A $500 Cat Scratching Post

[Planet Boulder]

Hey what a coincidence. The United Nations, Central bankers as well as that kissinger dude that never ages views us humans the same way. http://www.policestateplanning.com/chapter_14_.htm

Well, considering the fact that enough dimwits watched "Saved by the Bell" for it to remain on the air for several years, I'm almost inclined to think that such population control might not be such a bad thing!

 

[BassTerd]

Well, considering the fact that enough dimwits watched "Saved by the Bell" for it to remain on the air for several years, I'm almost inclined to think that such population control might not be such a bad thing!

LOL!!

 

[Pneuma]

With all due respect:

- Neutering and spaying are avidly promoted by animal welfare advocacy organizations in order to control overpopulation. Overpopulation results in an increase in homeless cats, aka, starving cats. While you could argue that neutering is not necessarily for the specific cat's benefit, I would submit that it is more for the benefit of the cats that might otherwise go homeless, hungry and even killed on the streets.

Again, you're harming your cat. Reasons are reasons, but you're still doing it. So you're "helping the whole." Reason is cause you don't want to deal with the problems. Either way, the cat pays the price so you can have an easier time of it. Why should I care what animal welfare agencies want to do? It's my furniture that's getting destroyed. The alternatives are to destroy the animal, or make it just like the other homeless, aka, starving cats.

- As for the negative effects of declawing, I would recommend reading the information posted on *snip* is a page which addresses the effects of neutering vs. the effects of declawing.

Read the pages. Problem is that they are wrong are worst, and skewed in perception at best. They list no harmful side effects (physically or physcologically) for spaying and neutering, which is just false. They portray declawed cats as maimed cripples, which is also false. My friend has a declawed cat, it hasn't been affected poorly at all. He doesn't limp. He walks just like he always did. He can do everything he used to be able to do in the house. He's also been castrated (he was spraying), after which he started to get fat and lazy. Sure, he can't climb trees anymore, but he doesn't live outside. Maybe he can't catch mice as well, but that's more of my friend's problem than the cat's.

People can make up any reasons they want to make themselves feel better about spaying and neutering or declawing, that's fine. I've got no problem with it. But both are purely matters of our own convenience. A lot of animals don't receive any pain medication for neutering. A lot of animals get killed so I can have bacon cheeseburgers.

P.

 

[Planet Boulder]

Again, you're harming your cat. Reasons are reasons, but you're still doing it. So you're "helping the whole." Reason is cause you don't want to deal with the problems. Either way, the cat pays the price so you can have an easier time of it. Why should I care what animal welfare agencies want to do? It's my furniture that's getting destroyed. The alternatives are to destroy the animal, or make it just like the other homeless, aka, starving cats.

I would submit that the reason isn't that we don't "want" to deal with the issue, rather, that we can't effectively deal with the issue. To me, that illustrates the difference between convenient and necessary measures.

My point in citing animal welfare agencies' support is to illustrate the fact that, contrary to what you may believe, the idea of spaying or neutering is supported by organizations which have animals' best interests in mind. Whether or not you have a problem with your furniture is another issue - I'm specifically countering your argument regarding the motives behind spaying/neuterng vs. those behind declawing.

Read the pages. Problem is that they are wrong are worst, and skewed in perception at best. They list no harmful side effects (physically or physcologically) for spaying and neutering, which is just false. They portray declawed cats as maimed cripples, which is also false. My friend has a declawed cat, it hasn't been affected poorly at all. He doesn't limp. He walks just like he always did. He can do everything he used to be able to do in the house. He's also been castrated (he was spraying), after which he started to get fat and lazy. Sure, he can't climb trees anymore, but he doesn't live outside. Maybe he can't catch mice as well, but that's more of my friend's problem than the cat's.

So are you basing your opinion on one incident? I could offer personal situations in which I've encountered NUMEROUS cats that have been de-clawed, causing them to suffer ill effects. In the end, I suppose it's what you want to believe. I offered those links as means of substantiating my point. Do you have any supportive data to offer other than your observations regarding one friend's cat?

People can make up any reasons they want to make themselves feel better about spaying and neutering or declawing, that's fine. I've got no problem with it. But both are purely matters of our own convenience. A lot of animals don't receive any pain medication for neutering. A lot of animals get killed so I can have bacon cheeseburgers.
P.

People can also "make up" reasons to support any point they wish to make - it's called rationalization. Rather than "making up reasons", I offered credible links, which you chose to attempt to discredit.

Note that I'm not flaming you - I don't think we are going to agree on this point, frankly, and I'm fine with that.

 

[excane]

Replace cat with dog.

+1 Or get some tropical fish. They can't really destroy anything.

 

[Pneuma]

I would submit that the reason isn't that we don't "want" to deal with the issue, rather, that we can't effectively deal with the issue. To me, that illustrates the difference between convenient and necessary measures.

And all I'm pointing out is that it makes no difference what your reason, the end result is the same. As far as "can't" goes, I disagree. We just don't like the fact that the solution is a lot of dead cats. We control deer and fish populations easily enough.

My point in citing animal welfare agencies' support is to illustrate the fact that, contrary to what you may believe, the idea of spaying or neutering is supported by organizations which have animals' best interests in mind. Whether or not you have a problem with your furniture is another issue - I'm specifically countering your argument regarding the motives behind spaying/neuterng vs. those behind declawing.

I never said they didn't support neutering. That's specifically why I brought it up, because I knew they did support it (I've seen the Price is Right enough).

So are you basing your opinion on one incident? I could offer personal situations in which I've encountered NUMEROUS cats that have been de-clawed, causing them to suffer ill effects. In the end, I suppose it's what you want to believe. I offered those links as means of substantiating my point. Do you have any supportive data to offer other than your observations regarding one friend's cat?

Observations are data. Do I need to cite references on what neutering can do to counter what you posted? It's fairly well known, and yet those links just foo-fooed it. I really didn't think it was necessary. I posted anecdotal evidence because it was an easy way to demonstrate my position. I feel that the situation is clear enough that I don't need to scour the internet for support, which I would have to do, since this isn't something that I have referenced for easy retreval.

People can also "make up" reasons to support any point they wish to make - it's called rationalization. Rather than "making up reasons", I offered credible links, which you chose to attempt to discredit.

So, other people's made up reasons (rationalizations) are more valid because they put them on the internet? I mean, what makes those links any better than what I've said? It's just people bantering on about what they think is right. I just disagree.

Note that I'm not flaming you - I don't think we are going to agree on this point, frankly, and I'm fine with that.

No, I know you're not flaming. I just don't see the reason in hassling people about how they are mistreating their animals when it's very acceptable to do so if it's sterilization. It's hypocrisy (imo). I doubt seriously that cats enjoy either practice, and I don't see one as better than the other. It's just one of the things we do so that we don't have to deal with the problems that animals can create.

And yes, I'm fine also with agreeing to disagree. And I appologize for any spelling infractions that have occurred during this post. I've been a bit sloppy.

P.

 

[Planet Boulder]

Pneuma - fair enough. We shall agree to disagree.

 

[bongomania]

Speaking as both a cat-lover and a Spock-like engineer, I would say that Pneuma's arguments are based on logic and Planet B's are based on emotion. I would never ever declaw my cats, but only because it "seems wrong" on an emotional level.

 

[Yell03SpecV]

Pok fly ly. Mmmm, cat.

 

[Jim Carr]

A lot of animals don't receive any pain medication for neutering. A lot of animals get killed so I can have bacon cheeseburgers.

I doubt this is true for cats and dogs neutered by Licensed Vets in the USA.
What is your source for this statement? Thanks.

 

[Pneuma]

I doubt this is true for cats and dogs neutered by Licensed Vets in the USA.
What is your source for this statement? Thanks.

Have you ever seen how pigs are neutered? And no, I'm not talking about banding, although that is sometimes used on livestock. So, again, I'm the source on that statement.

P.