Human/cat relationship =old

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-04-09 01:02am

Death likes cats
Thus I like cats.
Simple as that.

Cats are typically cleaner and take care of their waste needs better than dogs can.
Show me a dog that cleans up after itself when it takes a shit and I'll say that dogs make better pets. As companions they're about equal.
Cats are better pets.
Dogs are more useful and they're the most varied species on the planet because of all the uses we put them to.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-04-09 01:33am

theski wrote:Cats ...... bad... Dogs........ Good.....

Cromag's and Neanderthalls kept Wolves in their Dens

Canine domestication is over 1 million years old.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-04-09 03:02am

Well, might as well take a side...

My Best Friend

The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world,

Every man needs their own, personal dupe.

the one that never deserts him,

Except when hungry, horny, distracted by a car, and any number of other reasons.

the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his dog.

...so man needs a stupid, naive being as a buddy?

A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and poverty, in health and sickness -

Ironically enough, this sounds exactly like what 'good' christian fundies try to beat into their abused, submissive wives.

He will sleep on the cold ground where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side.

Anyone, and I repeat, *anyone* who would teach any animal to do this is absolutely fucking sick. I don't know which is worse, the person that thinks this is an admirable trait, or the species that can get coerced into doing this abominable practice.

He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer,
He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world.
He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. --
When all other friends desert he remains. -
When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces,
He is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

More of the same, no new points introduced. *sighs* I'm only glad that not all dogs are actually like this. If man needs a gullible, naive, syncophantic punching bag to be happy, I will happily disown myself from the species.

Now, cats.

-Cats don't give a fuck how much you make. Cat's don't really care how many friends you have. Cats could care less what car you own, what charities you donate to, what religion you follow, or anything else. If a cat loves you, it loves you for a damn good reason.

-Cats will love you, but only if you earn their trust. A cat is not a pathetic syncophant, begging for attention. A cat is a living, independent being, who is sometimes independent, but sometimes craves company. A cat is not naive, a cat will not blindly follow what human figure appears before it. A cat's love is infinitely more desirable, in my opinion, because it shows you are doing the right thing.

-Cats were once worshipped as gods. They have not forgotten this. Cats show a pride in themselves, their bodies, and their abilities that place them on a human level. Cats show, with this pride, that they are not objects to be molded to a 'master's' desire.

-Damien

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-04-09 03:42am

Durandal wrote:The difference is that dogs admit guilt. Cats are completely infallible.

Dogs don't admit guilt exactly. What seems to happen is that they're doing something naughty and you come along. You, being the person they look up to, are not happy with what they did. The dog notices your demeanor and responds accordingly, which looks like a guilt reaction.

The cat, on the other hand, usually responds to a pissed-off human by high-tailing it out of the way. (Survival reaction?)

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-04-09 07:40am

Oni Koneko Damien wrote

snip

Well I guess that means your a cat person...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 12:59am

Notice how it's never enough for cat people to extoll the virtues of cats; they must viciously insult dogs.

The dog is not aristocratic. The dog is not prideful. Some people see these to be failings, and lash out at dogs, calling them "pathetic sycophant" or some other insult; many even go farther and attack their owners as Oni Koneko Damien just did, accusing them of treating their dogs as abusive patriarchs treat their wives.

Frankly, this kind of completely unjustified abusiveness and aristocratic haughtiness says much more about the speaker than it does about anything else.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-04-10 01:07am

hey, I have the calming but aggrevating purring critters, and I have the loyal, and pack supportive critters too.

lets see

Dogs=social animal (the pack is more important then the pack member)
cats=solitary hunter (It's all about my survival/hunger)

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-04-10 01:10am

That said, the dog is closer to humanity in disposition, however since alienation either of cioce or circumstace , is also a human reality. Cats have their point too.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-04-10 01:12am

I have always been a cat lover. I grew up with them since I was a baby. However, its clear that dogs have better intelligence in the sense they can be more easily trained and instructed in doing things of real value to people. Their size (medium to large breeds) also makes them more practical for things like hunting or even saving people in danger.

However, I still prefer cats for the fact they are typically more independent, cuter IMO, and I just think they are cooler in their overall look and agility. I do think it would be nice having a decent medium sized dog like a German sheppard or a goldgen retriever, but I would still choose a cat over a dog when looking for a pet not only for convienience purposes (no need to walk them ever day or pick up large shit in public) but for also just personal preference.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-04-10 01:18am

*Giggles*, I guess since I got into this, I might as well go all out...

Darth Wong wrote:Some people see these to be failings, and lash out at dogs, calling them "pathetic sycophant" or some other insult; many even go farther and attack their owners as Oni Koneko Damien just did, accusing them of treating their dogs as abusive patriarchs treat their wives.

I call bullshit on that. I never once insulted dogs, and I never would. What I was doing was insulting the image made of dogs in theski's quote. If you notice, I said this:

I wrote:I'm only glad that not all dogs are actually like this.

The point I was trying to make was the little quote theski put up made dogs appear to be nothing more than gullible, syncophantic punching bags. Having a dog of my own and loving her more than most humans I know, I know this is anything but true.

As for attacking owners, I did not attack any specific owner, or owners in general, what I did was attack the idea that dogs should love their 'masters' (sic) no matter what these 'masters' do to them. I find that concept absolutely repulsive. I did not accuse anyone here of treating dogs like abused wives, I simply pointed out that *if* people did treat them like the poor creatures in theski's quote were treated, then the parallels should be obvious.

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear earlier on. I'm not anti-dog, nor am I pro-cat. There are dogs that are highly independent and there are cats that are, well, syncophantic punching bags. I've just happened to have far more experiences with cats, and am just relating the impression I've gotten from them.

Darth Wong wrote:The dog is not aristocratic. The dog is not prideful.

Perhaps not all dogs, but I know at least a few that break those 'rules'. Likewise, I know some cats that are anything but dignified. I don't try and set down stereotypes for them. Granted, this contradicts what I said earlier. In that case, I fully admit the contradiction as an erroneous oversight on my part in my earlier post.

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, this kind of completely unjustified abusiveness and aristocratic haughtiness says much more about the speaker than it does about anything else.

Sorry? Perhaps I'm in the wrong here and I merely do not realize it, in that case, if it can be shown that attacking the rather abominable image (in my opinion) that theski painted of dogs and their owners, and an image that I believe is in most cases wholly false, is 'haughty' and 'aristocratic', I will fully apologize for my lack of common decency.

-Damien

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 01:58am

You honestly can't see anything wrong with taking a description of unconditional love and loyalty and calling it "abominable" or turning it into "pathetic sycophant?" Yeah, right. Sure.

What is "pathetic" about unconditional love? Apparently everything, since you think that love is much, much better when it's highly conditional. Why does loyalty make one a "sycophant"? Apparently because you think so; nowhere do you explain why. Why is it "abominable" to say that a dog would gladly stay by its master through thick or thin, good times and bad? I have no idea, but I will stay by my wife through thick or thin, good times or bad; does this mean I am a "pathetic sycophant?"

The characteristics you find so "abominable" in that poem are the same ones that most people find admirable when they occur in humans. Says a lot about you, doesn't it?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-10 02:14am

Having had both...I'll say this.

My dog for all his faults loved me unconditionally and always was there when I was home...so does my kitty cat.

That's what I want out of a pet, a companion...whether it be, my cat secretly plans to rule the world through maraca playing, or my dog who planned to do so by chasing chasing down buses.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-10 02:15am

Unconditional love is not admired in humans. Trusting whoever no matter what they've done is called gullibility in humans, not being a steadfast friend.

To be a good friend who shows unconditional love, you need to become their friend first. And that's how cats are.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-10 02:15am

Oni Koneko's Damien's attack on that poem is just fucking wierd. Let's break it down:

Every man needs their own, personal dupe.

So if someone isn't selfish, they must be a dupe. Right.

Except when hungry, horny, distracted by a car, and any number of other reasons.

"Deserts" usually implies permanence. When dogs "run away", it's usually because they can't find their way back.

...so man needs a stupid, naive being as a buddy?

If you're not ungrateful and a backstabber, you're stupid an naive? What the fuck is wrong with you man?

Ironically enough, this sounds exactly like what 'good' christian fundies try to beat into their abused, submissive wives.

LOL. Ohhhhkayyyyy ........ *steps back slowly*

Anyone, and I repeat, *anyone* who would teach any animal to do this is absolutely fucking sick. I don't know which is worse, the person that thinks this is an admirable trait, or the species that can get coerced into doing this abominable practice.

Dogs aren't taught or coerced into keeping company with their masters.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-04-10 02:17am

My cat loves me unconditionally, or so it seems. I mean, I've accidentally kicked her more than once, but she still pounces on me in the morning, curls up on my chest, and purrs. Maybe I've gotten the bizarre mutant cat.

Of course, she also has mind-control eyebeams that reduce me to babytalk.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-04-10 02:19am

SirNitram wrote: Of course, she also has mind-control eyebeams that reduce me to babytalk.

That's every kitty-cat...it's given to them by the almighty cat-god.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 02:26am

Howedar wrote:Unconditional love is not admired in humans. Trusting whoever no matter what they've done is called gullibility in humans, not being a steadfast friend.

The term "unconditional love" does not mean that you love everybody you meet. It means that the person you love does not have to work to retain it.

To be a good friend who shows unconditional love, you need to become their friend first. And that's how cats are.

That's lovely. Dogs do that as well, but with a lower entrance requirement and greater loyalty. I suppose this makes them inferior? And as I said before, I'll be as impressed with cats as I am with dogs when someone shows me a seeing-eye cat.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2004-04-10 02:26am

Howedar wrote:Unconditional love is not admired in humans. Trusting whoever no matter what they've done is called gullibility in humans, not being a steadfast friend.

Since when is unconditional love defined as unquestioning trust?

To be a good friend who shows unconditional love, you need to become their friend first. And that's how cats are.

And parents need to become "good friends" with their kids to give them unconditional love?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-04-10 02:47am

theski wrote:Oni Koneko Damien wrote
snip
Well I guess that means your a cat person...

His name, roughly translated, is Demon Kitten.
What do you think?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-10 02:50am

Hotfoot wrote:Since when is unconditional love defined as unquestioning trust?

It's not. I was sloppy.

And parents need to become "good friends" with their kids to give them unconditional love?

Unless you are your dog's father, I think we can write that one off as a special case driven by biology.

The term "unconditional love" does not mean that you love everybody you meet. It means that the person you love does not have to work to retain it.

You're right. What I mean is, from my (admittedly limited) experience you don't need to do any work to gain it in the first place with a dog.

That's lovely. Dogs do that as well, but with a lower entrance requirement and greater loyalty. I suppose this makes them inferior? And as I said before, I'll be as impressed with cats as I am with dogs when someone shows me a seeing-eye cat.

What is said entrance requirement, anyway? I've never seen any sign of any requirements whatsoever, except perhaps food.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2004-04-10 03:17am

Howedar wrote:Unless you are your dog's father, I think we can write that one off as a special case driven by biology.

You still act as a father figure (well, parental figure at least) to most pets, especially if you raise them from a very early age.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 03:57am

Howedar wrote:What I mean is, from my (admittedly limited) experience you don't need to do any work to gain it in the first place with a dog.

For a happy greeting, yes. For loyalty, no. A dog will meet many people throughout its life, and it will be friendly to most (unless they give it some reason not to be, or it's a psychotic breed like the pitbull), but it will be loyal to only a chosen few.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-10 04:01am

Okay. I don't have a great deal of experience with dogs anyway.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-10 04:06am

Howedar wrote:Okay. I don't have a great deal of experience with dogs anyway.

Ah, I see. It appears that you confused the "happy greeting" behaviour of dogs with something deeper. That's one of the most obvious distinctions between cats and dogs; cats never appear really happy. They may appear content, which is a kind of happiness, but they don't do that bounding slobbering running-round-in-circles "I'm so HAPPY!!!" thing that dogs do.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-10 05:39am

I'll also be impressed when a cat defends someone in a fight. My next door neighbour pushed me over in a fight once, and my dog lost it's fucking mind and put the fear of God into him. Never fuck with a (white) German Shepherd, or his master.