Why can't I kill cats?

Gigglesnort · August 2014

I lost vision in one eye because of a cat at the age of four, I say hunt them all down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn2Sa5UGxK8

Tremulous · August 2014

pitdemon_ESO · August 2014

I support the cat eradication movement. The only reason cats don't eat us is because we're bigger than them, and some of us occasionally feed them.

Also, it really creeps me out that cats eat your face first (specifically the nose) when they're locked up with a dead person. I had a girlfriend who had a cat and it would occasionally nip me in the nose when it wanted to be fed and let out in the morning.
Now I know it was just testing to make sure I wasn't dead

yiasemi · August 2014

This one is thinking, it is threads like this that show one who is capable of thinking in the abstract 1st/3rd person singular and who is probably showing signs of being doubly blessed by Sheggorath and Sithis. This one is thinking that these sad individuals are one moon short of a full compliment and either Jode or Jone would make a good place for these people to interact, as it is far enough away from the rest of us. In the mean time, this one will continue to smile in the most friendly way, while cleaning one's whiskers with the thinnest of Akiviri blades...

seaef · August 2014

yiasemi wrote: »

This one is thinking, it is threads like this that show one who is capable of thinking in the abstract 1st/3rd person singular and who is probably showing signs of being doubly blessed by Sheggorath and Sithis. This one is thinking that these sad individuals are one moon short of a full compliment and either Jode or Jone would make a good place for these people to interact, as it is far enough away from the rest of us. In the mean time, this one will continue to smile in the most friendly way, while cleaning one's whiskers with the thinnest of Akiviri blades...

Too much catnip there Tabby, too much catnip...

pitdemon_ESO · August 2014

yiasemi wrote: »

This one is thinking, it is threads like this that show one who is capable of thinking in the abstract 1st/3rd person singular and who is probably showing signs of being doubly blessed by Sheggorath and Sithis. This one is thinking that these sad individuals are one moon short of a full compliment and either Jode or Jone would make a good place for these people to interact, as it is far enough away from the rest of us. In the mean time, this one will continue to smile in the most friendly way, while cleaning one's whiskers with the thinnest of Akiviri blades...

I don't think that Khajit roleplay is the best vehicle for questioning another person's sanity man

AlexDougherty · August 2014

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

Raash wrote: »

you are confusing your points. You are saying on one hand that animals are factually inferior to humans, and on another hand that they are treated as such and that that will eventually improve. I am saying that animals are not factually inferior to humans regardless of societal perception or treatment, the same as any human. Just because society treats an individual, human or animal, as inferior, as property, as a tool for their amusement, whatever, does not mean that creature is in fact inferior. It means they are under the yoke of an oppressor. The oppressor is not in the right just because he happens to be in a society that approves of or condones his actions.

If you call me a dog your intent is to be insulting. So I will take it as an insult. There are situations in which you could call me a dog, and it would not be insulting. As with all things it is relative to context. We use dog or b-tch as a derogatory term, therefore, it is irrelevant whether I actually percieve dogs as inferior or "bad".

No, i think ive been pretty straight forward with what I think and believe in on a personal level and how the IRL world deals with animals and humans are equals or not.
I say that they are not equal and probably never will be. And that thats how the world works regardless of individuals as you or myself might think otherwise in our daily lives, unless of coarse the big miracle happens and majority of world population will start look at animals with other eyes other then as of food, tools or amusement.
You keep drawing this to a personal level referring to what seems to be a big thing for you, how I "perceive" things. There are numbers of religions/stand points/free thinkers out there wich provide different views and aspects on the matter. Wich beliefs is the true and right ones? Yours? Mine?
There is a pretty big difference between how an individual see something and how the general public in the world does.

And about the dog thing, it is my firm belief that people wouldnt be offended by something he/she see as equal to ones self, regardless of the intended way.
"You [snip] equal!", right?

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

I'm curious what the curseword was.

You are arguing two different points.

1) animals are fundamentally unequal to humans. they are inferior. As an opinion or fact.

Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans, name one animal species other than humans which builds cities, or vehicles, or medicine.

Until they can do that, without being trained by humans (other members of the same species is ok though), they will never be our equals.

<cut to avoid politics>

why does that make them inferior? All I see is a lot of environmental damage and murdering each other for power. I think your gauge of worth is different from mine.

Is a human's intellect or capacity to learn a measure of their value then? Are people who are less capable inferior as such?

I'm not going to comment on humans who are not at that level, because it's a vastly complicated subject.

But yes, animals can't learn properly, can't change their environment as we can, they may be nicer, but are lesser. If they could do as we do, then they would be equals.

NerfEverything · August 2014

I support killing cats

Royalroacho · August 2014

AlexDougherty wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

Raash wrote: »

you are confusing your points. You are saying on one hand that animals are factually inferior to humans, and on another hand that they are treated as such and that that will eventually improve. I am saying that animals are not factually inferior to humans regardless of societal perception or treatment, the same as any human. Just because society treats an individual, human or animal, as inferior, as property, as a tool for their amusement, whatever, does not mean that creature is in fact inferior. It means they are under the yoke of an oppressor. The oppressor is not in the right just because he happens to be in a society that approves of or condones his actions.

If you call me a dog your intent is to be insulting. So I will take it as an insult. There are situations in which you could call me a dog, and it would not be insulting. As with all things it is relative to context. We use dog or b-tch as a derogatory term, therefore, it is irrelevant whether I actually percieve dogs as inferior or "bad".

No, i think ive been pretty straight forward with what I think and believe in on a personal level and how the IRL world deals with animals and humans are equals or not.
I say that they are not equal and probably never will be. And that thats how the world works regardless of individuals as you or myself might think otherwise in our daily lives, unless of coarse the big miracle happens and majority of world population will start look at animals with other eyes other then as of food, tools or amusement.
You keep drawing this to a personal level referring to what seems to be a big thing for you, how I "perceive" things. There are numbers of religions/stand points/free thinkers out there wich provide different views and aspects on the matter. Wich beliefs is the true and right ones? Yours? Mine?
There is a pretty big difference between how an individual see something and how the general public in the world does.

And about the dog thing, it is my firm belief that people wouldnt be offended by something he/she see as equal to ones self, regardless of the intended way.
"You [snip] equal!", right?

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

I'm curious what the curseword was.

You are arguing two different points.

1) animals are fundamentally unequal to humans. they are inferior. As an opinion or fact.

Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans, name one animal species other than humans which builds cities, or vehicles, or medicine.

Until they can do that, without being trained by humans (other members of the same species is ok though), they will never be our equals.

<cut to avoid politics>

why does that make them inferior? All I see is a lot of environmental damage and murdering each other for power. I think your gauge of worth is different from mine.

Is a human's intellect or capacity to learn a measure of their value then? Are people who are less capable inferior as such?

I'm not going to comment on humans who are not at that level, because it's a vastly complicated subject.

But yes, animals can't learn properly, can't change their environment as we can, they may be nicer, but are lesser. If they could do as we do, then they would be equals.

I think they have a capacity to learn that suits their evolutionary strategy, just like us. As far as being lesser cuz they cant do as we do, they dont need to, just like we dont need to do as they do. I spent a month camping out in Ocala national forest is florida a few years ago. I didnt bring a gun, or any tool that I theoretically couldnt make, cuz I wanted to "pit myself against nature" or something, and see where I stood. I never saw the cougar, but found its tracks around my camp some mornings.I was also lucky the bears seemed pretty indifferent. Alligators are pretty lazy, but potentially terrifying. That cat, though...if it got really hungry, i woulda been ***. I didnt feel very superior to them at all...

Venereous44 · August 2014

It should be factored into the justice system then... as I support the killing of cat killers. Also, the cat should be able to fight back... a percentage of them should be diseased so that if they get off a successful hit there is a roll for infection.

AlexDougherty · August 2014

Nevermind, this one was too political, and would have gotten me into trouble.

SirAndy · August 2014

What i really want to shoot is those damn annoying player dog pets ...
;-)

Araflin · August 2014

"AlexDougherty wrote: »

..., can't change their environment as we can, ...

Have you ever been in a room with a "just used" litter-tray? THAT changes the environment!

Araflin · August 2014

Venereous44 wrote: »

It should be factored into the justice system then... as I support the killing of cat killers. Also, the cat should be able to fight back... a percentage of them should be diseased so that if they get off a successful hit there is a roll for infection.

No precedent in game. Frogs, rats, lizards, and monkeys etc. do not. So, unless there is consistency over all why should one or a few critters get "special" treatment?

All for including dogs, seagulls, and parrots into the targetable category too.
Precedent IS there for certain animals that are involved in quests to be exempt (as many NPC's are) - just not the majority of them.

Venereous44 · August 2014

Araflin wrote: »

Venereous44 wrote: »

It should be factored into the justice system then... as I support the killing of cat killers. Also, the cat should be able to fight back... a percentage of them should be diseased so that if they get off a successful hit there is a roll for infection.

No precedent in game. Frogs, rats, lizards, and monkeys etc. do not. So, unless there is consistency over all why should one or a few critters get "special" treatment?

All for including dogs, seagulls, and parrots into the targetable category too.
Precedent IS there for certain animals that are involved in quests to be exempt (as many NPC's are) - just not the majority of them.

So now we're asking for precedent for something that doesn't exist yet? The whole justice concept is obviously based on moral judgements... pets would be an easy transition based on the feed back I'm seeing. It could be seen as filler to the justice system.

Say, killing a dog or cat in town = 10% penalty of killing humanoid NPC.

SirAndy · August 2014

And since we're on the subject, how about being able to kill Snooks???
forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/118840/ad-quest-should-snooks-the-blue-frog-be-killable/p1

Araflin · August 2014

Sorry @Venereous44, As you started the second sentence with, "Also" I took it be mean the "disease spreading" proposal was general and NOT part of Justice.
I agree if it is an OWNED pet (by an NPC) and someone sees me kill it - yes, a fine would be in order. I'm not just saying pets though - I am pointing to many of the critters in game being untargetable and asking why there is this inequality. Increase this fine if near Khajiit cities, the offence would be far greater in their eyes.

In addition, precedent comes from the current game. I did say, "Unless there is consistency". Thereby implying with a new system this could be implemented. I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · August 2014

Royalroacho wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

Raash wrote: »

you are confusing your points. You are saying on one hand that animals are factually inferior to humans, and on another hand that they are treated as such and that that will eventually improve. I am saying that animals are not factually inferior to humans regardless of societal perception or treatment, the same as any human. Just because society treats an individual, human or animal, as inferior, as property, as a tool for their amusement, whatever, does not mean that creature is in fact inferior. It means they are under the yoke of an oppressor. The oppressor is not in the right just because he happens to be in a society that approves of or condones his actions.

If you call me a dog your intent is to be insulting. So I will take it as an insult. There are situations in which you could call me a dog, and it would not be insulting. As with all things it is relative to context. We use dog or b-tch as a derogatory term, therefore, it is irrelevant whether I actually percieve dogs as inferior or "bad".

No, i think ive been pretty straight forward with what I think and believe in on a personal level and how the IRL world deals with animals and humans are equals or not.
I say that they are not equal and probably never will be. And that thats how the world works regardless of individuals as you or myself might think otherwise in our daily lives, unless of coarse the big miracle happens and majority of world population will start look at animals with other eyes other then as of food, tools or amusement.
You keep drawing this to a personal level referring to what seems to be a big thing for you, how I "perceive" things. There are numbers of religions/stand points/free thinkers out there wich provide different views and aspects on the matter. Wich beliefs is the true and right ones? Yours? Mine?
There is a pretty big difference between how an individual see something and how the general public in the world does.

And about the dog thing, it is my firm belief that people wouldnt be offended by something he/she see as equal to ones self, regardless of the intended way.
"You [snip] equal!", right?

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

I'm curious what the curseword was.

You are arguing two different points.

1) animals are fundamentally unequal to humans. they are inferior. As an opinion or fact.

Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans, name one animal species other than humans which builds cities, or vehicles, or medicine.

Until they can do that, without being trained by humans (other members of the same species is ok though), they will never be our equals.

<cut to avoid politics>

why does that make them inferior? All I see is a lot of environmental damage and murdering each other for power. I think your gauge of worth is different from mine.

Is a human's intellect or capacity to learn a measure of their value then? Are people who are less capable inferior as such?

I'm not going to comment on humans who are not at that level, because it's a vastly complicated subject.

But yes, animals can't learn properly, can't change their environment as we can, they may be nicer, but are lesser. If they could do as we do, then they would be equals.

I think they have a capacity to learn that suits their evolutionary strategy, just like us. As far as being lesser cuz they cant do as we do, they dont need to, just like we dont need to do as they do. I spent a month camping out in Ocala national forest is florida a few years ago. I didnt bring a gun, or any tool that I theoretically couldnt make, cuz I wanted to "pit myself against nature" or something, and see where I stood. I never saw the cougar, but found its tracks around my camp some mornings.I was also lucky the bears seemed pretty indifferent. Alligators are pretty lazy, but potentially terrifying. That cat, though...if it got really hungry, i woulda been ***. I didnt feel very superior to them at all...

His comment, or comment about not commenting, on the developmentally disabled is what has me concerned, but yes, animals, like humans, evolved based on what helped them survive.

Venereous44 · August 2014

yeah, I'm just throwing ideas out there... how about its only illegal in town? I do think the up coming justice system opens a huge amount of possibilities in areas like this that generates a passionate argument.

i just thought the infection idea was neat... maybe apply it to all animals that someone starts battle with... of course it might be moot if all are one shot kill animals.

wookiefriseur · August 2014

Now that the thread seems to go into a constructive direction again I just wanted to add that I support taking house pets and cattle into the justice system.

When the farmer sees you kill his stock or someone sees you kill an owned pet you should get a bounty for that.

Also there should be a higher diversity in NPC owned pets. Some frogs and mini guar need owners too.

However pet killing should not turn into a minigame. The possibility of it should just add to the atmosphere of NPC killability, to make the justice system a bit better.

I wonder if the Morag Tong / Dark Brotherhood take contracts on pets... ^^

Araflin · August 2014

"The enchanter's pet chameleon looked at me funny in the market, last week, all shifty like and sideways. I want it turned into a kebab and sent back to him forthwith! Find it and takes it's life!"

<I can do that for you!>
<Pets cost extra, I like 'em more than people!>
<Goodbye>

cyclonus11 · August 2014

Araflin wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Only if I can kill dogs, too.

"studies have shown that when you die they will eat your face"

This isn't any more or less true than for dogs. Cite your sources.

http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com/dogs-loyal-5718.html

http://news.psu.edu/story/141220/2005/07/05/research/probing-question-does-my-dog-really-love-me

https://www.idexx.com/pdf/en_us/smallanimal/education/bn-research-pet-owner-bond.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/cats-facts-jerks_n_4520552.html

Just 5 minutes googling. The last one is particularly prominent.

oh and...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/science/that-cuddly-kitty-of-yours-is-a-killer.html?_r=0

and...
http://www.cracked.com/article/226_6-adorable-cat-behaviors-with-shockingly-evil-explanations/

and...
http://news.moviefone.com/2009/11/19/science-proves-cats-are-evil/

and..
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32178794/ns/health-pet_health/t/putty-their-paws-why-we-do-what-cats-want/#.U-atP9gcTxM

Unfortunately, none of this shows that a cat will more than likely eat you than a dog. My turn with linky-linky:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/07/would_your_dog_eat_your_dead_body.html

http://felinerambles.blogspot.com/2013/04/cats-and-dogs-will-eat-owners-when.html

http://www.vice.com/read/dogs-love-eating-human-faces

http://sandrarose.com/2013/01/pet-dog-eats-owners-face-after-he-died-dog-put-up-for-adoption/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/dog-eats-owner-head-trapped-apartment-died-article-1.1324057

Royalroacho · August 2014

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Araflin wrote: »

cyclonus11 wrote: »

Only if I can kill dogs, too.

"studies have shown that when you die they will eat your face"

This isn't any more or less true than for dogs. Cite your sources.

http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com/dogs-loyal-5718.html

http://news.psu.edu/story/141220/2005/07/05/research/probing-question-does-my-dog-really-love-me

https://www.idexx.com/pdf/en_us/smallanimal/education/bn-research-pet-owner-bond.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/cats-facts-jerks_n_4520552.html

Just 5 minutes googling. The last one is particularly prominent.

oh and...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/science/that-cuddly-kitty-of-yours-is-a-killer.html?_r=0

and...
http://www.cracked.com/article/226_6-adorable-cat-behaviors-with-shockingly-evil-explanations/

and...
http://news.moviefone.com/2009/11/19/science-proves-cats-are-evil/

and..
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32178794/ns/health-pet_health/t/putty-their-paws-why-we-do-what-cats-want/#.U-atP9gcTxM

Unfortunately, none of this shows that a cat will more than likely eat you than a dog. My turn with linky-linky:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/07/would_your_dog_eat_your_dead_body.html

http://felinerambles.blogspot.com/2013/04/cats-and-dogs-will-eat-owners-when.html

http://www.vice.com/read/dogs-love-eating-human-faces

http://sandrarose.com/2013/01/pet-dog-eats-owners-face-after-he-died-dog-put-up-for-adoption/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/dog-eats-owner-head-trapped-apartment-died-article-1.1324057

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Andes_flight_disaster

Again, not really very different from people.

Araflin · August 2014

OK, I'll admit the actual study I read concerning production of serotonin and oxytocin produced by small children, dogs, and cats when interacting with adult humans I could not find to quote. My failure there, but I will keep looking.

I did, therefore, link several related - most of which are intended humorously. If I could also draw your attention to the original post's tone, the mention of dogs also doing it, and concluding with "It's all good" (Giving the reader, I hoped, a sense that section of the post was erroneous to the overall discussion and not to be taken too literally).

I'll now go read your contributed links. Thank you.

It still doesn't address the issue as to why cats (and dogs, seagulls, parrots) get a free pass when other animals are targetable.

cyclonus11 · August 2014

In all honesty, who really cares if your pet eats you when you die (dog or cat)? I, for one, have no issue if my pet ate my corpse if I died. I'm not in there anymore, so it's not like I would care. Plus, my beloved pet wouldn't starve.

Royalroacho · August 2014

cyclonus11 wrote: »

In all honesty, who really cares if your pet eats you when you die (dog or cat)? I, for one, have no issue if my pet ate my corpse if I died. I'm not in there anymore, so it's not like I would care. Plus, my beloved pet wouldn't starve.

Personally, what happens to my body is VERY important to me. If my cat eats me, I wont be able have it posed, encased in a layer of acrylic, and buried up to the waist next to my tombstone that will function as a motion detector and sound system that sez "BRAINS!!!" When someone comes within 2 meters.
But it's ok if she eats a little.
"Mommy, can we go put flowers on daddy's grave?"
"NO."

Dayel · August 2014

If my cats are trapped with my dead corpse without access to food, I certainly hope they have the good judgment to munch on me while waiting for rescue. They would be in the relative position of the Andes survivors and we know how that played out.

Just realized most of you are too young to remember that incident, but oh well....

Venereous44 · August 2014

People don't bat an eyelash if people have to eat dogs or cats in extreme situations (and some not so extreme).. heck people even resort to cannibalism when starving.

So only a moron would hold it against an animal for eating what's available when trapped and starving in a home with no food.

NerfEverything · August 2014

Venereous44 wrote: »

People don't bat an eyelash if people have to eat dogs or cats in extreme situations (and some not so extreme).. heck people even resort to cannibalism when starving.

So only a moron would hold it against an animal for eating what's available when trapped and starving in a home with no food.

Only a moron would defend a cat. Everyone knows cats are jerks.

cyclonus11 · August 2014

NerfEverything wrote: »

Venereous44 wrote: »

People don't bat an eyelash if people have to eat dogs or cats in extreme situations (and some not so extreme).. heck people even resort to cannibalism when starving.

So only a moron would hold it against an animal for eating what's available when trapped and starving in a home with no food.

Only a moron would defend a dog. Everyone knows dogs are delicious.

I want dog meat, like in Skyrim.