Posted on 10/24/2013 12:15:01 PM PDT by nickcarraway
It’s the age-old question: what’s better, a cat or a dog? Surely there can only be one winner in the domestic animal personality competition.
The answer is obvious: dogs are far superior. But if you’re not convinced, allow YouTube to argue the case…
1. You can’t play hide and seek with a cat
The cat would obviously just use the opportunity to go and find new humans who didn’t try and engage them in such childishness.
2. Cats are glass-half-empty kind of creatures
Dogs think the thing that is happening right now is the BEST THING THAT’S EVER HAPPENED.
Three rabid cats bit a bunch of people locally in the last couple weeks.
Haven’t heard of a case in a dog in decades.
Think I prefer the possible “dog attacks”, thanks.
:)
Rabid animals don’t count. Besides, outside the disease, they were probably incapable of killing. I can’t even conceive a cat having the sheer will to destroy a human, attacking continuously, even though I have personally known a demonic cat.
Nope, dogs are much more capable of evil. See it as Jekyll & Hyde for the species.
Really cool memorial.
“Nope, dogs are much more capable of evil.”
Seriously?
“Evil”?
As in premeditated, conscious, intentional EVIL with malice aforethought?
Seriously?
Indeed it is and long overdue.
Sweet post.
I love most animals, and the rivalry thing distresses me to death. I have no illusions about any of them, but I still love them much regardless of shortcomings (real, not mythical by haters).
Some dogs, yes. If a cat can be naturally evil (well, that might have been the abuse at a tiny age, who knows) so can a dog.
It’s rare, but there. More common are unstable untrustworthy dogs. Some are just incorrigible. And much more dangerous than a cat, at decent sizes.
Evil implies sin and a conscious choice to commit sin, knowing the difference between good and evil.
Animals cannot sin.
They suffer the effects of a fallen world but they do not and can not sin, nor can they be “evil”.
Evil is a choice reserved solely for humans.
[although a cat joyously, slowly and meticulously dismembering some small animal could be said to offer a fair imitation of ‘evil’]
Semantics.
When I saw that cat behave the way she did, there is no better word than “evil”. Luckily she wasn’t constantly attacking, though.
As far as the silly mouse-playing thing, now you are projecting your morality on the natural behavior of an animal, and I doubt cats are the only ones. Not that I really care, either. None involved is human.
True. And cats will also just sit and lick their paws as the sneaky housebreaker duct-tapes you to the chair and takes the box cutter to your wife and kids.
Nice. You convinced me. Yeah, let's get a cat.
;-\
Huskies are generally reserved in terms of barking at anything within their field of vision.
And neither dog nor cat can fire a gun.
I really don’t think you should be throwing any “projecting morality” stones.
I find your ‘semantics’ interesting.
“The silly mouse-playing thing”??
Silly?
The cat tortures in jest but the mouse suffers in earnest.
Animals are amoral creatures.
They cannot sin.
They cannot commit acts of evil.
Anthropomorphizing them is wrong.
True. That's why cops love to shoot 'em... they can't shoot back. Which is why I shoot every cop dog I see. Payback is a real sumbitch.
;-\
I do, too. I guess some folks get a little carried away, but devotion is a good thing, believe me.
Heh. Some real characters at our house. I wouldn’t take a million bucks for any one of them. (not kidding)
So true. And give me a rabid cat over a sane mad rottie or pit bull.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.