent. Well thank you survey.
Catz>Dogz
Catz>Dogz
this is beyond absurd, you're purposely ignoring molecular evidence for the diversification of canidea lupus from canidea familiaris.GSG Flash said:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/5319/1687
Your example even overshoots the MRCA for modern domesticated dogs, so you don't even have grounds to argue against domestication predating that specific ancestor.
a scientist wouldn't equate the earliest known fossil with the 'beginning' of a subspecies.
ahem. 'evidence for the diversification of canidea lupus from canidea l. familiaris.'
fortified_concept
Banned
Dogs >>> Cats >>>>>> Children
And that is a fact.
And that is a fact.
danielijohnson
Banned
My dog actually comes and stands up (puts his front two paws) on my leg from time to time when I take a dump.Purkake4 said:
Dogs are awesome.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
danielijohnson said:
you're dangerously close to admitting to hot-beastial blowjobs
danielijohnson
Banned
I am not, and you just called it hot...BrandNew said:
Pandaman said:
Uhhh, who cares? Yes I am purposely ignoring that since I'm specifically looking at the origins of the dog as we know it today, considering that's what New Scientist is comparing to cats, not its distant cousin. And hell, I even provided you a link. So you'll have to explain to me how an animal could be domesticated before it even existed.
What the hell are you talking about? :lol
Who cares about the most recent common ancestor? Why are you trying to drag in canidae other than dogs when they have nothing to do with the study(if you could call it that) in the first place? Is it just to prove your point? (which you're doing a poor job of)
That's fair, however the fact remains that the earliest known fossil is the only concrete evidence we have of the origin of dogs and it gives us a pretty good idea about when the dog originated, anything else is just made up.
cats can be quite awesome but i prefer dogs. they're just more compatible with me personally because we actually get to go and do shit together. it's probably a pain in the ass trying to have a nice Saturday afternoon in the French Quarter with a cat. but dogs....
PLUS our dogs are Saints fans!!!
PLUS our dogs are Saints fans!!!
WickedAngel
Banned
danielijohnson said:
"We'll get through this, daniel..."
i'd like to know what exactly you think a 'dog as we know it today' is, because a 'dog' IS Canis[Canidea]. l. familiaris.GSG Flash said:
ugh... you're boring. Why are you trying to argue a point you clearly have no understanding of? did you just google an article purely to be contrarian to the OP?
:lol
Pandaman said:
You know quite well what I mean when I say "the dog as we know it today", considering the statement is self implied. Or are you suggesting that humans actually domesticated these cousins of modern day dogs based on some 12 year old hypothesis from a science magazine?
And you're just arguing for the hell of it, even when you know that your argument is ridiculous.
There is evidence of humans from 200 000 years ago, yet if humans domesticated dogs 130 000 years ago, how come the earliest evidence that may suggest the domestication of dogs is only from 15000 to 30000BC? And how come the earliest evidence we can claim as 100% accurate in the domestication of dogs only goes back to 7000BC?
Heck, the 130k year hypothesis is so absurd that even the scientist who came up with that number admitted as much (which you would know if you read the New Scientist article).
So what exactly is a hypothesis if not an educated guess(ie. made up)?
Technically I should be :lol ing at you, which I will proceed to do so:
:lol
Beer Monkey
Member
A dog is closer to an actual friend (though no substitute for human contact), a cat is more like a roommate who thinks you are an asshole but wants to see what he can get out of you.
cloudwalking
300chf ain't shit to me
you can really tell which people have never owned a cat in this thread.
Misterinenja
Member
Cats are in the same level as sewer rats for me in terms of appeal. Dogs however rock.
Jamesearlcash
Member
Cat's demand your attention, you demand a dog's attention.
cloudwalking said:
Really. Some people are so ignorant. Or they met a few asshole cats in their whole life and think all cats are assholes because of that.
My 1 year old kitty is such a nice, funny and cute cat, i don't see how anyone could hate her. Maybe if you don't have a soul.
I've met my share of dumbass dogs, but i still don't hate all of them.
WickedAngel
Banned
Jamesearlcash said:
That doesn't explain why my dog lifts my mouse-arm up with her snout when she wants my attention.
I doubt she has any understanding of what I'm doing but she knows that whatever it is relies on my hand touching that mouse. I was amazed when I realized she was perceptive enough to disrupt the activity.
- Status