/b/ - Random

ive never met a scrote who doesnt prefer dogs

I prefer cats but dogs are cool as long as I'm not the one who was to take care of them.

They're animals I feel almost nothing for either, but I guess cats because they aren't loud and annoying and are pretty low maintenance, except for cleaning the shitbox I guess.
>>130368
My bf prefers cats and all cats love him immediately but his last one went missing, so he won't get another one.

Neither. Animals are dirty and annoying.

Cats, because they don't kill kids

Cats make better pets. Most dogs are better service animals and most people aren't responsible enough to have anything bigger than a corgi.

Cats are cuter and more fun to watch and interact with imo. But not necessarily easy to take care of, if you're thinking of getting one it's a real responsibility lasting over a decade. I raised a cat from kitten to old age and it was so much extra cleanup and cost I would not do that again. Dogs are cute too but they are just even more messy and louder than a cat. If you want an easy pet, get some fish.

>>130364
Dogs. Literally couldn't have civilization without them. Even today, they offered unconditional love. Cats carry those gross parasites that change your behavior and thoughts towards cats and so after a couple of years, cat people become super weird and brainwashed about cats. You'll just be sitting in a room with them having a normal conversation when suddenly they'll point to their sleeping cat, that is not doing anything impressive or special, and screech about how cute/amazing/adorable she is. Meanwhile dog people will love their dogs and greet them like friends when they come into the room, but they don't all become weirdly obsessive about them like cat owners do.

>>130516
> Meanwhile dog people will love their dogs and greet them like friends when they come into the room, but they don't all become weirdly obsessive about them like cat owners do.
Lol'd

>>130364
Better for what?

>>130547
whos better

>>130516
>Meanwhile dog people will love their dogs and greet them like friends when they come into the room, but they don't all become weirdly obsessive about them like cat owners do.

Well, of course, because there is nothing to be obsessed about - it's dogs.

Cats are disgusting. Imagine letting an animal get up on your counter, stove, table or sink, uhh. Or losing a child because you got toxoplasmosis from your cat. At least dogs stay on the ground and can only get up to the sofa/bed at most.
>mine doesn't
If you train it really (really) well, maybe when you're not around.
But honestly, I just prefer dogs because you can do rough play without getting scratched.

I like both

> Cats tend to smell really nice in the fur whereas dogs, at best, smell like cornchips. I guess if you're a cornchip fanatic you'll love that

It's true my cat naturally smells like warm and sunshine.

I like both honestly, but I prefer dogs because they're more active pets. I've gotten lucky in that all the cats I've owned are all very affectionate, but plenty aren't at all. I just like dogs more because they feel like they have so much more personality, I can take them on walks, they get along well with other dogs, I can play with them etc.

With cats they feel more just like they happen to be around than an actual pet. I'll walk by them and rub their belly, but most of the time that's about it. Petting a cat I find on a walk isn't too different than most of my experiences with the cats I own.

I don't like to compare them, both are great pets for different people. For example, I'd never recommend a dog to a cat person because they would be surprised at how much extra care dogs need. Also, some people are allergic to one pet but not the other. It also tends to turn into a silly "boys vs girls" debate and assuming that certain pets are for certain genders is retarded.

>>130648
this

both good

I like both, but dogs win for me. I'd say that on a surface level, cats are cuter, but in my experience, their affectionate moments seem to be far more spread out and more subtle. For example, the friendliest cats i've met show significantly less love than the average dog.
I've never owned a cat, but i have had a few very pleasant experiences with them, and I think that that rarity might be a selling point, adding value. I also enjoy how light they are, they seem like they're made of air compared of my 16kg dog. On the other hand, i think litter boxes are pretty grim, having shit just stagnating in the toilet sounds awful. I don't know how common it is, but hearing about cats bring half dead animals inside, waiting to be found after rotting for weeks is very unappealling.
I think that dogs appeal to a very different idea of pet ownership, where having one has a much larger impact on the lives of an owner. As well as feeding them, you have to be taking them out for excercise at least once a day, training them, keeping them entertained. This level of committment and responsibility means that there is a much smaller group of people who could responsibly take care of a dog, but in return you can have a much more rewarding experiance. For instance, going outside and staying healthy is far more enjoyable with a dog. When I take my dog out, it's a wonderful feeling to see him running around, exploring, and playing with other dogs, many of which know him already. I also think that the community around dog ownership feels a lot more developed and tight knit. Seeing a dog conked out in the evening after a long walk is always really cute as well. I do understand the dislike of dogs in relation to hygiene, but as long as you regularly clean and groom your dog, most people who aren't sensitive to cleanliness can overlook the occasional gross things that they do.
(picrel is my dog's silly paws)

>forgetting the third way
Skunks can be housebroken and litter trained, leash trained, and act as effective home defense.

>>130364
dogs if you have a large house. cats if you are living alone.

>>130738
>act as effective home defense
Damn that would be a good bluff but I would rather be robbed than have a skunk spray in my house.

gotta be dogs

Cats are the pseud or lazy fatasses pet. They turn every ecosystem they're placed into a deadzone. And are too stupid to be trained inviting admiration from similarly stupid people that delude themselves into thinking its independence (nevermind how they whine and beg). Some people will look at a sedantery animal that wastes most of its life either sleeping or pointlessly torturing small animals and consider it deep or intelligent because they love humanizig their pets. Cats also rub their asses everywhere and you keep a shitbox fermenting the air you breathe 24/7 to the point where you become numb to it, brain parasites included. But any visitor can tell a cat lives there - Dog owners KNOW their mutts smell and manage it accordingly as training one is neccessary 100% of the time. The low intelligence means they are absolutely useless for ratting and are constantly outsmarted by rodents (for ever 1 rat toxoplasmosis infection drawn in there are 50 you will not see and cats will NEVER track a nest on their own) whereas a terrier or ferret would immediately genocide the population as they directly go for the nests - proving dogs are superior at the one thing cats are popularized for. They were called barncats because farmers forced them to live in barns and subsist on vermin. There is also this delusional idea that cats are low maintenance yet these people just let them roam all around the neighborhood outside as glorified strays (outdoor stray cats live less than 5 years on average compared to the 20+ and owned indoor cat can live) because mittens needs to be 'wild' and 'independent' or some shit but they'll just get killed effortlessly by coyotes, another superior animal. A stray cat you are friendly with is no different from an owned one that leeches off your food and provides nothing in return. Yes these goes for lapdogs and related genetic failures as well.
tl;dr - own a cheetah maybe it will help some of you lose weight and regain some iq points once the parasite dies out

>>131126
There's also that stupid cope about cat owners being able to "respect boundaries" more because they have to deal with their unpredictable unloving cats lmao.

>>131126
Please break your rant into a few paragraphs, that hurts my eyes to read
>>131134
>unloving
Come on now.

Well that's kind of a lie. Every other cat I had was very loving, friendly and wonderful. I just have the one that's cranky and standoffish. I think she can tell I laugh at here though. I don't know which came first me laughing at her or her being a grump.

I have a dog but I like cats more

I don’t think people should keep pets.

As someone who lives in a city I love dogs and dog owners, i love the constant sound of frenzied barking and having to dodge shit and piss wherever i go

>>131296
I've thought about this for cats. I think the indoor argument for cats is sound, I don't disagree with keeping your cats indoors, but I think people who insist a cat doesn't need some kind of outdoor enrichment shouldn't have cats. Cats are trainable. It's a lie to assume an outdoor cat is not infinitely happier then an indoor cat, it's just environmentally hazardous and potentially dangerous to your cat to let them roam free all day. Cats are not dogs but have similar needs to them, such as, being outside. If you don't take a dog outside, you're liable to be charged with animal abuse, but not cats? Is it because they have a litterbox? I know it's a stretch and most people aren't intentionally wanting to hurt their animal, but it still bugs me. I've just known too many cat owners who like to take the moral high ground with how they raise their cat, have a sense of entitlement above people who let their cats roam free. Unless they let their cat have outdoor enrichment, I don't think they're much better. There are a myriad of other reasons why I think both dog/cat owners could do better for their animals but if it was 100% possible to give your cat/dog the best life, I'm sure almost all people would.

living alone cats are better than dogs.

dogs need a fuckin backyard

>>131296
You're just a mad woman. Where would all the dogs and cats go?

I don't like being around dogs, they can be annoying af but it would be extremely sad if anything bad happened to a dog. I like cats more.

>>131318
Yeah, that's largely my thinking. It can be pretty difficult to give an animal everything it needs to be happy and healthy and I've seen so many people barely even try. I've walked my mum's dogs and seen other dog owners do that thing where they grab the dogs lead right at the base, so they're lifting it off the ground, all because it got excited seeing other dogs. It tells me most people don't know what they're doing with regards to training and caring for their pets. Maybe geckoheads and fish fanciers are different.

I also have environmental concerns and a general distaste for that bit when they die and you experience complete emotional devastation.

>>131353
We send them to live in space with Laika of course.

Why are cat haters so obsessed with toxo when you're way more likely to get it from undercooked beef? Why do they ignore that dog bites are the most common cause of rabies and they rabies or not, they can and do maul people to death? Why do they overlook that they commonly eat shit? Dogs are alright in spite of that, but people who hate cats just strike me as people who can't deal with not having their ass kissed all the time.

>>131607
yeah, I get the same vibe. when you ask some of them why they hate cats usually it's like oh they're not friendly like dogs - when it's like, well yeah, cats aren't dogs so they're never gonna be like dogs. but all cats a different and they warm up to you differently. but also why would I just hate an animal because it's not friendly, most aren't and dogs have been bred for those types of qualities anyway. you hit right on the money with that phrasing - they can't deal with not enough ass kissing. I always viewed as they're people who struggle with the concept that some people/animals have boundaries and need to get comfortable with you over time.

>>131612
I personally dislike cats slightly because as a species, they really only care about themselves. Oh they'll absolutely love you and cuddle you when you're sad, but they don't have cooperation and sisterhood bred into them like dogs do. Every week you hear about a dog dragging a toddler out of a burning house, yet cats doing similar things is far more rare. Cats are great pets and can be excellent companions, yet when compared directly to dogs, they fall short in the majority of categories.
Plus, I find cat owners to be a flavor of more insane than dog owners. You'll be sitting there talking with your friends and suddenly she'll shriek about how "The cat is being so kitty!" and you'll all look over at the cat and she's just sleeping in the sun. That's nice, but you've completely derailed our conversation to make us observe an animal that is doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.
Normies who own dogs meanwhile are more likely to be, "She's my fur baby." and then keep her without entertainment locked in a cage for eight hours.
>>131607
I have never eaten raw meat in my life, but my cat's litterbox still needs cleaned daily. So my exposure to toxo is way more likely from cats than from beef.

dogy win

>>131618
>they really only care about themselves
Why the fuck you want a damn animal to care about you, what makes you so special. Seem like wishing for a master-slave relationships with your pet
Also fixed for ya
>Every week you hear about a dog biting a toddler to blood, yet cats doing similar things is far more rare.

>>132673
>Why you want a damn animal to care about you
Cause I'm paying for it's entire life, lol. What type of low self esteem retard pays for someone's medical bills, grocery bills, and rent for someone who hates you? That reeks of someone who's mother never hugged you.

>>130364
Cats

>>132689
how embarrassing…

>>132806
Nothing embarrassing about anon's post

>>132809
no, there is everything embarrassing about thinking of a pet as leeching off of you. or animals in general. straight psycho thought pattern to see a vulnerable creature naturally reliant on you and treat it like it's a mooching relative. odd.

Cats because I enjoy having increased bone desnity.

>>132907
Based. Cats are more useful than people realize.

>>132689
Just because cats don't lick your asshole doesn't mean they hate you. Also you chose to have a cat, it didn't just come into your house and demand you to take care of it

>>132689
Red flag

>>131612
a lot of people expect animals to come in two flavors: dog or horse. if it doesn't act like a dog or a horse, it's broken, and should be more dog-like or horse-like.

>>132952
My response was in direct response to someone asking why you would want a pet to love you. I absolutely believe cats are capable of love, I just don't think they have the intelligence or loyalty of dogs.

>>133026
nta
cats view you as an equal who is essential for their survival (if indoors only) and dogs view you as their master
intelligence imo is irrelevant so i dont delve into that already vague way of determining worth

>>133026
Dogs aren't equal in terms of intelligence or loyalty either. If you're willing to maintain a german shepherd then go for it, but cats require less than that and they'd still love you.

>arguing about what animals love humans more
most people can't even agree on what love is in humans; or at least they acknowledge that it's complicated and ineffable. arguing about what animals feel love towards humans more is pure retardation.

>>133100
It's not retardation, it's quite normal actually. Humans like to feel loved so speculating how much animals love us if at all is usual.

>>133106
i don't even understand how or why this is argued. do you people not know how to treat a cat so it doesn't show you affection? it's extremely clear that cats are capable of extreme love. my cats love to be next to me, purr when just looking at me. they are independent when they want to be but just want to be in my presence, near me, be kissed by me. i'm not sure where you guys don't see how clearly cats love. dogs that are not even abused have unconditional attachment that is pretty scary and is kind of dysfunctional emotionally. i wouldn't want an animal to be as physically or emotionally reliant on me as a dog, though it is clear that they do care for their parents/owners and are sweet. cats are similarly capable of love, they just don't have the same obsessive personality that tends to make them a target of abuse as much as dogs do. it's not healthy.

>>133107
youre replying to the wrong post lol.

TL;DR everybody has individual reasons for wanting a pet. The traits you value in your pet don't make them objectively superior to other animals, it just makes them a good fit your your life.

>>133113
i wasn't, i was saying with my post that it's weird that people would even try to argue that cats don't love when it's extremely obvious. she was saying it's normal. it's not normal except for people who are oblivious to anything but obsessive affection they've come to expect from dogs

>>133154
completely unrelated I wasnt saying cats dont love god stop being so duuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb

>>133168
i never said you said that. i'm saying that i disagree with what you claimed, that it's "normal" for these people to question if cats love when it's pretty obvious they do. it's only "normal" to totally oblivious people.

>>133172
It wasn't only about cats, and I didn't say question I said speculating

>>133174
i mention cats specifically because that's the animal these people usually question and accuse them of being incapable of love the most.

>>133175
so still irrelevant to my post because I was replying to >>133100 about talking which animal loves humans most is pure retardation, arguing that it isn't

>>133071
When you say dogs aren't equal, do you mean among the various breeds?

>>133177
i understand that. what i'm telling you is, in essence, what she said, that it is pure retardation only normal to extremely oblivious people who can't tell what love or affection is. to people with normal boundaries that are not emotionally dysfunctional, it's not normal at all. it wouldn't even be a question in their minds, were they reasonable enough to actually analyze the behavior of affectionate animals like, cats, for example, and see that it's very clear that they do love. only the most retarded people would consider it normal to even question when it's so clear.

>>133183
For the most part yes, although there's probably some variety dog-to-dog too

dogs because they are cuter, cats are stinky shits

>>133261
that makes no sense. there's no "cat smell" when you smell a cat. there's a distinct "dog smell" that dogs have on their hair and skin.

>>133261
>cats are stinky shits
cats are almost always odourless and they keep themselves obsessively clean, while dogs literally eat shit and roll in it too.

>>133334
Cats smell pleasant most of the time. Unless they just took a shit or sumthen.

>>133301
fake and gay, cats always win, this fight was unfair cus theyre in different weight categories

Cats take shits inside and dogs take shits outside. Dogs are better.

>>217307
dogs stink up the yard with their shit. i let my cat out and he goes to shit across the street and buries it.

Dogs are cute but they're too loud and clingy. Cats are lower-maintenance.

I like both equally. I have a dog and two cats.

dog smell makes me gag and the american obsesssion with dogs is weird and lame. why do you need to bring your wholesome pupper everywhere and why are you personally offended when someone doesnt want it spreading dirt and trying to lick their face with the mouth that has tried to eat literal shit off the sidewalk minutes ago

>>217357
struck a nerve? if your floor is that dirty and you don't clean your counters before preparing food that's your problem lol

Both are great. All pets are good. I don't understand hating an animal, some nonas are very weird.

Cats don't become society's problem when the owners are fucking irresponsible retards.
Dogs do.
Almost all dog owners I know ARE fucking irresponsible retards and I've never met a cat owner I'd refer to as such which is ironic given even if they were it would matter far less.
I like dogs but their irresponsible owners weigh them down severely here.

>>217373
Seconded

I like both but if I HAD to pick one as a pet, I would get a cat.

>>133301
this doggo is so fucking based, thanks for sharing

Dogs:
- don't decimate local wildlife
- more useful
- more social
- more loyal
- more active
- don't require a shit box in the house
- don't jump on counters
- don't barf or scratch as much
- let you pet them whenever you want

Honestly the only thing I can think of that cats do better than dogs is be quiet. And even then a cat's high pitched meowing is a lot more grating than a dogs deep bark.

Wow, the amount of dog and cat hate in here is unreal. You're just not a good person if you really feels so maliciously even towards people's pets that did nothing wrong. Even, my grandmother who didn't ever want any pets in her house, came to love her friend's dog because of how well-trained and loving it was. Dogs especially were made to be your friend, not your enemy. It's the owner that make shitty dogs shitty (Unless it's shitbulls or rotts - Those are shit regardless.)

The dog hate thread on LC is the single most autistic collection of mentally ill women on the internet, which is quite a feat considering the celebrity shippers who used to send death threats to the women who married their favorite actors.

Cat hate threads in contrast do not seem to exist.

Even insane people don't have the ability to have any special hatred for cats. So, on a balance, cats win.

>>217447
What actually needs to take place is a dog owner hate thread. Too many irresponsible owners who think their ill-tempered Chihuahuas are more important than children.

Dogs agree with co-dependent personalities.
Cats agree with schizoid personalities.
That's why people get so worked up over this "preference". These are two opposite ways to love/be loved.

>>217447
Dogs have a larger capability of hurting something or someone, which is largely affected by who raises the dog. So ofc more people hate or are afraid of dogs. For example cats don't fight to the death, but dogs are very capable of doing so. An irresponsible cat owner will only hurt the cat but an irresponsible dog owner can hurt the dog and other living things around it.

>>217477
>"irresponsible cat ownership doesn't hurt other living things guys"
My sister in christ, AVERAGE cat ownership manages to hurt living things. Cats are notorious for preying on local wildlife and killing other peoples pet poultry/outdoor fish/rabbits/Guinea pigs/etc just from letting them out to go on a stroll. The part that gets to me the most is that they don't even eat what they "hunt" they just leave dead things in the street

>>217415
I'm a rabbit person myself but God dog haters are sick. They just sit in threads, forums, and comment selections, sharing thinly veiled desires to kill dogs. You will always see shit like "I want to cave that shitbulls disgusting mutt head in. It would bring me so much joy to just ki-" and then starting reeeing out about made up statistics that don't even apply to their own country to justify their autism when called out

>>217481
I've been to the big bad scary forums you speak of, murderous fantasies are very much not the norm, they're mostly just mean lol. Why is your reaction to the loud minority among dog critical people immediately dismissing dog attack statistics as fake? No wonder they don't apply to my own country, we're not as obsessed with pitbulls as Americans are. Doesn't erase the fact that some breeds are inherently dangerous and that an irresponsible dog owner can do much more damage to HUMAN BEINGS than any other irresponsible common household pet owner can

>>133301
Cats are such assholes he was just trying to play lol

>>217487
>dismissing statistics
pitbull attack statistics are all encompassing of their breed group, which means one dog is having the attacks of a dozen seperate breeds pinned to it. If you took labradors and took a count of all its attacks it would be small or average. But if you started to take all the attacks from golden retrievers and put put it on labradors specifically, those extras added on are going to make it look like labradors are ridiculously aggressive compared to other dogs since you've probably doubled the number attacks by grouping them together. Pitbulls share a breed group with 10+ other dogs. There are 10+ dog breed statistics being added to pitbull statistics

>>217493
That might be an argument, if not for 3 factors.
1. The same logic, of grouping 10+ breeds into one category, also applies to other dogs. Any dog identifiably part of a known and common breed will be attached to it. This applies to the other worst offenders, being Rottweilers and German Shepherds. Mixes and inbred lines are still Rottweilers and German Shepherds.
2. Being so inbred by so many different breeders is not a defence of the dog's behaviour or statistics. The "breed" of Pit bull is as varied as its population, meaning if you separated them according to their tiny niche breed, you'd be comparing such a tiny population against a much, much larger population of, say, Labradors, that the statistics become skewed by their low counts and all proportionality is lost.
3. Attacks by Pit bulls are SO numerous that you could lump almost every other dog breed into one category and they STILL wouldn't even match them. You could choose 10 as an arbitrary number to divide their stats by and they would still be more dangerous than the next highest offender, who massively outnumbers them.

>>217504
nta, but
>1. The same logic, of grouping 10+ breeds into one category, also applies to other dogs.
It doesn't apply to other dogs. It applies to pitbulls because they're a disagreeable breed. Pitbulls and the rest of their breed group don't have that much more attacks than any other breed of dog, you can't pretend lumping a dozen breeds into one breed is giving a realistic statistic and it's retarded to pretend otherwise
>2. Being so inbred by so many different breeders is not a defence of the dog's behaviour or statistics
The breed group includes pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terrier, the English bull terrier, British bull dog, boxer dog, and more. If you're pretending a bull dog, a boxer dog, and an English bull terrier are so similar to pit bulls that they can be lumped together then you don't know dogs that well
>3. Attacks by Pit bulls are SO numerous that you could lump almost every other dog breed into one category and they STILL wouldn't even match them
When people say this it's a huge indicator that they don't understand dogs. Of course not, because different breeds have "wiring" so to speak. You can't just pick 10 random breeds, or even 20 random breeds, you have to pick specific breeds with similar "wiring" (dogs that are bred for a certain capacity for violence) such as German shepherds, rottweilers, really just any dog used in war or for guarding, and roll 10 of them together. You will then get a similar statistic to a pit bull. The "well pet dogs don't do as many attacks" argument doesn't work because a majority of dogs kept as pets are smaller and specifically bred to have much lower levels of aggression relative to dogs that can be fairly compared to pit bulls

It doesn't make sense to compare these animals because they're completely different species. Which one is " better " depends on your needs and personality. Dogs are best suited to outdoorsy people who enjoy sports or travel. Cats are better for people who are homebody and enjoy physical affection.

>>217504
>le "pitbulls aren't a breed" argument
Pitbulls are a "breed type." All of the dogs who kill their owner's children look the same. Big square head, indented skull, giant mouth. Pretending this isn't a type of dog isn't an argument.