Goodeye8

Not just that. For that supposed 20% he reinvigorated NATO (prior to the full scale invasion countries started questioning if we still need NATO), got EU to increase defense spending and got Finland and Sweden to join NATO. They also proved they’re a paper tiger and their arms manufacturing is crap. Oh and of course sanctions and the war completely wrecking the economy.

Even if they somehow get 20% it’s a Pyrrhic victory.

You fucking donkey.

Next time read your source instead of believing you can’t be wrong because you’re too technologically inept to use the fucking find function.

I’m done putting up with your aggressive bullshit.

I didn’t lie about anything. The image made two statements. First statement is that dogs can identify us as humans. That statement is irrelevant to this discussion because I didn’t address it all. The second statement is that cats view humans as “terrible incompetent cats”.

The person you replied to asked for a source about those claim but they didn’t clarify which statement they wanted a source for. Now asking source for the second statement can be interpreted three ways. The person asked for a source for cats viewing as cats, cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” or the previous two together that cats view us as terrible incompetent cats.

You gave a source for that statement but you also didn’t clarify which part the source verifies. So taking the 3 interpretations:

• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats your source is fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as “terrible incompetent” your source directly disproves that statement. Therefor your source is no fine.
• If the person was asking the source for cats viewing us as cats and as “terrible incompetent” your source is true on the first part but false on the second part which means your source is not fine. If you can’t understand why go back to school to learn classical logic.

Two out of three interpretations means your source is wrong. Just because you want to believe you only addressed that one interpretation where your source is right doesn’t mean you actually did because you never specified which part of the statement you gave a source for. How are we supposed to know that was what you meant?

To put it as plainly as I can put it, had you said “This source only shows that cats view us as cats” I would’ve had no issue with your comment. You left your source open to interpretation and 2 of the 3 interpretations meant you were wrong.

Now this conversation had been over many comments ago if you had just gone “I didn’t think it could be misinterpreted, my bad.” but you continue to demand you were never wrong in the first place. That is why you are getting downvoted and I’m not getting downvoted. You being an insufferable asshole who can’t properly express themselves also doesn’t help. And just to be very clear, I haven’t downvoted you once because unlike you I don’t actually care about upvotes or downvotes.

I already said this conversation is over, your unnecessarily aggressive and rude comment got removed and you still come back with not one but two comments. Do your mental health a service and log off for the next week because you’re acting like a nutcase.

I’m just going to ignore the absolute nonsense you just wrote and say that it’s not my problem if you’re incapable of acknowledging a mistake. Go have a day and don’t bother me.

The image says that. The other person asked for a source for that statement and you gave sources without correcting the terrible incompetent part. I think it’s a fair interpretation that you implied it.

I added that part specifically because it’s so obvious. It’s so obvious we don’t even think about all the fine motor movements we can do with excellent precision that no other animal in the world could even do.

From the very Nat Geo article you linked:

I’ve read articles where you’ve said cats think of us as big, stupid cats. Is that accurate?

No. In the book [I say] that cats behave toward us in a way that’s indistinguishable from [how] they would act toward other cats. They do think we’re clumsy: Not many cats trip over people, but we trip over cats.

But I don’t think they think of us as being dumb and stupid, since cats don’t rub on another cat that’s inferior to them.

They might not be able to understand that we’re a completely different species but they do understand that we’re not your average cat (another evidence of that is that cats generally don’t meow between each other but they do meow with humans) and they definitely don’t view us as terrible or incompetent. They view us as clumsy because based on how they see the world we are in general pretty clumsy.

Bit off topic but another interesting fact is that if we factor in fine motor skills we’re the least clumsiest animal on the planet. Cats have excellent gross motor skills but you don’t see them threading a needle. And very few animals could thread a needle because, well for a multitude of reasons but primarily because most animals simply can’t get that level of precision out of their limbs or mouth or trunk or whatever they would have to use. But for us that is so easy we don’t even question the level of complexity and precision we’re showcasing. Gross motor skills looks like it might bring us down but we’re actually very adaptive when it comes to gross motor skills (see parkour, rock climbing or just gymnastics). We simply don’t spend time developing those skills because most of us never need it. We don’t need to climb over fallen trees or crawl under bushes because if a lot of people need to use that route we just pave a road.