Cats Vs Dogs

exactly

so cats

Yeah

Pet rock supremacy

Pet air is the best

Cats literally do all the same. Also, is this a concession that cat's fight better? ( you haven't countered my previous counter)

No, that conversation already ended.

We already established dogs fight better.

Dogs do not get headlines for doing something as routine as scratching 3 measly coyotes. Only cats get headlines for that. Because cats can almost never do that, and survive.

Dog more cute

We have not established that, though. While Max's 3 coyotes will likely never return, the three that Casper chased off, despite the 8 dead, have an equal, if not higher, chance of attacking again. I have thouroughly explained this below.

Max: an untrained housecat, weighing perhaps 10-15 pounds, successfully defended himself against three coyotes, easily 6-7 times his weight. He emerged completely unscathed. This shows to an extraordinary level of agility, tactical prowess, and self-preservation.

Now, let's look at Casper: a massive, purpose-bred Livestock Guardian Dog, designed specifically to confront coyotes. Despite his immense size and specialized training, he fought eleven coyotes that were, at most, 2-3 times his weight. Casper nearly died in the process. While seemingly impressive, the fact that a dog bred for this exact purpose sustained life-threatening injuries against proportionally smaller foes, while an untrained housecat emerged unscathed against significantly larger ones, strongly favors Max's defensive efficiency.

Furthermore, the idea that dogs routinely fight multiple coyotes is simply inaccurate. A dog fighting 3 coyotes does make headlines; the vast majority of dogs never confront even one coyote in their lifetime. Such encounters are far from routine for any domestic animal.

Finally, let's address the point of long-term threat neutralization. You argued that three injured coyotes fought by the cat could return. However, coyotes rarely retreat unless very scared or injured. In Max's case, the coyotes were sufficiently deterred by an aggressive, agile housecat and there was no valuable hunting 'prize' in his territory to lure them back. They were thoroughly intimidated and are highly unlikely to return.

In Casper's scenario, while he did kill eight coyotes, three sustained only minor injuries. Here, the incentive for return is significant: a valuable flock of sheep. Minorly injured coyotes, driven by hunger and the proximity of a food source, have a high likelihood of regrouping and returning with the same, if not more, aggression. Had Casper been able to fight with the same defensive effectiveness as Max, inflicting serious injuries on all the coyotes rather than just killing some, the threat to the flock would have been more definitively neutralized. The survival of those three moderately injured coyotes means the flock remains in peril, potentially facing an even more coordinated attack.

You may ask: Why didn't Max seriously injure all the coyotes in his case? Well, the coyotes had no prize that they were out for, no flock of sheep to devour. So, they were proportionally less motivated, and retreated easily, before they could receive such injuries. Even so, they will likely never return.

In essence, Max's defense resulted in no harm to himself and a complete deterrence of the threat, despite a massive size disadvantage. Casper's defense, while brave and impactful in numbers, came at a near-fatal cost to himself and left a very real threat to the animals he was guarding. When evaluating who 'defended better,' the uninjured, untrained cat who completely repelled a proportionally larger threat without a 'prize' to defend, ultimately demonstrated superior and more effective defensive capabilities.

As a conclusion, Max fought the coyotes so that they would never return. Casper, while he killed eight, did not defend the flock from future attacks, as those three coyotes have a very high likelihood of return. Because they have incentive: the flock of sheep, and their injured guard. Had Casper fought like a cat and injured all coyotes significantly, while sustaining little injuries of his own, the coyotes could not have come back. So eight killed means nothing for future safety. Only 11 very injured has any implications.

Well, from what I'm seeing, it seems that dogs are the ones that almost never survive. Who was the one with life-threatening injuries? Casper. Who was unhurt? Max.

Of course, I am going to be an Andy Serkis fan. Sue me!

I bet the loud noises and dramatic imagery just scared him. Bulldogs bark at everything.

I think he was mad, because that mean monkey stole those T-Rex’s lunch!

🤣🤣

But there are now 8 coyotes, with zero chance of return.

And if those remaining 3 are foolish enough to make the same mistake twice, 3 will be even easier to deal with than 11.

Hell, even a scrawny cat might survive against only 3 coyotes, if its lucky.

Wow the posts have really transformed in 11 years. It’s hard to explain but there’s almost like a shift in tone with the op and today’s. It feels like everyone’s desperate and mad.

Btw dogs are best.

i saw a bobcat on a golf course about a month ago. it did not resemble any domesticated cat. it was lean and muscular. i worked with a guy that saw a panther on a hunting trip. the way he described it was that he looked away for a second and the cat was gone.

i've also seen wild dogs. they take no prisoners. also lean and muscular.

no person would want to mess with any of those animals.

i only mention that as precursory anecdotes for what i'm about to write.

the cats vs. dogs argument is futile. if someone is a dog person, do you think there is anything you will write that will convince them that cats are better? it is a rhetorical question, and i'm only writing because it seems some posters are quite adamant about which animal is *better*. as the "argument" relates to domesticated animals, which is the premise, don't pretend that they are great simply due to your affection for them. furthermore, don't try to state one is better than the other based on a story of a cat or dog fighting off (insert animal or intruder). those instances are extremely rare. it's more likely that cats would run and hide and dogs would want to be pet if someone entered your home.

i love both cats and dogs. when people say cats vs. dogs, i think, cats AND dogs!

having said all that, i have cats. i would have cats, dogs, sheep, cows, llamas, and all sorts of other critters, but, i travel. i can spend a few days away from home with cats.

i knew a guy that thought snakes were the best.

point being, he thought. he did not state opinion as fact.

one day, f***ers like you might learn this.

Please dont swear-

#409 heh, ohh our humanity. Have we lost our sight of our humanity. Before controversial topics were opportunities to discuss your point of view and be heard. Nowadays your opinion is hate speech, no it’s shunned upon by society.
Little five year old brats such as yourself are too immature to realize that you’ve fallen into society’s toxic hands so you make ridiculous comments of nothing.
I kept my response short and sweet because I didn’t want to get involved. Why would I. After all little kids such as yourself took such an innocent and fun discussion to the same level as political debate.
But did you think that it only said I like dogs because I wasn’t invested enough to actually participate. No, no you did not.
And now you will suffer. Suffer in the same way my mother did. Slow, painful, with a solution and cure to her illness right in front of her. Unfortunately, she was too simple minded too poor in her spirit to recognize it. This will be the end of your toxic plague.

i made comprehensive posts (for this site), and all you focus on is a word?

try reading and letting things sink in.

off topic, this is why adults rarely post in topics. kids have overrun the site like rats. trying to have a conversation results in garbage.

sorry if i wrote words too adult for you. perhaps you could focus on context next time.

of course, you will have to learn what the word 'context' means.