this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
1538 points (96.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12582 readers
3652 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In the United States.
Wherever there's birds, it's irresponsible to let cats out. NZ in particular, it's a damn massacre out there.
In the UK, the RSPB determines no negative impacts on bird populations. And the ecosystem is irrecoverably damaged from 3000 years of human impact on a relatively small island. Unlike new colonies like NZ, USA etc.
The UK is losing its wildcat population because of british arrogance about cats.
Youre also bringing in all your local predators into human settlements with the free food that cats become. Foxes love outdoor cats, theyre easy meals. You know what else loves cats? Tires. Smears a cat like jam.
But whats another destroyed ecosystem to the brits? Yall love ruining ecosystems, may as well fill your own backyard with piss.
The wildcats are in Northern Scotland. I'd be OK with the Scots banning outdoor cats.
Foxes like bins, they don't fight back.
I've seen maybe 1 domestic cat hit by a car, I've seen hundreds of hedgehogs, foxes, badgers and deer. That's not an outdoor cat problem.
It's easy to sit on a moral high horse about a country you don't really know anything about. We didn't come to this land 300 years ago. The concept of an intact ecosystem vanished about 1000 years ago. It is a completely different island. The best we can do is keep the last of our wild species ticking over.
Unlike the Americans, who exploited and continue to exploit one of the most beautiful lands in the world, when they should have known better.
The wildcats are now surviving in northern scotland. That was not their original range.
Your lot thought a serial killer was on a cat mutilation spree, for 4 years, only to find out it was a fox that wasnt hiding its kills. So.... No, sorry, you dont actually seem to know the country you live in very well. Foxes eat cats like candy, they just prefer to hide while they eat.
But Im glad cat deaths only count when you see them, Im sure you cover your eyes often.
"Unlike the americans." Lol, ok bud. Because I know from actual formerly british researchers that you take care of your ecosystem as well as well as you take care of your relationship with the mainland.
Okie doke. You're clearly very angry about cats, so much so you managed to miss every point I made, good job.
Your points werent missed, they were just wrong.
But youve made it clear that reality wont stop you killing cats or further ruining your local ecosystem, so farewell to the poor scottish wildcat.
What is different in other places?
In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don't have any serious predators to harm them.
I don't know if Finland is considered native for cats but it's against the law to let cats roam freely because there's a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.
British cats go to cat school as soon as their eyes open so we have very smart cats that can navigate roads.
Sounds like it since nobody seems to be concerned about the cats, just birds.
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.
Found this
https://www.cats.org.uk/teignbridge/news/animal-road-accident-awareness-day
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are correct in that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. This is what I originally said about kids
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.
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.
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
Oh fuck off. I really can't be bothered to argue with someone so willfully ignorant of the point I'm making.
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.
If you want someone to engage you in debate, you should probably attempt a more personable writing style. Until then, have a lovely life!
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.
Wheres your mom? This is a convo for grown ups who understand pet ownership
They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.
That's not true. In Finland it's actually against the law because it's considered irresponsible animal ownership.
USA isn't the only place where there's reason to fear the cat gets hurt, disease or could die.
I’m in total agreement just to be clear
Ah alright. It just felt so weird seeing all the comments about USA being different, so my mind got all jumbled.
I thought it was the same everywhere more or less as well.
That's not what I'm saying. Not only the USA. Other places where domestic cats are very new, like USA, NZ, etc also probably shouldn't do outdoor cats.