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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.