Can somebody have our cat killed?

[superiorinferior]

Yes well the fact of the cat is that you don't own it, it owns you.

Yeah right. Yeah the cat owns me - until I pick it up, put it in its carrier and take it to be euthanized.
Where do you come up with this stuff? I know they don't teach it at Finnish schools, as my children attend them. Did you take a special course?

[Hank W.]

Did you take a special course?

Yes, its called reading comprehension, I took it in the school where the kids go with the long bus.

[blaugrau]

some of them may contradict what I am saying... if so, I stand to be corrected!

Well, that´s what they do. And they are cat-lover´s pages, not cat-hater´s.

I'd rather say they're "keeping-cats-inside"-lovers' pages... ("InCat")..

[Hank W.]

I don't know if I'm a cat-lover...maybe in-cat... anyone know some recipies for catfish?

[smoo]

Did this ever make it to Finland? Maybe it includes some recipes. I'm sure all of the 101 uses would need to be checked for applicability to Finnish cats, however, and also that it won't include the best uses in a specifically Finnish context (snow shoes, rug beater?), thus leading to disastrous wastage of a valuable natural resource.

[sammy]

Did this ever make it to Finland? Maybe it includes some recipes. I'm sure all of the 101 uses would need to be checked for applicability to Finnish cats, however, and also that it won't include the best uses in a specifically Finnish context (snow shoes, rug beater?), thus leading to disastrous wastage of a valuable natural resource.

Oh yeah, years and years ago... It was called "101 tapaa käyttää kuollutta kissaa"... there was a sequel, too. A dream job for a translator (I mean since the cartoons had no captions at all, the only thing you had to come up with was the title). Methinks I've got copies stashed away somewhere. Very much similar black humour to those more recent (?) bunny suicide books.

[smoo]

Some people have a vestigial sense of humour. I like cats but still loved those books. Some of the reviews on Amazon have an unintended Gervaise-esque humour value themselves!

My wife bought this book thinking that it would be funny: we were both disappointed. The cartoons in this book have little thought and seem sensless in their aim. Not having any prejudice against dogs or cats, this book comes off as sick rather than funny. Perhaps this is Mr. Bond's answer to 101 Reasons Why Cats Are Better Than Men.

This may be a great book for people who are prejudiced against cats but for people who find cats interesting and lovable animals, go somewhere else.

How do you think the public would react to "101 Uses for A Dead Jew" or "101 Uses for a Dead Democrat/Republican"? See how *bad* an idea that is? It's the same for dead people of any category or description, and for animals and anything else that lives.

Maybe a book like this is necessary for one group, though: "101 Uses for Dead People Who Think the Idea of Disrespectfully Using the Dead Bodies of Anything is Funny".

[Hank W.]

[Tiwaz]

I don't think 1) is a valid reason in itself. I don't like women in high heels (they make an irritating noise and clog up traffic flow on the pavement because they can't walk properly), but wouldn't for a moment suggest that there should be a law against them. If unsupervised cats posed a significant danger or major inconvenience to many people (as unsupervised dogs would) then that would be a different matter, but they don't really.

You don't think it is valid, I do think it is valid. Who is right?

First, having cats roam free is major inconvenience.

I might have this nice bird feeding thing where I like to see little birdies. Cats would eat my little birdie friends.
Second, I might have sandbox for my imaginary kids... Cats are known to do their thing in sandboxes. Common complaint in apartment blocks when some old lady has cat which just needs to get ouside.

Unsupervised cat also can carry diseases.

Finally, it's the law. Like it, hate it... We care not. But better obey it.

[smoo]

You don't think it is valid, I do think it is valid. Who is right?

I said that the fact that some people don't like cats is not a valid reason in itself. In other words, I think it has to be supported by other arguments, such as the ones you've just mentioned.

The pooping in sandboxes thing, disturbing birds, and possibly spreading diseases are all valid arguments. Many things that people do in society have some adverse effects, and (as far as I'm concerned) these need to balanced against the principle that we should be allowed to do what we want unless there's a good reason why not. Now, it may be the case in Finland that the potential adverse effects of urban cats are sufficient reason too ban them. I don't know for sure, which was why I was asking. It's not obvious one way or the other. It could be debated. But it seems that it's quite difficult to have a discussion about some things without getting people's hackles up. The "that's just the way we do things here" argument is intrinsically slightly offensive, because it is capable of being used to support anything (and in some countries is used to justify all sorts of nasty stuff. Look at Saudi Arabia.)

Finally, it's the law. Like it, hate it... We care not. But better obey it.

Sure. I do, which is why I haven't got a cat. But we shouldn't obey unquestioningly, as democratic systems require us to question and debate laws in order to function properly. It's a duty. Now, as a non-Finnish citizen of another EU country living and working here for a finite period (I'll be here for another year) and never likely to be fluent in Finnish my status as a participant in such debate is ambiguous. But as far as I'm aware there aren't any laws against trying!

[sammy]

You don't think it is valid, I do think it is valid. Who is right?

I said that the fact that some people don't like cats is not a valid reason in itself. In other words, I think it has to be supported by other arguments, such as the ones you've just mentioned.

You're quite correct - I wrote the original message hurriedly and meant that "not liking cats" includes the possibly undesired things like damages in the garden, killing of birds, pooping, etc. I did not mean it would "as such" be sufficient reason.

[zax]

Well, the disloyal little !"#¤% has left again. Even after a week of pampering, indulgence and general acting-on-his-every-whim that was starting to cause real disruption to normal everyday life Hopefully he hasn't just signed his own death warrant... she talks the talk, but does she walk the walk? I'm tempted to leave him there for a couple of weeks to find out

No... must resist...

[EP]

In the olden days cats often went with the house. The family sold the house and moved, the buyer got the house AND the cat. It was sort of expected that the cat can stay and people didn´t even try to take it along.

[smoo]

Cats certainly seem to get more attached to places than to people. Or at least if they are attached to you as person, you always get the feeling that it's for your place-like qualities (warmth, tactile properties, etc...)

That's what I like about them. No pretences or emotional baggage!