Owning cats is not vegan

[teo123]

That is the dumbest shit I have ever heard.

Because you have a hard time imagining that something so cuddly and cute as cats are would murder you if given a chance to? I can see why. People have a hard time imagining just how hypocritical cats can be. When cats curl on their laps and purr themselves to sleep, people also have a hard time imagining cats would kill and eat a mouse if they heard it run near-by.

[teo123]

So, @brimstoneSalad, do you agree with me that cats don't actually love their owners, and would probably kill and eat their owners if given a chance to?

[brimstoneSalad]

So, @brimstoneSalad, do you agree with me that cats don't actually love their owners, and would probably kill and eat their owners if given a chance to?

No, people keep lions and other large cats as pets too -- animals perfectly capable of killing/eating their keepers. Getting killed and eaten happens sometimes, but it's by no means a certainty or even that common. Large cats may be more emotional and social than domesticated cats, but that's the closest example we have and it doesn't support your hypothesis.

I'm not a fan of cats and I don't think people should keep them as pets (I recommend rescued dogs instead), but they are mammals and I have no reason to doubt the overwhelming behavioral evidence that they can and often do form emotional bonds with their owners.

Yes, your cat probably loves you. Probably enough not to kill and eat you if it were possible. But probably not half as much as your dog loves you. A dog probably loves you more after knowing you for a day than your cat will after a lifetime.

Other animals like birds can love their owners. I'm skeptical of most reptiles and fish (some social ones might develop connections, but I don't think any fish people typically keep are large enough -- most people don't have pet groupers). I don't think any insects or arachnids can love.
That said, just because something may not love you back isn't really an excuse to be cruel to the animal, so I'm not sure where the argument is coming from or going.

[teo123]

No, people keep lions and other large cats as pets too -- animals perfectly capable of killing/eating their keepers.

Can you point me to some pet lion who has grown old and who hasn't attacked his or her owner? Lions, as far as I know, attack their owners sooner or later if they are kept as pets.

Yes, your cat probably loves you.

I don't have a cat. My mother has, against my will, about a year ago, bought a dog. I still hate that dog. We argue about it almost every day.
Anyway, if cats indeed love their owners, how come are they known to eat their owner after their owners die? Could it be only because they are finally given a chance to?

That said, just because something may not love you back isn't really an excuse to be cruel to the animal

No, but that's a good reason not to keep an animal as a pet, right?

[brimstoneSalad]

No, people keep lions and other large cats as pets too -- animals perfectly capable of killing/eating their keepers.

Can you point me to some pet lion who has grown old and who hasn't attacked his or her owner? Lions, as far as I know, attack their owners sooner or later if they are kept as pets.

That's an absurd question, why would I have such an accounting? Media only report the mauling, not the boring cases where nothing happened. With years of exposure, it's a rare event. Even in the mauling/death articles they'll often mention how this person had the large cat for five or ten years and how calm and sweet the animal was until he or she snapped.

Either way, stop trying to move the goalposts. Your claim was that they'd do it as soon as they could. Large cats do not just eat their owners as soon as they have the opportunity. If they did, nobody would keep them as pets.

Anyway, if cats indeed love their owners, how come are they known to eat their owner after their owners die?

You'd eat your mother after she died if you were locked in the house with her and no food. Aha! You must just be waiting for the opportunity to pounce!

What an absurd argument.

Could it be only because they are finally given a chance to?

Or it could be aliens sending mind control waves into the cats' brains.
Stop with the wild, unfalsifiable, ad hoc speculation.

The behavioral evidence we have suggests cats often love their owners.

That said, just because something may not love you back isn't really an excuse to be cruel to the animal

No, but that's a good reason not to keep an animal as a pet, right?

I don't think it has any bearing on the decision.
It can actually make a lot more sense to keep animals like certain insects (who can't love you back) because they can eat waste and you don't have to buy them food. Roaches are very versatile.

Questions to ask when considering a pet should be more centered around cost of upkeep, the work you need to do, and whether you can provide a suitable environment so as to not cause the animal suffering.

[teo123]

The behavioral evidence we have suggests cats often love their owners.

And how exactly can that be studied scientifically?
To me it seems like the claims of it being possible to use behavioral evidence in order to determine how animals feel would mostly fall somewhere between the Havlik's Law and the phonosemantic hypotheses on the dregree of being scientific. Like the phonosemantic hypotheses, the certainty can't be quantified even if you want to do it (Havlik's Law can be, even though it usually isn't presented that way).
The hypotheses about how animals feel mostly don't make any clear predictions. There are a few exceptions, like how the fact that fish continue to swim normally even if they have a hole in their fin strongly suggests they don't feel pain, but speculating about whether domestic animals love their owners doesn't make any clear predictions (at least the predictions are far less clear than the predictions of Havlik's Law are, "love" can be shown in many ambiguous ways, while the words can show that they obey the Havlik's Law, in most cases, only one way). What does love even feel like, have you ever felt it? I don't think I have.
To be fair, unlike the phonosemantic hypotheses, at least they don't obviously contradict the mainstream science.
Using neuroscience to determine how animals feel has, if you ask me, a bit more merit, at least the evidence there can be quantified. Still, it doesn't appear to work much better than common sense: up until the 1990s, it was commonly believed that babies and birds didn't feel pain, because scientists misinterpreted the neurophysiological evidence (I realize it wasn't really a scientific consensus, but a hard science couldn't have been so easily misinterpreted).

[brimstoneSalad]

And how exactly can that be studied scientifically?

Look into ethology. You're correct that it's a softer science, but that doesn't mean we should reject it. It's somewhere between biology and psychology.
It's also made harder by doing things like testing cortisol levels in experiments. You don't need to go that far to look at behavior indicating emotional attachment though. There's been substantial research on domestic cats.

First Google result, if you're interested:
https://fearfreehappyhomes.com/do-cats- ... -says-yes/

The hypotheses about how animals feel mostly don't make any clear predictions.

Sure it does, see the study reported on above.

like how the fact that fish continue to swim normally even if they have a hole in their fin strongly suggests they don't feel pain,

It suggests they don't modify their swimming behavior due to chronic pain.
There are evolutionary reasons for this, namely that land animals can do further damage to their limbs by putting weight on them (weight that isn't an issue underwater where the body is supported by buoyant forces), and that because land animals move in more complex ways they have more options for walking (such as with three legs by limping). Fish neither have the greater risk of doing more damage nor viable alternative locomotion patterns. It doesn't make sense for their fins to keep hurting after the initial event, it's likely that it hurts and then the pain goes away more quickly (like being slapped). At least that's what we hope happens... it's possible that the pain is lasting, but they just can't do anything about it so they just keep swimming as usual (that's the nightmare scenario)

What does love even feel like, have you ever felt it? I don't think I have.

That's very concerning. You should consider therapy, if you're not already seeing somebody.

up until the 1990s, it was commonly believed that babies and birds didn't feel pain, because scientists misinterpreted the neurophysiological evidence (I realize it wasn't really a scientific consensus, but a hard science couldn't have been so easily misinterpreted).

This is due to two things:

1. A mistaken null hypothesis (assuming no pain until pain is proven, which is the wrong assumption)
2. In cases like these, false negatives are often more likely (and common) than false positives.

As you said, a harder science is less likely to lead people astray. People will realize the false negative has a low p value. It's good that this domain of science is being hardened.

[teo123]

It suggests they don't modify their swimming behavior due to chronic pain.

If they can't change their behavior due to pain, the feeling of pain couldn't have evolved in them, right?

That's very concerning. You should consider therapy, if you're not already seeing somebody.

Why is that concerning? I've always assumed my peers who claim to be in love, and are doing silly things because of that, were simply craving for attention. Do you think I am mentally ill?

[brimstoneSalad]

It suggests they don't modify their swimming behavior due to chronic pain.

If they can't change their behavior due to pain, the feeling of pain couldn't have evolved in them, right?

Again, we're talking about chronic pain, not acute pain. Different thing.

Also: it could be essentially vestigial, or a side effect of something else. There are plenty of evolutionarily disadvantageous cases of chronic pain in humans.
You'd need to look at nerve signaling and brain activity, or offer them pain relief and see if they take it. If when so injured they engage in some operant behavior that delivers opioids, for example, that would be an indication that they are feeling the chronic pain despite not being able to do anything about it.

Why is that concerning? I've always assumed my peers who claim to be in love, and are doing silly things because of that, were simply craving for attention. Do you think I am mentally ill?

I think you've had a complicated childhood, and that you need therapy so you can understand what love is.

Infatuation is distinct from other things we understand to be love, there are quite a few feelings that fall under that umbrella.

[teo123]

If when so injured they engage in some operant behavior that delivers opioids, for example, that would be an indication that they are feeling the chronic pain despite not being able to do anything about it.

Now, obviously, people can and do get addicted to opioids whether or not they feel pain, and the same may be happening in fish.
Does doing such experiments even make sense? Fish neither behave as if they felt pain, nor do they have neuroanatomical structures needed for that. People with congenital insensitivity to pain have a low proportion of the group C nerve fibres, and fish either have a lot lower proportion or none at all.
I mean, sure, it's less absurd to propose that fish feel pain than that plants feel pain, but it's still, given that fish neither behave like they feel pain nor have neuroanatomical structures we think are needed for that, a pretty extraordinary claim, if not even slightly anti-scientific.

I think you've had a complicated childhood, and that you need therapy so you can understand what love is.

Or maybe you are just rationalizing that somebody who disagrees with you on so many issues has to be mentally ill?