The Cat Megathread

[LaCroix]

Ah so rationality is to be prized when it doesnt involve people?

euthanasia is rational, but that's not what you said. you said one person deciding to end the life of another because they had terminal cancer. this is not allowed because the person lacks consent from the other person. it does not matter if the other person was about to die and killing him would benefit others, because there are policy reasons for why we don't allow it. it helps society.

cats and dogs are not part of society. they are property. we have the choice to put them down because it would not disrupt social cohesion. also, we have the choice to put down humans when it would not disrupt social cohesion as well - when their status is "acceptable to be put down" (brain dead)

Besides who was advocating that pets are equal to humans?

i said something regarding cats and dogs, and you took what i said and made an analogy with humans. for it to be a correct/valid analogy, they would have to be similar. "equal" was perhaps too strong a word. you can read my earlier post and replace "equal" with "similar" if you'd like

[sbr]

I'm a fan of the everlasting kitten exchange.  All of the cute, less of the dying.

[sbr]

Cosmic Creepers has stopped eating.

That doesn't sound good.

[Beenherebefore]

Is this the same story?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132838-Angry-Cat-Traps-Family-In-Bedroom-Forces-911-Call

The picture made giggle.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm a fan of the everlasting kitten exchange.  All of the cute, less of the dying.

Not worth the guilt.

[Brazen]

I'm a fan of the everlasting kitten exchange.  All of the cute, less of the dying.

Not worth the guilt.

Having just adopted middle-aged cats I'm now a huge advocate of more of the litter trained, none of the furniture scratching.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh, when do they stop the furniture scratching?

[Brazen]

Oh, when do they stop the furniture scratching?

When you train them not to. Buy a plant squirter and the cheapest scratching post you can find so they have an alternative.

[Eddie Teach]

Yelling only seems to work for a minute or two. 

[Darth Wagtaros]

I'm a fan of the everlasting kitten exchange.  All of the cute, less of the dying.

Not worth the guilt.

Having just adopted middle-aged cats I'm now a huge advocate of more of the litter trained, none of the furniture scratching.

Cosmic Creepers was middle aged. I wouldn't train the last few years for a ktiten.  She came in without any bad habits and hopefully had a better life than she would have than even ni a no kill shelter.

[garbon]

euthanasia is rational, but that's not what you said. you said one person deciding to end the life of another because they had terminal cancer. this is not allowed because the person lacks consent from the other person. it does not matter if the other person was about to die and killing him would benefit others, because there are policy reasons for why we don't allow it. it helps society.

cats and dogs are not part of society. they are property. we have the choice to put them down because it would not disrupt social cohesion. also, we have the choice to put down humans when it would not disrupt social cohesion as well - when their status is "acceptable to be put down" (brain dead)

I think you are reading a bit too much into that as I wasn't actually speaking about euthanasia for people. Generally we just move them to "hospice" if we decided against treatment. That's probably the closest we have to putting a pet down.

Anyway, my point is that there is a lot irrationality involved in making decisions about which treatment to pay for people as well. Quite frankly, I don't think that's a useful metric to use if we're only going to apply it to treatment decisions for pets but not people. AKA if there's only a 30% an operation will help a person and extend their life by maybe a year - is it rational to assume all that crushing debt? I'm not sure though we'd take someone to task over choosing to do so because it was "irrational".  Thus I think it is really down to personal choices and I'm not sure why we should frown at people who make different choices than we do. Nor do I think we should adopt the cavalier attitude that you can always just get another animal. I think that leads to a lot of the mistreatment that we see or even just downright neglect "oh well it was a hassle to take care of this dog so I just dropped it off at an animal shelter."

Besides who was advocating that pets are equal to humans?

i said something regarding cats and dogs, and you took what i said and made an analogy with humans. for it to be a correct/valid analogy, they would have to be similar. "equal" was perhaps too strong a word. you can read my earlier post and replace "equal" with "similar" if you'd like

I thought you might be thinking that, but I think you misread what I was stating. After all, you were the first one to bring up pets not being people which struck me as a non sequitur. I don't buy that it is necessarily rational to pay for expensive medical treatments for a person with their prognosis is not so good mainly because I think that rationality is only part of the decision making. Same too for when deciding what to do about an ailing pet.

[Malthus]

Wait...are we not going to talk about this and Beeb's assertion that one animal is interchangeable with another?

What's next, return your cats once they stop being adorable kittens? After all, there are always more kittens.

it's about being rational when it comes to pets. no matter the love one has for an animal, at the end of the day it's not human. people who cannot afford expensive medical procedures for their cats or dogs should not break themselves financially (sometimes even for a 30-50% chance of success), yet some do

Owning a pet is generally not a purely rational decision. Neither is the choice to care for that pet. Both are in part based on the desire for, and actual, emotional ties with the animal in question.

Those emotional ties are of course far weaker than those between humans, but they are there, and they explain why people are willing to spend lots of money on pet care - even though one can 'rationally' get another dog or cat from the pound at a minimal cost or even for free.

[garbon]

Wait...are we not going to talk about this and Beeb's assertion that one animal is interchangeable with another?

What's next, return your cats once they stop being adorable kittens? After all, there are always more kittens.

it's about being rational when it comes to pets. no matter the love one has for an animal, at the end of the day it's not human. people who cannot afford expensive medical procedures for their cats or dogs should not break themselves financially (sometimes even for a 30-50% chance of success), yet some do

Owning a pet is generally not a purely rational decision. Neither is the choice to care for that pet. Both are in part based on the desire for, and actual, emotional ties with the animal in question.

Those emotional ties are of course far weaker than those between humans, but they are there, and they explain why people are willing to spend lots of money on pet care - even though one can 'rationally' get another dog or cat from the pound at a minimal cost or even for free.

[Ed Anger]

Black kitty is apparently telling his cat buddies that the humans in my house spoil him. So now yellow Maine coon and gray tiger stripe cat come visit often. And get spoiled by the girls.

Cat hoarding is in the future for them.

[Beenherebefore]

Black kitty is apparently telling his cat buddies that the humans in my house spoil him. So now yellow Maine coon and gray tiger stripe cat come visit often. And get spoiled by the girls.

Cat hoarding is in the future for them.

I look forward to the hologram show when I am a pensioner with an oxygen tank and an attitude.