Why is there such a pathological hatred of cats in Irish society?

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But...



Take this for example:



Obviously this religious nut-job has a little evolving to do and this is evidenced by the opinions he holds.

Have I convinced you that some people can appear more evolved than others by the opinions they hold?

No. Short answer..


Am I more evolved than the depressed person I seen yesterday? Or the person who has physically or sexually assualted a minor? Even taking your example of religion; because I do not believe in a god am I more evolved?

Chuck Stone

Odysseus wrote: »

Am I more evolved than the depressed person I seen yesterday?

No. That's a fairly bizarre notion tbh.

Or the person who has physically or sexually assualted a minor?

I would say that a society that has formally agreed that sexually abusing minors is wrong is a more evolved one that hasn't, certainly.

Even taking your example of religion; because I do not believe in a god am I more evolved?

A passive personal belief in God? Probably not.

Saying God is punishing people by sending hurricanes their way? Burning witches etc? Absolfeckinlutely.

OldNotWIse

charlietheminxx wrote: »

What an absolutely despicable stereotype of people who like cats! Do you really believe that? I'm shocked and mildly horrified

The sign says dont feed the trolls :)I have cats...and I'm lovely (ask my friends) There goes that theory.While we're generalising though, the people I dont really like tend to be non-cat (or sometimes non-animal) people...

OldNotWIse

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Frankly, I think that the fact that cats don't bug you for constant attention to be their only redeeming characteristic. Other than that they are just nasty, full stop. They uncannily show up at meal time, take over places and spots around the house and pointlessly, needlessly and stupidly snap at the hand that's literally feeding them.

But to be honest, it's not cats I have my beef with - it's cat lovers. A lot of the people I know own a cat or are cat-lovers in general and almost all these people seem nice upfront, only for you to later discover them to be deceptive, selfish compulsive liars. Just like a cat, they'll only appear when there's some gain in it. They also seem to masochistically enjoy being abused by the little critter: they might be just sitting on the couch with the cat sleeping in their lap and all of a sudden it just snaps and bites or scratches them, and they laugh it off. They essentially live commandeered by the cat's needs and seem not only to like it, but to enjoy it; They treat their pet as if it was a small furry person - I honestly think there is a LOT wrong in that.

Another despicable characteristic of the average cat lover is their complete, total, utter disregard and disrespect for other people, starting with their neighbors. They will let their cats roam all day and all night (only to cry when it inevitably ends up run over by a car) brushing off complaints and notices with "you can't tell me what to do with my cat". Well, if your cat ruins half the block's gardens, I might actually want to have a word with you. Keep them indoors, it's better for them too - they're very ill equipped to survive an urban environment.

Also, the argument about cats being "clean". Sure, tomorrow morning I'll lick myself over and go to the office, I'll see how happy the others will be. Spare the "cats saliva is cleansing!" argument, doesn't work. Just accept that your kitty is actually a little ball of germs; When he/she jumps on the kitchen counter or the bed, he/she's been walking everywhere with those little paws, and most importantly, been burying and rolling their own poo with them; therefore, they're putting poo on your bed, kitchen and ultimately - food. So nice.

So if you like your cat(s), good for you. I tend to ignore them whenever they are around, I know I WILL snap back at them if they do their cat thing and bite/scratch me, and I'm a 100+ kg brute while the kitty is a 2kg furball, I would feel very bad if I hurt it. Just be a civilized person and don't try to impose your cat love on others, keep them indoors and don't pretend they are people - they aren't.

PS. I'm not Irish. Come from Italy and I can assure the situation is the same everywhere in western countries, it's not an "Irish thing".

Aw...poor lickle bubba wubba is afraid of the kitties

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. That's a fairly bizarre notion tbh.



I would say that a society that has formally agreed that sexually abusing minors is wrong is a more evolved one that hasn't, certainly.



A passive personal belief in God? Probably not.

Saying God is punishing people by sending hurricanes their way? Burning witches etc? Absolfeckinlutely.

So I'm more evolved than someone who is attracted to minors, but it won't apply to depressives? Maybe those with a psychotic disorder? Certainly if there are religous delusions present.

I don't know, are there any papers to back up this type of evolution? It seems to differ from Mr Darwins concept.

Just seems like a smug attempt to put people down because they do not concur with others opinions.

charlietheminxx

This has gone wayyyy off topic to the point of philosophy.The fact is cats are living creatures, some people like them, some people don't. It's fine if you don't like them, but mistreating an animal because you aren't fond of them as a species is sick and should never be acceptable.

Chuck Stone

Odysseus wrote: »

So I'm more evolved than someone who is attracted to minors,

A society that deems child molestation as deviant/criminal is more evolved than one that permits it. Certainly.

but it won't apply to depressives? Maybe those with a psychotic disorder? Certainly if there are religous delusions present.

I'm not sure where you're going with this tbh. These are complex personal conditions that have little bearing on the discussion. I'm not sure why you're try to shoe-horn this into the discussion.

I don't know, are there any papers to back up this type of evolution?

It's axiomatic - there's nothing to investigate.

Just seems like a smug attempt to put people down because they do not concur with others opinions.

Well in all honesty if I have a conversation that goes like this:

I hate cats.

Why?

I dunno they're sneaky ****ers.

Oh come on. Cats don't have the cognitive capacity to be sneaky. I think you might be mixing up stealthy with sneaky.

Well I just hate them because... just. Leave me alone I have to lick the window.

Okay bro (*thinks* this guy is a little dim)

looksee

Admit I haven't read all 65 pages of cat love/hate, but has anyone asked about the accuracy of the basic premise?

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A society that deems child molestation as deviant/criminal is more evolved than one that permits it. Certainly.



I'm not sure where you're going with this tbh. These are complex personal conditions that have little bearing on the discussion. I'm not sure why you're try to shoe-horn this into the discussion.



It's axiomatic - there's nothing to investigate.



Well in all honesty if I have a conversation that goes like this:

I hate cats.

Why?

I dunno they're sneaky ****ers.

Oh come on. Cats don't have the cognitive capacity to be sneaky. I think you might be mixing up stealthy with sneaky.

Well I just hate them because... just. Leave me alone I have to lick the window.

Okay bro (*thinks* this guy is a little dim)

What I am saying is if that person can be more evolved than others here because of where they position cats, surely with more complex entities this evolution would be present.

I am not evolved any more than any of the people I have mentioned and it would false for me to make that claim.

I would not see idea as self-evident or unquestionable; so I could agree with it being axiomatic. I would say it is more an abuse of the term to try make that statement.

Am I more evolved because I keep a bearded dragon as a pet and give it the freedom to roam my house? People say similar things about reptiles, can't see it making me more evolved as a person.

H3llR4iser

charlietheminxx wrote: »

No, I don't believe in animal cruelty so I wouldn't lock my cat up all the time. If you would care to read back a few pages, you will be able to see the ongoing debate about personal responsibility for animal care and where I stand on that. I would quote it to make it more convenient, but hey, I'm just too darn selfish..... I've owned my cat since he was a rescue kitten, 9 years ago, and he neither bites nor scratches me. He's also incredibly gentle with my special needs sister, and gets on ok with the dog. If people don't like cats, that's their own business, but I absolutely hate when people make weak arguments and sweeping sterotypes.

I read it, and I think it is absolutely a classic; Unless your cat is equipped with a remote camera you have no idea whatsoever what he is doing when it's out, yet you are ready to swear it is "well behaved". If any, this is an incredibly weak argument and perfectly fitting within the "sweeping stereotype".

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Aw...poor lickle bubba wubba is afraid of the kitties

Sure. If you don't like the things, you must be afraid of them (they super purry powers are scary indeed!); If you don't love them, you must be an emotionally insecure person that can't stand the cat's independence.

Chuck Stone

Odysseus wrote: »

What I am saying is if that person can be more evolved than others here because of where they position cats, surely with more complex entities this evolution would be present.

I think the original sentiment by Greentopia has been somewhat lost.

Greentopia wrote: »

there seems to be a sizeable section of Irish society who haven't progressed far beyond the small minded, wilfully ignorant and primitive bogger attitudes of their forefathers in relation to animal welfare, particularly regarding cats.

We're talking about attitudes rather than Darwinian evolution. I'd hazard a guess that many people who grow up in a culture of cat hatred absorb these attitudes and carry them with them.

I would say it is more an abuse of the term to try make that statement.

You're not going to have a study on whether a society that engages in, say, cannibalism is less evolved than one who regards it as barbaric. Cannibalism is simply barbaric; there is no need for it to be proved, that is self-evident.

Am I more evolved because I keep a bearded dragon as a pet and give it the freedom to roam my house?

Nope. But if someone said to you 'ew - reptiles. Reptiles are disgusting creatures, I hate them'

I suspect you might think they're a bit dim.

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think the original sentiment by Greentopia has been somewhat lost.



We're talking about attitudes rather than Darwinian evolution. I'd hazard a guess that many people who grow up in a culture of cat hatred absorb these attitudes and carry them with them.



You're not going to have a study on whether a society that engages in, say, cannibalism is less evolved than one who regards it as barbaric. Cannibalism is simply barbaric; there is no need for it to be proved, that is self-evident.



Nope. But if someone said to you 'ew - reptiles. Reptiles are disgusting creatures, I hate them'

I suspect you might think they're a bit dim.

No I would not, it is just their opinion; I disagree with them but I could not judge myself to be more evolved than them, because I allow Cordelia to roam around my house.

I see people in work who do nasty things and people who hold unusal statements I would never see them as dim. Hence my point about this seeming like a smug attempt to seem better than those who did not concur with the posters statement.

The original statement has not been lost, every post I have made was with that statement in mind.

ancapailldorcha

looksee wrote: »

Admit I haven't read all 65 pages of cat love/hate, but has anyone asked about the accuracy of the basic premise?

Yeah, there was some stuff about cat owners having a duty to keep their pets inside and off other people's property.

Reindeer

loveisdivine wrote: »

I think a lot of people dislike cats because they arent needy enough. As if its independence means its nasty and sly. Basically most people only like animals that rely on them, they want to feel needed.

I've seen this statement before. You can ask anyone whose cat hasn't returned to them after being let out how much a cat relies on them. I've also seen the dog version which goes something like "Dogs take too much effort - cats are for people too lazy to own a real pet or commit to it's welfare", etc.
And I guess now one could say "at least dogs don't put bugs in your brains to make you like them"

It takes different types. I don't know whether there is real entrenched hatred of cats in Ireland or elsewhere, but I do know it takes all kinds. Though scientists have shown that dogs have evolved along side us and have learn better to interact with humans to obtain mutual goals, this only explains why some humans might be more favorable towards dogs. It doesn't necessarily mean some folks might automatically dislike cats.

flogging a dead horse

I saw a photo of a cat befriending a rat.
However do cats prey on such vermin as predators.
ie: Did cats become popular and domesticated in the years after the 'Great Plague'?

af_thefragile

How can anyone hate this wee fella?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSbC09qgLI

DEFTLEFTHAND

flogging a dead horse wrote: »

I saw a photo of a cat befriending a rat.
However do cats prey on such vermin as predators.
ie: Did cats become popular and domesticated in the years after the 'Great Plague'?

Doesn't the record of the domestication of cats go back to ancient Egyptian times?

flogging a dead horse

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Doesn't the record of the domestication of cats go back to ancient Egyptian times?

Indeed I think on such Phyrogliphics were images of cats and maybe cat-like God's.

Run_to_da_hills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Otc_T3u1uY