# Why I like dogs better than cats

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
A dog is above the cat in evolution. So I think you should say a dog could never go wild again like a wolf or wild cat. But we know this to be false.
Sorry, I think that's a fairly weak argument. You're simply stating the opposite of what I said and don't post evidence that makes your argument legitimate.

I think dogs are intended for people with low self esteem, because the dog gives love for little to nothing. It is friendly no matter what. With cats, on the other hand, you have to work for their love. It shows you're willing to work for a result you want, whereas owning a dog is for lazy people who need reassurance that they're worth something.

EDIT: This is all in humor of course, but I honestly believe that the basic idea is true. I mean no offense to anyone here who likes dogs.

Just thought I should add this

#### Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
With cats, on the other hand, you have to work for their love. It shows you're willing to work for a result you want
You give a whole new meaning to being "pussy whipped"

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
And, in case you're wondering, yes, I got a lot of that speech from the movie "Meet the Parents"

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
You give a whole new meaning to being "pussy whipped"
Hahaha, nice one

#### maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
Cats aren't completely domesticated. Dogs are. I think that would automatically make them more evolved then a cat. And to a whole new level. I don't see heards of siamese cats searching cars at the border, nor do I see police sicking attack pesians on criminals. Finally just imagine the horror of a scene of trying to use a seeing eye cat at a cross section. That could get messy fast.
So thats where I base my point dogs are more evolved and smarter then cats. From that stand point cats are most useless. Anywhere there are dogs, there are feril surviving wild dogs. They can adapt to far more climates than cats too.

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
Cats aren't completely domesticated. Dogs are. I think that would automatically make them more evolved then a cat. And to a whole new level. I don't see heards of siamese cats searching cars at the border, nor do I see police sicking attack pesians on criminals. Finally just imagine the horror of a scene of trying to use a seeing eye cat at a cross section. That could get messy fast.
So thats where I base my point dogs are more evolved and smarter then cats.
I disagree. That actually proves my point--dogs only do that because they're too stupid to think for themselves. Perhaps physically they're more evolved (though I'm really not even sure about that), but mentally, cats are by far the smartest of the two.

Well-trained is NOT the same as more evolved.

Last edited:

#### THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Cats aren't completely domesticated. Dogs are. I think that would automatically make them more evolved then a cat. And to a whole new level. I don't see heards of siamese cats searching cars at the border, nor do I see police sicking attack pesians on criminals. Finally just imagine the horror of a scene of trying to use a seeing eye cat at a cross section. That could get messy fast.
So thats where I base my point dogs are more evolved and smarter then cats. From that stand point cats are most useless. Anywhere there are dogs, there are feril surviving wild dogs. They can adapt to far more climates than cats too.
Thanks for clarifying your statement, of why you said "dogs are more evolved than cats".

But I agree with DerStrom8, the reason they don't use cats for servile tasks is because dogs are easier to train. That is not because they are more evolved but becuase they are a pack animal that generally follows the input from a leader and because most dog species have been bred very carefully to make them have less independence and more easily trainable.

Higher evolved intelligent animals are not pack animals, they generally form into a family group of one dominant male and his harem and offspring. Humans also are in that category. We are intelligent enough to not be pack animals, if you exclude the dumbest of humans (like football fans etc).

Cats are more intelligent than dogs, and CAN be trained although you have to take more time, which is typical for training anything with a sufficiently high intellect. Intelligent creatures don't just jump to obey you.

Cats are hunters, which requires greater intellect than scavenging (dogs).

I've seen documentary videos of cats trained to open complex cage locks with their hands etc, something thought only possible with primates and definitely beyond dogs who have only the ability for the most basic arm movements.

And as for cat lovers vs dog lovers, apparently one strong indicator of a psychopathic personality type is that they like dogs and hate cats. Something to do with the fact that dogs submit and obey without question, where cats (like people) take some effort and give/take to build a working relationship with. Of course I'm not saying everyone who prefers dogs is a psychopath, just that it is interesting.

Last edited:

#### lloger

Joined Nov 27, 2011
4
I am very afraid of cats and dogs, but dogs can be housekeeping, and sometimes looks very cute！

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
Last edited:

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,510
Cats are born smart; born as smart as they are ever going to be. They know how to crap in a box without training. Like a cow is born already knowing how to walk, or figures it out within a couple of hours. Does a calf stepping out of womb onto 4 legs and walking away indicate genious? At first glance, it does to me, but check back in couple years and see that the cow hasn't advanced at all. Same with a cat. Dogs on the other hand can be trained. It's been stated here that this reflects the dog's inferior intellect and I completely disagree. Dogs are easier to train, and that means they are stupider? seriously? Take 2 people and train them to bag groceries; "person A" is mentally handicapped and the "person B" is not. Person B picks it up in about 5 minutes and person A takes a week to train. Does that make person A the smarter of the two? After all, by the "harder to train = smarter" logic, that's exactly the case.
Where are all the hollywood performing cats?

#### Zazoo

Joined Jul 27, 2011
114
Cats don't lower themselves to "being trained."

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
Cats are born smart; born as smart as they are ever going to be. They know how to crap in a box without training. Like a cow is born already knowing how to walk, or figures it out within a couple of hours. Does a calf stepping out of womb onto 4 legs and walking away indicate genious? At first glance, it does to me, but check back in couple years and see that the cow hasn't advanced at all. Same with a cat. Dogs on the other hand can be trained. It's been stated here that this reflects the dog's inferior intellect and I completely disagree. Dogs are easier to train, and that means they are stupider? seriously? Take 2 people and train them to bag groceries; "person A" is mentally handicapped and the "person B" is not. Person B picks it up in about 5 minutes and person A takes a week to train. Does that make person A the smarter of the two? After all, by the "harder to train = smarter" logic, that's exactly the case.
Where are all the hollywood performing cats?
As mentioned before, "training" is not the same as "evolving". I believe Mr RB did a fantastic job of explaining my exact point. Read back a couple of posts and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,510
As mentioned before, "training" is not the same as "evolving". I believe Mr RB did a fantastic job of explaining my exact point. Read back a couple of posts and maybe you'll see what I'm talking about
I'm approaching this discussion purely from the aspect of intelligence. I am not completely sold on evolution, and even if I was, I don't see where "more evolved" and "more intelligent" diverge. It seems that to be evolve would be to get smarter, anything else would be devolving. Which brings up another point, thermodynamics or whatever it was you said; have you seen Idiocracy? It seems the human race is devolving mentally, which goes against your theory.

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
I'm approaching this discussion purely from the aspect of intelligence. I am not completely sold on evolution, and even if I was, I don't see where "more evolved" and "more intelligent" diverge. It seems that to be evolve would be to get smarter, anything else would be devolving. Which brings up another point, thermodynamics or whatever it was you said; have you seen Idiocracy? It seems the human race is devolving mentally, which goes against your theory.
I also am not convinced by the theory of evolution. This thread is simply based on the assumption that it is correct.

It has been established that "evolved" simply means "adapted to one's environment", whereas intelligence is an entirely different matter. That should also answer your question about Idiocracy. Yes, I've seen it, but that has to do with intelligence. The humans are still adapted to their environment in that movie, so their level of "evolution" is effectively the same.

#### Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I would never claim that the wide range of useful tasks dogs are able to preform indicated stupidity or lack of evolution. I hope those who make that claim are joking, or else I have to question the intelligence of the human race. Not only does a trained dog have to interpret what a total different anaimal expects of them ( an animial with vastly different vocabulary and gestures ) but many of the jobs performed by dogs require a very high level of reasoning, rarely found in the animal world. For example, a "seeing eye" dog has to interpret all of the indications of a busy urban ladndscape and know when it's safe to preceed and when it isn't. That is a task that can be challenging for even "smart" humans. Another example is hearding dogs, who can seperate heard anaimals who need to be directed to a different destination, or else keep a frenzied heard together. Those tasks require planning, reasoning, knowing how other animals will react and knowing what's expected of them. That's a very high level of intelligence, no matter how much cat lovers deny it.

Dogs are not heard animals. They are pack animals. Though there might be superficial similarities, they are nowhere alike. Pack animals coorperate, hunt together, look out for one-another and have intricate communication schemes. Heard animals just move together and run like hell when they see others in their herad running. In contrast, pack animals are able to understand exactly what the other animals in the pack are experiencing, they can read body language, facial expressions, etc. That's why dogs have such 'human like' facial expressions, and why dogs show such emotions towards human family members when one is ill or depressed. That can only come from higher intelligence.

Dogs are hunters and not scavengers. More than that, they are pack hunters. When a pack hunts, they use planning, labor division and communication. For example, there are chase dogs which flush out the prey, and there are ambush dogs, who lie in wait for the prey to get close enough to make a kill. As well, there are other tasks in the hunt, and each dog knows it's own job. The cooperation is amazing, and like few other hunts in nature. It's not just a lone animal trying to run down its prey, but rather a very intelligent pack outsmarting it's prey. When a kill is made, the killing dogs call the others in the pack to share in the bounty, instead of fighting as demonstrated by lesser animals.

Training and learning are signs of high intelligence, just as all intelligent anaimals are more prone to be trained to perform intricate tasks. Only intelligent animals are able to do this. Try getting a lizzard to do anything other than what it was borne to do. Also, being part of something larger than itself and exhibiting behavior that is advantageous to the group, rather than only to itself is just more evidence of an intelligent, evolved species.

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
Training and learning are signs of high intelligence, just as all intelligent anaimals are more prone to be trained to perform intricate tasks. Only intelligent animals are able to do this. Try getting a lizzard to do anything other than what it was borne to do. Also, being part of something larger than itself and exhibiting behavior that is advantageous to the group, rather than only to itself is just more evidence of an intelligent, evolved species.
See the article above

#### strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,510
I also am not convinced by the theory of evolution. This thread is simply based on the assumption that it is correct.

It has been established that "evolved" simply means "adapted to one's environment", whereas intelligence is an entirely different matter. That should also answer your question about Idiocracy. Yes, I've seen it, but that has to do with intelligence. The humans are still adapted to their environment in that movie, so their level of "evolution" is effectively the same.
Ok, so we're on the same page. Species adapt. In the presence of excessive "idiot-proofing", the human species is now in a situation where less intellect is required to accomplish the same work, so we are adapting to the new intelligence requirement (getting stupider).
Cats adapt. put a kitten in woods of a national forest and it will become a one-cat killing machine. Cut a kitten's nuts off and stick it in a room full of stuffed bunnies and a never-depleting food supply and it will turn into an untrainable fat worthless blob.
Dogs adapt. Throw a puppy into post-natural disaster area and it will find a pack and rule the streets. Again, cut it's nuts off, yadda yadaa, it's fat and lazy, but can still be trained to do tricks and what not.

Why is being a pack animal also being considered to a trait of inferior intellect? It seems obvious to me that teamwork is a higher function. Put "works best alone" on your resume and see how many hits you get compared to your buddy who puts "team player"

#### DerStrom8

Joined Feb 20, 2011
2,390
Oh boy. I think we're getting stuck in an dangerous loop now...

Rich (BB code):
void main()
{
for(i=0; i<limit; i++)
{
catLover(argument);
delay;
dogLover(argument);
delay;
}
}
For the record, CATS RULE!

Power Electronics 18
Off-Topic 0
Off-Topic 22
Off-Topic 11
Off-Topic 0