Comic Strips

12944 readers

4288 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lawrence

1539

"Outdoor Cat vs Indoor Cat" by Sarah Andersen (lemm.ee)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/comicstrips

381 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: Website - RSS

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 13esq 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 10 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.

[–] 13esq 1 points 10 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 10 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.