Cats vs Dogs. GET IT ON!

[Gil Hamilton]

You're a goddamned moron. First you say that the "big cats" (ie- a colloquial term for totally different but related species like tigers and lions) are better predators than wolves, ignoring the fact that wolves routinely use group tactics to take on much larger targets than themselves: a trait also seen in humans and one which is clearly beyond the ability or lions or tigers. Then you turn around and say that domestic cats are better than dogs because they're tougher for any given size.

It's worse than that. We've ended up singling out lions for one reason; they are the only cat species that works as a group at all. No other cat species, big or small, is socially organized. Tigers and other big cats are all solitary hunters. They only really come together to breed. They lack any of the highly sophisticated organization and social hierarchy of wolf packs. Such big cats can't touch wolf packs in their hunting... hell, most most cat hunting is stalk and dash, with the prey usually coming to them.

Don't get me wrong. I like big cats. They are great animals. But if we are talking about being predators, wolves are just amazing. Wolves even rally before hunts; play fighting and have group howls to get themselves ready. That sort of behavior is something humans can relate to, they do it for the exact same reason humans do before battles and sports events. That's just badass.

[Camel]

Wow, Lord wong, you have come out firing both barrels. I am caught completely off guard.

First you say that the "big cats" are better predators than wolves, ignoring the fact that wolves routinely use group tactics to take on much larger targets than themselves... Then you turn around and say that domestic cats are better than dogs because they're tougher for any given size.

I have left out the unnecessary bits; like how human hunting tactics compare to wolves.

Sir, I am juggling two arguments at once. One is with the annoying species barrier. Which only domestic cats and dogs are allowed. The other, my favorite, which allows all species of canines and felines to compete for supremacy.
We have explored cats and dogs ability to coordinate as a group to a limited extent so far. The dogs are winning with little hope for the cats.
I've already explained that its just unrealistic to expect domestic cats to be able to compete with the entire (huge) extent of the dog species. It's just not fair. There are no huge 150lb domestic cats to challenge your german shepard. This does not mean house cats suck dockey dicks. They are just so small in comparison that its just retarded to even entertain the thought. How does that demonstrate big dogs are better? Except for their devastating size advantage, they have no other advantage.

Are lions and tigers inferior predators to wolves because they have inferior abilities for any given size, or are domestic cats superior predators to dogs because all of a sudden you reject size differences as a valid factor?

Common man, practically the entire paragraph is a big rhetorical question. You worded that very cleverly and it threw me off balance. (duck season! wabbit season! )
What the fuck. I said tigers are inferior to wolves because they are.. what!?
Domestic cats are inferior to dogs because I reject size difference as a factor?! Did I say that?! NO.

I only mentioned Tigers since they are the best the cats have to offer as far as size is concerned. I offered other similarly sized cats to make it a fair fight for the wolves. So far we only want to focus on the dogs superior social abilities and fight against the closest thing the cats have to offer (lions).
Gil...I will get to you. Just gonna post this right now and read and consider your post.

[Darth Wong]

Sir, I am juggling two arguments at once. One is with the annoying species barrier. Which only domestic cats and dogs are allowed. The other, my favorite, which allows all species of canines and felines to compete for supremacy.

And you are using totally contradictory logic for those two arguments, asshole. This demonstrates that you do not have consistent logic, ie- your argument is basically full of shit.

I've already explained that its just unrealistic to expect domestic cats to be able to compete with the entire (huge) extent of the dog species. It's just not fair. There are no huge 150lb domestic cats to challenge your german shepard.

And there are no giant wolves to compete with lions, but that didn't stop you from crowing about that, asshole. Once more: you have demonstrated that you do not have a consistent fucking argument.

What the fuck. I said tigers are inferior to wolves because they are.. what!? Domestic cats are inferior to dogs because I reject size difference as a factor?! Did I say that?! NO.

Don't be pedantic, fucktard. That was a simple error on my part, and it's obvious what I meant to say from the previous paragraph.

I only mentioned Tigers since they are the best the cats have to offer as far as size is concerned. I offered other similarly sized cats to make it a fair fight for the wolves.

AND YET YOU DON'T THINK IT NECESSARY TO DO THIS FOR CATS VS DOGS, DO YOU ASSHOLE?

I have made this point quite clear, and it's pretty obvious that you're just dancing around it. I have suspected you of being nothing more than a troll since Day One, and you are doing nothing to disabuse me of this assessment.

[Gil Hamilton]

The anticipation for your response, Camel, is overwhelming.

[Dooey Jo]

My dog once murdered a family of cute fluffy wild rabbits. Well, the baby rabbits anyway
She was also known to exterminate and eat entire nests of voles, instead of killing single ones and leaving them somewhere for everyone to see, like all the cats around here did.
So clearly dogs are more badass than cats!

[Camel]

No shit Gil, I don't know if I should even bother. This could be my death sentance. I couldn't do any worse by running away I guess.

you are using totally contradictory logic for those two arguments, asshole. This demonstrates that you do not have consistent logic

This faulty logic, which is perfectly clear, would be that large dogs are forbidden from battle with domestic cats; but Tigers are not subject to these rules because its convenient to my argument.
That is not what I am saying. I only mentioned the tiger bullshit for its rhetorical value. You are taking that out of its intended context, and ass raping me with it. I will have to spell this out.
Any feline that is roughly the same size as its opposing canine is fair game. As long as its a one vs one fight. The cats will win. I would never compare a Tiger to a wolf, or a german shepard to a tabby.

there are no giant wolves to compete with lions, but that didn't stop you from crowing about that, asshole. Once more: you have demonstrated that you do not have a consistent fucking argument.

This was a comparison of lions and wolves abilities as "pack" hunters. Rather than a one on one fight. Strictly speaking wolves vs lions. The wolves win on almost every level. The lions only win in large numbers because each individual is stronger than any one wolf. Again, the wolves won outright in almost every way.
I only compared lions to wolves individually because I lost the arguement. That doesn't stop you from using it against me out of context. I did admit that wolves are better. Its fucking obvious. Dogs are just infinitely better as pack hunters.

Don't be pedantic, fucktard

Yes sir!

I only mentioned Tigers since they are the best the cats have to offer as far as size is concerned. I offered other similarly sized cats to make it a fair fight for the wolves.

AND YET YOU DON'T THINK IT NECESSARY TO DO THIS FOR CATS VS DOGS, DO YOU ASSHOLE?

I only mentioned tigers for their rhetorical value, in reply to your german shepard point. I have stressed that I am being fair. I would never seriously commit the offence you accuse me of.
A seriously fair comparison? A female puma (~70-150lbs) VS An adult male grey wolf(~50-130lbs).

I do enjoy these debates. I am completely outmatched against you. I hardly think that makes me a troll. I am a good sport. If I am soundly defeated I will admit defeat gladly.
:solute:

[Gil Hamilton]

Camel: Between Mike and myself, responding to one of us is alot more likely to result poorly for you. The fact that you responded to the person that is vastly less likely to tolerate your bullshit and in fact holds in his possession the ability to eject your ass from the forum, I'm thinking you probably shouldn't have responded either.

[Darth Wong]

This faulty logic, which is perfectly clear, would be that large dogs are forbidden from battle with domestic cats; but Tigers are not subject to these rules because its convenient to my argument.
That is not what I am saying.

It is what you're saying, troll. Anyone can look over your previous posts and see that you had argued for the superiority of cats because individual tigers are tougher than individual (smaller) wolves (a blatant red-herring), then you argued against the superiority of dogs even though individual dogs are tougher than individual (smaller) cats (an obvious change in logic).

I only mentioned the tiger bullshit for its rhetorical value. You are taking that out of its intended context, and ass raping me with it. I will have to spell this out.
Any feline that is roughly the same size as its opposing canine is fair game. As long as its a one vs one fight. The cats will win. I would never compare a Tiger to a wolf, or a german shepard to a tabby.

You did compare a tiger to a wolf, asshole. And saying that you only did it for "rhetorical value" is a fucking pitiful dodge. The fact remains that you did so.

I only compared lions to wolves individually because I lost the arguement.

Here's a fucking hint, dipshit. When you are under suspicion of being nothing more than a troll (and rest assured that you are), you do not respond to losing an argument by deliberately bullshitting for rhetorical effect. Is that clear?

[Camel]

Yes sir, Its clear. I admit defeat.

[Zero]

Rhetorical strategies have nothing to do with rational debate, and most people at SDN have decent bullshit detectors, so don't do things for 'rhetorical value.' That basically just means you're full of shit, and have nothing valid to say on the matter. When you know you've lost, don't keep flinging bullshit until you piss a ton of people off and risk being banned, just concede the point and move on.

[Durandal]

Interestingly enough, one theory of how the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe so quickly deals with the fact that cats were being hunted down and killed by Christians who thought they were demon creatures. With a sharp decrease in the cat population, the rats who carried the Plague were able to fester and spread it around. This is a scenario where the absence of cats resulted in one of the largest epidemics in recorded history, wiping out over a quarter of the population of Europe.

As for the merits of each as a pet, it depends on what kind of a person you are. With dogs, you can actually take them out and do something. You can play fetch, frisbee or whatever. You can't take your cat out on a leash and start picking up chicks.

But if you just want a furry entity to pet while you're on the couch watching TV or something, you can't beat a cat. Because they're so arrogant and demanding while you're around, you can focus on them for a while instead of what a shitty day at work you had.

Also, cats are especially good for the elderly. My grandfather went through colon cancer a few years ago, and even after he was done with the chemotherapy treatments, he was still depressed, and so was my grandmother because he wasn't eating as much and was generally lethargic. So we got them a cat, and the difference in their moods was pretty astounding. They both love him, and the little guy gets treated like a king over there. He gives my grandmother something to dote over now that me and my sister are away from home and can't see them as much.

There's no way we could have gotten them a dog because they just don't have the energy or space. Their cat just does his thing and gets fed leftover gourmet Italian food for his trouble.

[Darth Wong]

Interestingly enough, one theory of how the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe so quickly deals with the fact that cats were being hunted down and killed by Christians who thought they were demon creatures. With a sharp decrease in the cat population, the rats who carried the Plague were able to fester and spread it around. This is a scenario where the absence of cats resulted in one of the largest epidemics in recorded history, wiping out over a quarter of the population of Europe.

So cats are useful to humanity because they function as a substitute for decent publc hygiene? That argument strikes me as having a limited shelf life.

[Lagmonster]

Interestingly enough, one theory of how the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe so quickly deals with the fact that cats were being hunted down and killed by Christians who thought they were demon creatures. With a sharp decrease in the cat population, the rats who carried the Plague were able to fester and spread it around. This is a scenario where the absence of cats resulted in one of the largest epidemics in recorded history, wiping out over a quarter of the population of Europe.

So cats are useful to humanity because they function as a substitute for decent publc hygiene? That argument strikes me as having a limited shelf life.

I don't know nearly enough about history to justify the argument in terms of overall effectiveness, but I'd wonder if disease control and crop pest control couldn't be listed as a legitimate forte of cats, particularly in rural areas. Speaking in anecdotal terms, on our old family farm we witnessed first hand the difference in pest control cats brought in keeping vermin out of the hay barn, something which didn't exactly spell the difference between feast or famine but which was a welcome help.

[Durandal]

I know that it's not at all uncommon for farmers to keep cats around for pest control.

[Darth Wong]

I use those little black plastic boxes with rat poison in them. They're even lower-maintenance than cats, and kill vermin very effectively, thus taking the pro-cat argument to its logical extreme.

[Lagmonster]

I use those little black plastic boxes with rat poison in them. They're even lower-maintenance than cats, and kill vermin very effectively, thus taking the pro-cat argument to its logical extreme.

A farmer who kept a box of poison in the same room as his livestock feed would be kicked in the balls by about a half-dozen federal agencies. Granted, I'm clutching at straws - there are legitimately useable anti-vermin chemicals out there (probably more than there were when I was a kid on the farm), and the method that actual serious farmers use is, among other things, the tried-and-true method of a storage facility made of metal instead of wood, or they just don't care if there's the odd mouse any more than the cattle do.

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you growing up in the country I have seen working cats...

usually vermin killers (though keeping them from killing chickens can be problematic), and in a few cases cats trained by herding dogs who helped manage livestock. then again I'm not sure if those cats where cats by psychology.....

[BloodAngel]

Interestingly enough, one theory of how the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe so quickly deals with the fact that cats were being hunted down and killed by Christians who thought they were demon creatures. With a sharp decrease in the cat population, the rats who carried the Plague were able to fester and spread it around. This is a scenario where the absence of cats resulted in one of the largest epidemics in recorded history, wiping out over a quarter of the population of Europe.

So cats are useful to humanity because they function as a substitute for decent publc hygiene? That argument strikes me as having a limited shelf life.

Speaking in medieval terms, cats were the best option for pest control. I don't think the Ancients really had any other way to kill vermin en masse. But of course, that was back then, but still, controlling pests with cats is still a good option because they are natural predators. Natural predators are almost always better choices than a random chemical.

[Edi]

It seems that this thread has two separate discussions going on in it: The superiority of cats/dogs as pets and the superiority of cats/dogs as utility animals. Dogs win the latter comparison hands down. The first one isn't as clearcut.

Interestingly enough, one theory of how the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe so quickly deals with the fact that cats were being hunted down and killed by Christians who thought they were demon creatures. With a sharp decrease in the cat population, the rats who carried the Plague were able to fester and spread it around. This is a scenario where the absence of cats resulted in one of the largest epidemics in recorded history, wiping out over a quarter of the population of Europe.

That theory has more than a little evidence going for it. It was in fact believed that cats were the plague carriers (among all the other shit they were blamed for), and there's quite a few written accounts of what was done about it. For a lot of info on the historical impact of the plagues, I recommend Robert Hendrickson's More Cunning Than Man, which is a book on the impact of rats on human history.

Also, cats are especially good for the elderly. <snip>

There has been actual research into the subject, and the conclusions I've seen every time it has been brought up have been that having pets in general helps reduce stress and tension in people. Whether it's a cat, a dog, a rat or something else, the effect is there, but it's bigger with a more social pet. It helps take people's minds off of all the shit, just like you said. Some study I saw briefly referenced in a newspaper here actually went as far as to say that the mere presence of a pet in the same room reduces stress and tension.

And when you combine this with the different requirements of different people, it's obvious that the cat vs. dog superiority as pets is situational. Like with your grandparents.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

I don't know if you thought differently or not Gil but it's maybe worth mentioning that a hyena is neither a canine nor a feline, it's it's own group.

...now, back with the victory of dogkind.

[Phillip Hone]

I'd go with dogs, mostly because they seem to be more social than most cats that I've been around. As others have mentioned, posion can take the place of cats, and posion won't leave the rat's contents spread over your kitchen floor. That's not something that you want to wake up to in the morning.

[MKSheppard]

Perform the following experiment. Go to a animal shelter near you.

Go into the Cat Room. Watch as the cats stare at you from their cages, and hiss at you.

Then go into the dog room and watch as furry pandomeium breaks loose; as they jump up and down on the cage doors, bark, wag their tails etc.

That is all you need to know.

[felineki]

Go into the Cat Room. Watch as the cats stare at you from their cages, and hiss at you.

You sure you went into the cat room? Because the cats in the rooms that I go into are generally friendly and eager for attention (which I can easily sympathize with, seeing as it's can't be fun spending most of your day in a little cage). That, or they're sleeping.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't know if you thought differently or not Gil but it's maybe worth mentioning that a hyena is neither a canine nor a feline, it's it's own group.

...now, back with the victory of dogkind.

I do in fact know that. They are their own family, hyaenidae. However, it's hard to talk about how lions deal with pack hunters without mentioning hyenas. Hyenas and canids like wolves and wild dogs fill the same ecological niche.

[Zero]

Perform the following experiment. Go to a animal shelter near you.

Go into the Cat Room. Watch as the cats stare at you from their cages, and hiss at you.

Then go into the dog room and watch as furry pandomeium breaks loose; as they jump up and down on the cage doors, bark, wag their tails etc.

That is all you need to know.

Different animals react differently to different people. I don't think all people get the same kind of reception from cats, although I myself do. Dogs seem to like me right off the bat most of the time, although some are scared of me at first, since I'm a big guy. Cat's aren't so friendly with me.

My friend Jared, on the other hand, gets along with most cats just fine.