🔥 Declawing cats
-
Meh. I'm fairly neutral about declawing.
My last cat ~20 years ago came to us declawed. This was back when shelters did that. She was very timid, and I always assumed her claws were part of the reason why. I wish she hadn't been declawed.
My sister got a kitten recently, however, and she hasn't been able to get it to stop scratching. She's got multiple cats, about 3 or 4 scratching posts and mats, but it still scratches. It doesn't scratch furniture, it scratches people. She's tried those soft paws covers a couple times. The first time, they were on for a week. The second and third, they were gone in a day. These were done by a groomer who eventually said that some cats just do that. My sister's been scratched badly enough that she saw her doctor about it. Her daughters have both been scratched badly, too. So she's currently debating whether or not to have the cat declawed. My guess is probably.
-
Please encourage her to rehome the cat if she can't cope with it. Declawing is simply wrong.
-
When does it scratch people? All cats are different, and some just don't like people coming up to them and touching them. Others act up if that is the only way they get attention. One of ours will knock drinks over if she is feeling we haven't been giving her enough attention recently...
Also, can it definitely hear/see well? If it hasn't noticed people until they are in its face, I could understand why it might scratch.
Either way, declawing is never the answer to a behavioural issue. She needs to work out the base cause of the problem and deal with that.
Edit: When did it get separated from its mother/litter? Taking kittens too early can mean they don't learn proper social behaviours like "don't scratch everybody"
-
I believe both scratching and biting can also be caused by how the kitten was raised by humans - if it is treated as 'cute' while it doesn't hurt, they'll keep doing it when it does.
-
Yup, this too. Badly behaved cats and dogs is 90% of the time down to the owner doing something to cause it. Work out what that is, fix it if you can and watch your pet behave. Its like magic!
-
Oh, sure, give her a chance to know what she'll be missing out on before you take it away.
I realize you're trolling blakey, but since some people reading are entirely incapable of detecting trolling and sarcasm, I feel it's prudent to mention that even the notoriously fervent psychopaths at PETA believe that spaying and neutering is ethical and preferable to dumping a bag of kittens in a dumpster.
Declawing is another can of worms, but I don't think people are completely right in calling people who declaw their cats "scum." For the record I personally disagree with declawing cats, but I don't think someone who does so is automatically placed on the same level as a murderer or sexual predator.
-
My last cat ~20 years ago came to us declawed. This was back when shelters did that. She was very timid, and I always assumed her claws were part of the reason why. I wish she hadn't been declawed.
...you got a shelter cat, it was timid, and you blamed that on declawing? More likely the cat just went through a lot of trauma/abuse before it ended up in the shelter.
-
They're not little humans. They're animals.
Humans are animals.
The worst kind of animals.
-
even the notoriously fervent psychopaths at PETA believe that spaying and neutering is ethical and preferable to dumping a bag of kittens in a dumpster.
Well, they say that, but they've been caught killing nearly every animal that came into one shelter.
-
Disclaimer:
I'm against declawing myself. But I don't shove my beliefs on people, so....
Please encourage her to rehome the cat if she can't cope with it. Declawing is simply wrong.
Easy for people to say.
- Finding a home.
- Even then, people are going to hate you for rehoming because that's stressful to the animal.
Can't appease everyone.
So, people are going to find their own comfort level within the law. That's reality.
We can try illegalizing declawing, but then people would perform dangerous illegal declawing in underground facilities. At least by legalizing declawing, it will be performed safely.
Oh wait... that's another procedure people justify by saying they'll do it anyways.
When does it scratch people? All cats are different, and some just don't like people coming up to them and touching them.
You know what. Fuck cats. Problem solved.
No more pet cats. Let them wander the streets in apathy.
Reminds me of PETA shutting down dog races, and then the shelters having to mass murder the dogs, because apparently PETA doesn't give a shit about animals, they just give a shit about other people giving a shit.
-
Well, they say that, but they've been caught killing nearly every animal that came into one shelter.
Because you don't have to have standards, you just have to catch people not living up to the standards you prescribe to everyone else.
Ends justify the Means.
-
Humans are animals. The worst kind of animals.
Then sharks must be Mother Earth's atonement.
Look, just because you aren't one to identify when monkeys start wars... (where's that article)...
-
Then sharks must be Mother Earth's atonement.
Sharks don't kill for fun, they kill for food.
Humans on the other hand...
-
-
Sharks don't kill for fun, they kill for food.
HumansCats on the other hand...I think sharks will keep killing and eating when they're not hungry (actually, I don't think they even feel hunger, but whatever), too. Maybe they think it's fun. DON'T DENY THEIR EXISTENCE YOU SHITLORD.
-
But fish are friends not food.
-
I'm against declawing myself. But I don't shove my beliefs on people
I don't shove my beliefs on people except where those beliefs are that you should not cause blatant suffering purely for convenience. I happen to think it's ok to shove that belief on everyone.
There is no excuse for declawing, because even if you can't or won't actually deal with the animal's behavioural issues instead of mutilating it to make its behaviour less annoying (which also probably won't work because it will just bite instead), and you can't or won't rehome it, you can clip its nails.
-
-
I don't shove my beliefs on people except where those beliefs are that you should not cause blatant suffering purely for convenience. I happen to think it's ok to shove that belief on everyone.
cause blatant suffering
Define blatant suffering.
Because there are things that I see as blatant suffering that you don't see that way. Hence I would feel compelled to enforce that belief, but I understand that not everyone agrees.
I believe you can cause self-harm, and thus some things would be better off outlawed, but I also believe that people have the right to choose for themselves.
See, that's the problems with beliefs. You always think your beliefs are great enough to allow forcing on everyone else.
I mean, I can take your blatant suffering another step.
Hypothetical person can believe that owning a pet at all is blatant suffering.
You see, without objective morality, no matter how strong you feel, it doesn't matter unless the majority of people agree.
-
So because other people have different views, I may not object to any kind of cruelty or abuse? I may not object to, for example, human trafficking, hunting for sport, FGM... because some people think those things are ok?
-
So because other people have different views, I may not object to any kind of cruelty or abuse? I may not object to, for example, human trafficking, hunting for sport, FGM... because some people think those things are ok?
You most certainly can object to it.
But you have to recognize that not everyone will.
I recognized that a long time ago, at the point where I realized that a constitution is the right tool to define those things that are abhorrent. The constitution is the only thing really objective.
Outside of that, laws change.
"By shoving beliefs" I mean proselytizing. I don't understand why non-religious beliefs don't fall under that. I don't understand why it's wrong to stand on a street corner with a Bible, but ok to stand in a grocery store with signs and picket the aisle saying that meat is murder.
-
Because of this, I'm draw to one of either two scenarios.
Either everyone has their own beliefs (religious or secular) about how the world should work and they are free to share it but should not share it in condescension, damnation, or with an ultimatum.
Or, everyone can freely proselytize and damn each other no matter what their beliefs are.
-
I don't understand why it's wrong to stand on a street corner with a Bible, but ok to stand in a grocery store with signs and picket the aisle saying that meat is murder.
Why do you think it is considered so?
If neither one is impeding other people going about their business, I don't think either is wrong (as an activity, not agreeing or disagreeing with the viewpoint).
-
"By shoving beliefs" I mean proselytizing. I don't understand why non-religious beliefs don't fall under that. I don't understand why it's wrong to stand on a street corner with a Bible, but ok to stand in a grocery store with signs and picket the aisle saying that meat is murder.
I'm not standing in a vet's office picketing. This is an internet forum where people express opinions and argue about everything. If anyone doesn't want to argue the toss about declawing cats they can simply leave the 'Declawing Cats flamewar' thread. If anyone doesn't want to hear my opinions on it in particular, I believe someone has posted a script somewhere to hide all posts by a given user. Are you saying that any attempt, in any situation, to convince anyone of anything is on a par with harassing people in the street?
-
Why do you think it is considered so?
Personally I don't.
But there seems to be a prevailing attitude of this.
-
This is an internet forum where people express opinions and argue about everything.
Hence I am posting my thoughts back to you.
Are you saying that any attempt, in any situation, to convince anyone of anything is on a par with harassing people in the street?
No, I'm just expressing my frustration that there seems to be this disparity between religious beliefs and non-religious emotional beliefs.
Logically speaking, we are the dominant animal, and it really doesn't matter what we do to other animals other than preventing sadistic behavior because it usually transfers from animals to human targets as people advance down that mental affliction.
Do, I really believe that? No, I don't. But once I start injecting my beliefs, it becomes spaghetti for me. Specifically because I've been told by society that a subset of my beliefs are so offensive they are forbidden from public discourse.
So, I get really skeptical of other beliefs that are driven by emotion or other illogical forms.
Besides, this whole conversation started with you responding to a post I made purposefully satirical.
-
Besides, this whole conversation started with you responding to a post I made purposefully satirical.
Ah. Then I
ed . Poe's law and all.
-
@xaade said:
Besides, this whole conversation started with you responding to a post I made purposefully satirical.
Ah. Then I
ed . Poe's law and all.We can try illegalizing declawing, but then people would perform dangerous illegal declawing in underground facilities. At least by legalizing declawing, it will be performed safely.
Oh wait... that's another procedure people justify by saying they'll do it anyways.
You didn't recognize that?
-
-
They don't use that in Britain?
It's like par for the course here in America.
I'm waiting for people to be all like:
"Stealing is dangerous and can often lead to armed robbery in an attempt to separate a person from their belongings. If we legalize theft, it can be performed safely and without risk to life".
Which is ironic, since I was just in Rome, and they've all but legalized small theft because of the gypsies.
-
@xaade said:
You didn't recognize that?
She's British, so probably not.
You specified British rather than the specific patch of dirt in the British Isles.
*Ducks*
-
You specified British rather than the specific patch of dirt in the British Isles.
It all looks about the same from here.
-
You didn't recognize that?
I recognised the sarcasm there, but failed to apply it to the whole post.
She's British, so probably not.
*bites @boomzilla's ankles*
I'm waiting for people to be all like:
"Stealing is dangerous and can often lead to armed robbery in an attempt to separate a person from their belongings. If we legalize theft, it can be performed safely and without risk to life".
Worked for Ankh-Morpork.
-
bites @boomzilla's ankles
Eh? I saw @xaade's thing as a parody of American abortion proponents.
-
We can try illegalizing declawing, but then people would perform dangerous illegal declawing in underground facilities. At least by legalizing declawing, it will be performed safely.
Oh wait... that's another procedure people justify by saying they'll do it anyways.
This would be a great case for showing how specious the argument is. It is illegal in the UK (and most of the EU) and we don't have instances of underground declawing, I was unable to find a single reference of an occurrence by an animal rights org or a prosecution.
Better yet the Kiwis did a poll of people having cats adopted for scratching issues, the percentage of people that would have kept their cat if they could have had it declawed was 4%. And that's 4% of the sort of people that would rehouse a cat because they can't be arsed to trim its claws or do a bit of behaviour training.
-
Eh? I saw @xaade's thing as a parody of American abortion proponents.
I did too, because I'm not totally oblivious to my surroundings. Firstly, if you frequent any online discussion platforms that aren't specifically non-english-speaking you're going to become familiar with what Americans say on any given subject, and secondly you guys are not the only people who discuss abortion.
So it didn't occur to me that you were being that specific and I thought you were suggesting Brits don't get sarcasm.
-
-
People actually think this?
Not in my experience, but I assumed he was trolling me and obliged him with a bite.
-
People calmly admitting they misunderstood each other?!
Worst. Flamewar. Ever.
-
Fuck off
-
Clearly you should have your canines removed.
-
People calmly admitting they misunderstood each other?!
Worst. Flamewar. Ever.
Sounds like a English Flamewar!
Sorry, I think I jumped the queue there!
-
-
-
Clearly you should have your canines removed.
As long as they're rehomed by a responsible shelter. I may be a cat person but I have nothing against dogs and I wouldn't want any harm to come to them.
@loopback0 said:
People calmly admitting they misunderstood each other?!
Worst. Flamewar. Ever.Sounds like a English Flamewar!
Sorry, I think I jumped the queue there!
Nonono, that would be a Canadian flamewar. An English flamewar is about 200% more passive-aggressive and 700% more sarcastic - in the right context, any polite expression can be an insult.
-
Nonono, that would be a Canadian flamewar. An English flamewar is about 200% more passive-aggressive and 700% more sarcastic - in the right context, any polite expression can be an insult.
American style: I now own a propane flame thrower.
-
Jesus! I'm not even within arms reach of your lawn!
-
I'm not even within arms reach of your lawn!
So he can toast you without also setting fire to his lawn.
-
Look, the cat wasn't manufactured by Playskool. It's not a plastic toy created for your amusement. It's a living being, with its own thoughts, feelings, desires. You can't just assert ownership of an animal as an excuse to remove its natural defenses. If the cat didn't need front claws, natural selection/God/whatever you believe created the cat in its current form wouldn't have provided them.
You take the cat as it is and you and her find a way to live together. Owning a pet is a partnership, not a dictatorship. Most of us got that talk on responsibility towards pets when we were 7 years old, where the fuck were your parents then?
If you're not willing to find a way to live with the cat, the solution (as people have pointed out) is to give the cat to someone who is. And then sob. Because you're fucking awful.
-
I recognized that a long time ago, at the point where I realized that a constitution is the right tool to define those things that are abhorrent. The constitution is the only thing really objective.
Things are only wrong if the Government tells you they're wrong! Brilliant!
Oh wait, you've just defended the Holocaust, you human garbage.
Amazon.com