You will want thick gloves, a thick towel, and a container with lid to insert the cat into. Beans is not declawed, and knows you will struggle to maneuver under the bed. You may need a spray bottle of water as well.
You literally just contradicted yourself in two sentences.
You claim you don’t support inhumane practices, but then you call it “unnecessary drivel” when someone speaks out against them? And then you try to normalize those inhumane practices as simply “perfectly well accepted terms”?
They’re not just words, those words have meanings, and the meaning of this one is atrocious.
Ok, but no one said anything about declawing their cat. No one suggested that declawing cats wasn’t harmful to them. What exactly is the point of getting pissy with someone for using the correct term for a thing?
The top-level comment literally said “because the cat isn’t declawed” not “because cats have claws.”
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm, when the reality is that cats with claws are the norm and that cats being declawed is the deviation. Not only that, but it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets, and the next person’s response was completely appropriate and called for.
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm
No, it doesn’t. Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places. It’s not that unusual to find rescue cats that have been declawed.
it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
Yes, for the 10th time in this thread, literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets
Not it’s not, it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence. If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed, rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness.
You will want thick gloves, a thick towel, and a container with lid to insert the cat into. Beans is not declawed, and knows you will struggle to maneuver under the bed. You may need a spray bottle of water as well.
Good luck.
Fuck it, I’m getting another chicken.
Beats getting another hand.
I haven’t yet had my fingertips snipped off either. Lovely euphemism for “mutilation of extremities”.
Me, looking up what declawing actually does: wtf that’s not declawing, that’s amputation!
Reading further: “can lead to behavioural issues” no shit, you don’t say…
Do you just go around looking to be offended?
I take offense to that.
No, I’m just a guy who doesn’t hate cats.
I take offense to that. I’m a guy who hates cats but still doesn’t think they should be declawed.
Right on, brother!
Fuck you. Clipping animals to make them more human friendly is atrocious.
Where did literally anybody support declawing cats.
In this instance I agree with his point though. I don’t see you walking around without fingertips.
On a whole I don’t support any sort of unnecessary bodily modification, declawing, tail bobbing, circumcisions, or whatever.
What bothers me is when people find it necessary to interject some unneeded drivel because of some passing word that’s a perfectly well accepted term.
You literally just contradicted yourself in two sentences.
You claim you don’t support inhumane practices, but then you call it “unnecessary drivel” when someone speaks out against them? And then you try to normalize those inhumane practices as simply “perfectly well accepted terms”?
They’re not just words, those words have meanings, and the meaning of this one is atrocious.
Ok, but no one said anything about declawing their cat. No one suggested that declawing cats wasn’t harmful to them. What exactly is the point of getting pissy with someone for using the correct term for a thing?
The top-level comment literally said “because the cat isn’t declawed” not “because cats have claws.”
It subtly insinuates that cats being declawed is the norm and that cats with claws are a deviation from that norm, when the reality is that cats with claws are the norm and that cats being declawed is the deviation. Not only that, but it’s also harmful and atrocious to force that deviation upon them.
The top-level comment was an attempt to normalize the mutilation of pets, and the next person’s response was completely appropriate and called for.
No, it doesn’t. Declawing was a common thing to do and it’s still legal in most places. It’s not that unusual to find rescue cats that have been declawed.
Yes, for the 10th time in this thread, literally no one here has suggested otherwise.
Not it’s not, it was an observation of the absence of a still relatively commonly seen occurrence. If they really cared cats, then a simple correction would have sufficed, rather than bringing attention to themselves with passive aggressive shittiness.
If it’s a euphemism then it’s not the correct term; mutilation is correct.
It is the currently used term, perhaps but it’s certainly not the correct one.
deleted by creator
But claws are the fun part!