this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
1537 points (96.8% liked)

Comic Strips

12611 readers
2849 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I live in the UK where there are an estimated 10.8 million cats and have literally never seen "a dead cat on the side of the road". I appreciate that it is a real risk and that it does happen, but you're either blowing things out of proportion or there is something weird going on with Finnish cats and or Finnish drivers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Found this

230,000 CATS IN THE UK ARE RUN OVER EVERY YEAR!

Statistically only 25% of road traffic accidents involving cats are fatal, so the chances are good the cat can survive with urgent care - instead of being left to suffer a painful death.

https://www.cats.org.uk/teignbridge/news/animal-road-accident-awareness-day

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

230,000÷10,800,000÷4x100%≈0.5%

If I had to personally take that risk or stay in the house for the rest of my life. I'd choose freedom every time.

What's really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was just showing you that there's a lot of cats dying from accidents with cars. A lot more getting injured from it. And it's just one hazard of many. That's why it's not seen as responsible pet ownership (and not legal) where I live to let them roam without supervision. Could get hit by a car and suffer horribly from it without you being able to do anything about it, which would be horrific.

What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?

I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you're supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It's like with kids. Once you've made the decision to get one you're responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You're the one who is responsible for their well-being.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we're going to get philosophical, is there truly such a thing as an unselfish act?

So you wouldn't let a kid ever do anything that had any sort of risk at all? Do you know how many children die in RTAs each year? Would you stop your child from ever walking down the street or being in a car or bus?

If not, why is it ok to put your own child at risk of an RTA but not a cat?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We don't have to get philosophical. It's just that here you're not supposed to let cats roam freely without supervision because there's a fair risk of injury, disease or death and if those happen you might not be in position to help. So it would be irresponsible pet ownership to put them under unnecessary risk.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You're going to ignore the challenge that it's ok for kids to be near roads and in vehicles on roads but too risky to let a cat out?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Uhhh I wouldn't let either roam freely and unsupervised? Seems like the obvious answer to me. Leaving your small child without supervision is guaranteed to get child services called on your. It'd be irresponsible as fuck.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You're not debating in good faith.

78 children died on the roads in the UK last year. Presumably most of them were supervised at the time.

I'm making the argument that if safety is your only priority that you would never allow a child anywhere near a road, nor would you ever let them travel in a vehicle on the roads. Please understand that I'm not talking about supervision, I'm making the argument that you can guarantee that your child will not die in a road traffic accident if you refuse to ever let them leave the house.

There is a balance to make between safety and freedom that you are being willfully ignorant of.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're not debating in good faith.

You right now are claiming the stance that responsible pet ownership or responsible parenthood or in this case not allowing a cat or a small child to roam freely without supervision means you shouldn't allow them to do anything. And that's not what it is about.

You don't allow either of them to freely roam without supervision because you're unnecessarily putting them in danger of injury, disease or death.

If you want to get a cat, a safer way to satiate their curiosity and need of activity would be to spend time with them, give them activities and walk them outside. Not leaving them for their own and hope they'll be fine. That'd be considered neglectful here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're still not understanding or being willfully ignorant of the point I'm making.

If your kid never leaves the house then they will not die in a road traffic accident. I can't put it more simply than that.

I'm not talking about constant supervision.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

You are correct in that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. This is what I originally said about kids

I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you’re supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It’s like with kids. Once you’ve made the decision to get one you’re responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You’re the one who is responsible for their well-being.

You are responsible for their well being. You wouldn't let a small child roam freely outside without supervision. That would be irresponsible. It's the same with a cat.

If your kid never leaves the house then they will not die in a road traffic accident. I can’t put it more simply than that.

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion or the point about kids. I wasn't talking about never leaving the house. I talked about roaming around freely without supervision.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you speak cat? Can you confirm verbally that your cat understands road safety?

Where are your parents? Children shouldnt be a part of this discussion

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh fuck off. I really can't be bothered to argue with someone so willfully ignorant of the point I'm making.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The point youre making is brainless shit, if you think a child is of equivalent risk as a cat to a car.

Did you think that through for even a second? I can tell a young child "hold my hand and stay out of the road." The child understands that, and I know the degree to which the child will listen to me.

The fuck do you do with a cat? Are you meowing at it? It doesnr speak, its not human.

Dont get pissy just because your point turns to mush at a lazy flick of water.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you want someone to engage you in debate, you should probably attempt a more personable writing style. Until then, have a lovely life!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I dont want you engaging anyone, I want you to be a responsible pet owner.

But you made it clear you cant take care of children, let alone pets, so at this point Id prefer you had a caretaker.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Wheres your mom? This is a convo for grown ups who understand pet ownership