 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Cat or Dog, or some other animal or no pets which is better
happy
Cat or Dog, or some other animal or no pets which is better
September 01, 2003 at 02:29AM View BBCode
Cats, if you dont know why, then watch meet the parents, and see the expanation of why the dad in the movie has a cat
BravesLuver
September 01, 2003 at 02:34AM View BBCode
I don't care why some Hollywood actors pretends he likes cats in a movie. Dogs are the best. ever heard of the Washington Cats or something? No. More colleges are Dogs, Terriors, Recievers to name a few.
happy
September 01, 2003 at 02:39AM View BBCode
it isnt which character likes a cat, but what he says for why he likes a cat is why i like cats. I didnt get my cat because of some movie i saw, it just summed up my feelings. Dogs are OK, but too much work. If there were no cats, i would have a dog, but cats are cooler
BravesLuver
Dogs are amazing. Take your cat for a walk. Can't? Then run around the park with it. Can't? Then rub it's belly, they love that. Oh, cat's don't have anything resembling a belly. Oh well. Guess you can go down to the basement and keenfully watch him as he eats and sleeps :P
It's probably more of what pet you had first, as to which one you like better. But now with a dog, I don't know why a cat is even close!
September 01, 2003 at 02:44AM View BBCode
this is crazy that we are arguing about this, but you obviously haven't been around dogs enough.Dogs are amazing. Take your cat for a walk. Can't? Then run around the park with it. Can't? Then rub it's belly, they love that. Oh, cat's don't have anything resembling a belly. Oh well. Guess you can go down to the basement and keenfully watch him as he eats and sleeps :P
It's probably more of what pet you had first, as to which one you like better. But now with a dog, I don't know why a cat is even close!
Schef33
September 01, 2003 at 02:51AM View BBCode
I have no idea why I even give a crap but Dogs are better.
ME
my dog barks when someone is ni the driveway, so if im suppose to be doing my homework but im watching TV instead i get an advanced warning and enough time to start doing what i am suppose to be doing. my first dog could play football with me,which would be me trying to run around the dog and i would be tackled if he bit me (not hard, but play-biting), and i f i passed to myself he could took tackle me when i the ball was in the air. it was very fun when i was a little kid.
cats just dont do fun stuff.
September 01, 2003 at 03:00AM View BBCode
DOGS!my dog barks when someone is ni the driveway, so if im suppose to be doing my homework but im watching TV instead i get an advanced warning and enough time to start doing what i am suppose to be doing. my first dog could play football with me,which would be me trying to run around the dog and i would be tackled if he bit me (not hard, but play-biting), and i f i passed to myself he could took tackle me when i the ball was in the air. it was very fun when i was a little kid.
cats just dont do fun stuff.
skierdude44
September 01, 2003 at 03:30AM View BBCode
dogs r bettr. cats just hide. could we find a more pointless topic to argue over now?
Duff77
I don't understand why everything has to be better or worse than something else. Can't people just like what they like and be left alone? I like cats, but people always feel compelled to tell me that cats are stupid--as if I'm supposed to care. As if their opinion is supposed to superceed my own.
And by the way--some cats LOVE a good belly rub. You just have to flip them over. :P
September 01, 2003 at 04:52AM View BBCode
Whether you like cats or dogs is a matter of personal perference. They're completely different animals. They do completely different things. You can't say one is better than the other. Hell, some people have cats AND dogs, because they like both.I don't understand why everything has to be better or worse than something else. Can't people just like what they like and be left alone? I like cats, but people always feel compelled to tell me that cats are stupid--as if I'm supposed to care. As if their opinion is supposed to superceed my own.
And by the way--some cats LOVE a good belly rub. You just have to flip them over. :P
happy
September 01, 2003 at 12:53PM View BBCode
most things on the off topic thing ARE opinion. I wasnt expecting fact answers here. I cosider walking a dog a CHORE, plus you cant do anything fun like leave for a week if you got a dog, without paying some huge amount of money to put them in a kennel or get someone to watch after them, whereas cats, you just put down extra food and water before leaving and cats can take care of themselves. Doesnt anyone remember that part of that movie? dogs are easy to become your friends, while you have to earn a cats respect, and dogs are easily broken, you kick it, and they run away with their tail between their legs, while cats walk away dignified. my cats eat mice, and kill birds, and that is always fun, and they like getting pet, and they are furry. Also, when a dog licks your hand it is disgusting, but a cat has that sandpaper tounge, so it is cool
BravesLuver
September 01, 2003 at 11:04PM View BBCode
You don't know crap about dogs' respect happy. You don't like dogs, bing whoop, not many do, but most of that "not many" don't have one.
FuriousGiorge
September 01, 2003 at 11:36PM View BBCode
I'd just like to second Duff's comments as the voice of reason on this ridiculous topic. Some people like cats and some like dogs, and no one needs an elaborate reason to like either.
BravesLuver
September 01, 2003 at 11:49PM View BBCode
I agree, I just can't let someone who denounces dogs get away :P
skierdude44
September 02, 2003 at 12:01AM View BBCode
very true. most of these topics u can give stats and things to prove ur point. sometimes u can convince ppl to c ur way. this is not one of those topics. happy said he likes the sand paper feel of a cats tongue. wow great for u but i dont i like being able to play with my dog i do things like play frisbee fetch and football with her and yea she is a spaz and more often then not the ball or frisbee hits her in the face but she likes to play and i like that. my grandma has cats and all they do is hide and for me thats not fun. but yea its totally personal preference. like i said b4 happy likes how a cats tongue feels but i like how a dogs tongue feels so the is really no rite answer. btw happy from meet the parents r u talking about the cat flushing the toliet? if u r then really u could train a dog to do that too so i dont get the point u were trying to make.
happy
September 02, 2003 at 12:57AM View BBCode
Listen, EVERYTHING is based on opinions, and NOTHING can be proven. the only thing that can be proven is that you yourself exist somewhere. That is what that Philosopher said when he said "i think therefore I am" we had favorite music, and no one complains about that. Also, people have been trying to say this dumb thing about how it cant be proven so it shouldnt be talked about, that is what the people said when they said best B Ball player, and everyone whined so much that they changed it to most dominant, you can think something, even if you dont have facts to prove it, and you can talk about it.
FuriousGiorge
September 02, 2003 at 01:55AM View BBCode
Of course things can be proven. Things can be proven with math, and statistics, and empirical evidence. Just because I can't convince everyone that Babe Ruth is the best player of all time doesn't mean that I can't give plenty of evidence that he is. If people want to talk about cats and dogs there's nothing wrong with that, but it's pretty silly when people say "I DON'T like cats/dogs because....". For the record, I have cats, and prefer cats (although my fiancee really has the say about stuff like that), but I would never dump on dogs because I like them too.
Duff77
I wasn't trying to say there's something wrong with talking about topics that can't be resolved. I just saw a couple of comments that sounded like, "Well, if you like dogs, you must be stupid" or "If you like cats, you just haven't been around dogs." That's the only thing I didn't like. It's all well and good to state what you think and the reasons for it, but you can't call someone else stupid just because they have a different opinion. I was just afraid this topic was starting to go that way.
I'm not trying to stifle debate. Debate is good. It's just important to remember that the purpose of debate isn't to convince other people you are right, but to listen to the arguments of people you naturally assume are wrong. That's how you deepen your knoweldge and expand your perspective. The ultimate goal--I think--is to learn something about yourself.
And happy's right--at least philophically. It was Descartes, I think, who first realized that you can't prove the existence of anything beyond yourself. Think of it like the Matrix: Prove, to me, yourself, or anybody else, that you are not right now strapped into a machine somewhere that is feeding you every sight, sound, touch, and smell. You THINK you're sitting in front of a computer reading the a post from some dork named Duff, but for all you know, you could be strapped to a chair in a labratory. And if you aren't, how can you PROVE that you aren't?
That's what Decartes meant by "cognito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am." You can't prove anything around you is real, but in trying to do so, you at least prove that you're thinking. That at least allows you to verify that you exist.
So it's not so much that you can't prove that Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player. It's that you can't prove there was ever REALLY anyone named Babe Ruth.
And by the way, cats kick ass :D
September 02, 2003 at 04:39AM View BBCode
Just to clairfy...I wasn't trying to say there's something wrong with talking about topics that can't be resolved. I just saw a couple of comments that sounded like, "Well, if you like dogs, you must be stupid" or "If you like cats, you just haven't been around dogs." That's the only thing I didn't like. It's all well and good to state what you think and the reasons for it, but you can't call someone else stupid just because they have a different opinion. I was just afraid this topic was starting to go that way.
I'm not trying to stifle debate. Debate is good. It's just important to remember that the purpose of debate isn't to convince other people you are right, but to listen to the arguments of people you naturally assume are wrong. That's how you deepen your knoweldge and expand your perspective. The ultimate goal--I think--is to learn something about yourself.
And happy's right--at least philophically. It was Descartes, I think, who first realized that you can't prove the existence of anything beyond yourself. Think of it like the Matrix: Prove, to me, yourself, or anybody else, that you are not right now strapped into a machine somewhere that is feeding you every sight, sound, touch, and smell. You THINK you're sitting in front of a computer reading the a post from some dork named Duff, but for all you know, you could be strapped to a chair in a labratory. And if you aren't, how can you PROVE that you aren't?
That's what Decartes meant by "cognito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am." You can't prove anything around you is real, but in trying to do so, you at least prove that you're thinking. That at least allows you to verify that you exist.
So it's not so much that you can't prove that Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player. It's that you can't prove there was ever REALLY anyone named Babe Ruth.
And by the way, cats kick ass :D
ME
you can PROVE that 1+1=2, cause thats how Math works, and you can know that Babe Ruth existed or George Washington was the US's first prez (a word skierdude can understand!) but you cant prove them 100% cause there are always things that can stop you from donig so like maybe everyone made up Babe Ruth cause the country wanted a hero and some fat guy name Steve ran around the bases for home runs without actually hitting anything and people wrote down home runs cause they wanted to say they saw a home run. of course that is extremely unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
September 02, 2003 at 04:49AM View BBCode
some scottish enlightenment philosopher said you cant even prove your own existance, and of course descartes proved his own existance and from that a creator's.you can PROVE that 1+1=2, cause thats how Math works, and you can know that Babe Ruth existed or George Washington was the US's first prez (a word skierdude can understand!) but you cant prove them 100% cause there are always things that can stop you from donig so like maybe everyone made up Babe Ruth cause the country wanted a hero and some fat guy name Steve ran around the bases for home runs without actually hitting anything and people wrote down home runs cause they wanted to say they saw a home run. of course that is extremely unlikely but cannot be ruled out.
FuriousGiorge
How the hell did "Cats or Dogs?" find its way to this? Maybe I did take the friggin red pill.
September 02, 2003 at 04:50AM View BBCode
Yeah, I've read Descartes too. I LIKE Descartes, but I doubt anyone is really interested in arguing "Did Babe Ruth really exist?" You could start that topic if you want. Not to get too philosophical myself, but if every single question has to get broken down to the level of "is this real, or am I just a brain floating in a tank hooked to electrodes" then we might as well all give up our jobs, move into our parents' house, smoke pot all day and just let go of the world in general. But I'll stick with the assumption that the world is real, things are as they seem, and empirical evidence matters.How the hell did "Cats or Dogs?" find its way to this? Maybe I did take the friggin red pill.
ME
September 02, 2003 at 05:00AM View BBCode
th add on question is if we really did live in the matrix and were power plants for machines and had no idea about it what could we really do about it, which is of course nothing. so we have to take what weve got, it also goes into what is the meaning of life-type questions and are we just organisms like cats and dogs or do we have something more. or course this would end up as a religious debate so it would get stopped by tyson anyways.
Duff77
September 02, 2003 at 05:21AM View BBCode
Yeah but since Tyson is still out of town we might be able to fit in a few fat blunts before he figures it out and shuts it down :D
Duff77
September 02, 2003 at 07:00AM View BBCode
BTW, I completely agree with both of you. Debating whether or not Babe Ruth--or anything else--does or ever did exist is plenty of fun, but you can't live your life wondering about these kind of things. You have to live under the assumption that your senses are not--in fact--lying to you. Happy just got me going when he said "I think therefore I am."
happy
September 02, 2003 at 05:49PM View BBCode
wow, this is kinda interesting. Actually Descartes basically tried to prove everything with the only thing he knew is that he "is" i guess the 1+1=2 thing works, but that is just trying to think of a concept already there. you cant do word problems and prove them. (maybe i will try this on a test, "Johnny has 2 apples, and then gives one away, how many does he have" answer: "we dont know, because the apples could be fake, and we could really be living in another dimension where Johnny owns 100 apples") i may fail....anyway, i was just saying nothing can be proven, but i see why Duff is saying it now. I was just doing some trash talking because cats are the coolest, and dogs are only cool if they are furry and bark a lot, and bite people if they suck.
HollywoodOz
If we were to say that Rickey Henderson runs ten times faster than Cecil Fielder, and Rickey gave Cecil a 10 foot start in a 100 foot race - who would win?
The left-field answer: Cecil. And here's why:
In the time it takes Rickey to travel 10 feet, Cecil will have moved 1 foot (since he moves at one tenth of Rickey's speed).
That puts Cecil 1 foot ahead of Rickey. But in the time it takes Rickey to travel that foot, Cecil will have moved on 1.2 inches (1/10 of one foot).
By the time Rickey has traveled that 1.2 inches, Cecil will be .12 of an inch ahead of him. And so on.
Mathematically, you could go on like that forever getting progressively smaller and smaller in distance, with the point being there would never come a time when Rickey would pass Cecil - at least not one that could be mathematicaly proven.
The lesson in all this? Cats are ten times better than dogs. But be damned if anyone can prove it.
September 04, 2003 at 08:32PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Taking this in a completely different direction...
If we were to say that Rickey Henderson runs ten times faster than Cecil Fielder, and Rickey gave Cecil a 10 foot start in a 100 foot race - who would win?
The left-field answer: Cecil. And here's why:
In the time it takes Rickey to travel 10 feet, Cecil will have moved 1 foot (since he moves at one tenth of Rickey's speed).
That puts Cecil 1 foot ahead of Rickey. But in the time it takes Rickey to travel that foot, Cecil will have moved on 1.2 inches (1/10 of one foot).
By the time Rickey has traveled that 1.2 inches, Cecil will be .12 of an inch ahead of him. And so on.
Mathematically, you could go on like that forever getting progressively smaller and smaller in distance, with the point being there would never come a time when Rickey would pass Cecil - at least not one that could be mathematicaly proven.
The lesson in all this? Cats are ten times better than dogs. But be damned if anyone can prove it.
BravesLuver
September 04, 2003 at 08:34PM View BBCode
Yes, is there a Hall-of-Fame for the dumbest boards? This would be a shoe-in :P
skierdude44
September 05, 2003 at 11:05PM View BBCode
ok i dont think any1 cares if fielder could beat henderson w/ a head start. also u would have to factor in fielders age now which would slow him down. secondly this whole "does the world really exist" thing is idiotic. yea there is a possibility that we r all brains floating in gunk being enslave by computers but by the same token its possible that we r all ruled by giant grasshoppers from mars. if babe ruth didnt exist howcome there is footage of him and other evidence. does barry bonds not exist too? for u to keep going on about how the world is a lie u would have to keep coming up with growingly insane scenarios.