Dawg I’m not an American. I don’t think people desperately want cats to be good or bad or something. I think academics in the field have discovered an issue and are trying to handle it.
keeping cats inside is just cruel and bad practice.
You can have outdoor cats or you can have wildlife, but you can’t have both.
You’ve taken this discussion from being about cats “natural habitats” to arguing that the world hasn’t changed in 2000 years, to one of discussing wether there is anything wrong with cats at all, to one of you appropriating leftist language to make you not thinking cats kill animals be about me being a lunatic anglo colonizer (I resent that ableism by the way. I also resent the other stuff, but the ableism you should be above), to a moral discussion of how cats should be treated.
It’s pretty frustrating, you’re obviously just trying to move the goalposts until the subject of discussion is finally one where you will be unproblematically right. That’s not a good way to have a discussion.
“Most cats are probably better off being able to go outside, but not all of them,” Bjarne Braastad tells sciencenorway.no. He is a retired professor in ethology, the study of animal behaviour, at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).
According to Braastad not all cats want to be outside. If the cat has only ever lived inside from when it was a tiny kitten, then it would be perfectly fine for it to live inside for the rest of its life also."
Why do you choose to be obtuse? I’m not arguing from what is best for cats, that hasn’t been the argument at any point - I haven’t even said that cats should be kept indoors. You keep trying to shift the discussion, it’s really shitty debatebro bullshit.
Like cats are just damaging to wildlife, that’s a fact, but it’s like you keep trying to deny it, but also you can’t deny it so you just shift the argument.
It’s uncomfortable sure, but such is life. Stop trying to make this into some weird moral discussion, or at least first accept the fundamental facts.
but it’s like you keep trying to deny it, but also you can’t deny it so you just shift the argument.
Notice the repeated hijacking of leftist rhetoric and terms in all that obvious goal post shifting and obnoxious debatebro shit. Like trying to tie your plain facts explanation to you somehow having an imperialist, capitalist, mindset. Then telling me I treat my cat “as a commodity” after I had gone on about how meaningful cats are to me. Almost as if they’re just trying to push buttons.
This conversation isn’t about discussing the issue in good faith, it’s someone who clearly doesn’t have anything to back up their position and can only do the classic lashing out in a pathetic attempt to provoke.
Dawg I’m not an American. I don’t think people desperately want cats to be good or bad or something. I think academics in the field have discovered an issue and are trying to handle it.
You can have outdoor cats or you can have wildlife, but you can’t have both.
You’ve taken this discussion from being about cats “natural habitats” to arguing that the world hasn’t changed in 2000 years, to one of discussing wether there is anything wrong with cats at all, to one of you appropriating leftist language to make you not thinking cats kill animals be about me being a lunatic anglo colonizer (I resent that ableism by the way. I also resent the other stuff, but the ableism you should be above), to a moral discussion of how cats should be treated.
It’s pretty frustrating, you’re obviously just trying to move the goalposts until the subject of discussion is finally one where you will be unproblematically right. That’s not a good way to have a discussion.
“Most cats are probably better off being able to go outside, but not all of them,” Bjarne Braastad tells sciencenorway.no. He is a retired professor in ethology, the study of animal behaviour, at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).
According to Braastad not all cats want to be outside. If the cat has only ever lived inside from when it was a tiny kitten, then it would be perfectly fine for it to live inside for the rest of its life also."
https://sciencenorway.no/animal-behaviour-animal-welfare-cats/is-it-cruel-to-keep-your-cat-indoors/2107167 so, yeah, there is a movement to keep cats indoor, but it’s some pseudo scientific internet thing, that is mostly a thing in anglo-countries* (https://icatcare.org/indoor-only-or-outdoor-access/). While other countries see it as pure animal cruelty “It is animal cruelty not to let them do what they like.”
Why do you choose to be obtuse? I’m not arguing from what is best for cats, that hasn’t been the argument at any point - I haven’t even said that cats should be kept indoors. You keep trying to shift the discussion, it’s really shitty debatebro bullshit.
Like cats are just damaging to wildlife, that’s a fact, but it’s like you keep trying to deny it, but also you can’t deny it so you just shift the argument.
It’s uncomfortable sure, but such is life. Stop trying to make this into some weird moral discussion, or at least first accept the fundamental facts.
Notice the repeated hijacking of leftist rhetoric and terms in all that obvious goal post shifting and obnoxious debatebro shit. Like trying to tie your plain facts explanation to you somehow having an imperialist, capitalist, mindset. Then telling me I treat my cat “as a commodity” after I had gone on about how meaningful cats are to me. Almost as if they’re just trying to push buttons.
This conversation isn’t about discussing the issue in good faith, it’s someone who clearly doesn’t have anything to back up their position and can only do the classic lashing out in a pathetic attempt to provoke.
Yeah it sucks. The mods used to crack down on that debatebro type thing. It did wonders for site culture, kinda hope they do again