Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eyupdutch (Talk | contribs) at 07:42, April 13, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.

Even more useless than dogs

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --BenjaminS 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


Yes

People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --PF Fox 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, tyhis is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!)So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? eyupdutch 08:42, 12 April 2007 (BST)

No

Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.User:Nsmyth 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)


People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. Dpbsmith 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you?? eyupdutch 14:40, 12 April 2007, (GMT)

Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in Peter Pan, was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.Dpbsmith 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much. eyupdutch 14:32, 12 April 2007, (GMT)

It is unclear

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --Jeremiah4-22 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. Dpbsmith 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? eyupdutch 14:29, 12 April 2007 (GMT)

Maybe?

I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. AtheistKathryn 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)