vos wrote on February 22, 2022 at 9:26 PM

Reply to comment by metocin in So, outdoor cats, bad or not much? by Bezotcovschina

Are you responsible for what happens to them though? This implies that they are somehow not able to navigate the world themselves. And as I said, accidents do happen, but that applies to humans as well.

I find that you seriously underestimate cats, and for lack of a better word infantilize them. I also think it's arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior.

Furthermore, in a sanist and ableist world where disabled people are often denied agency because of their supposed incapability to make their own decisions, and are often imprisoned because they are considered a 'harm to themselves and others' - often falsely, and even if suicidal, it's their own life - your analogy kind of falls flat...

metocin wrote on February 22, 2022 at 10:40 PM

I find that you seriously underestimate cats

I don't think I do. As I said, I am quite aware of all the dangers that are present for a free roaming cat in the city. I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior

Listen if you don't think your intellectual abilities are above that of a cat, then that's your problem. It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

An ableist world doesn't change my "analogy", which was a question that you conveniently avoided answering. In fact, a speciesist and ableist world only reinforce the point I was making because the world we live in (specifically the urban areas) present many dangers because they are ableist and speciesist.

vos wrote on February 23, 2022 at 12:03 AM

I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

By this logic, human parents are responsible for something bad happening to their children throughout their whole lives because they didn't have to let them outside.

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

I agree it's not speciesist to recognize differences between species, but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist. Just like it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

I'm sorry, I might not have been so clear. I think your analogy falls flat because it rests on ableism. Your analogy implied that at least some humans with cognitive abilities different from those we 'expect' from humans (i.e. neurotypical humans) should not be allowed to 'roam free' - which is quite a derogatory way to refer to the movement of disabled people to be honest - on the basis of ableist/sanist assumptions about the danger of neurodivergent people and/or because they are deemed incapable of making their own decisions.

Furthermore, while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers, I don't think that the way to go about this is to not allow nonhuman animals or disabled people to go outside. A better way to go about this would be to take actions that directly target ableism/speciesism, for example through making places more accessible, making spaces safer for nonhumans, educating people about neurodivergence and how to support disabled people and help them meet their needs, etc.

metocin wrote on February 23, 2022 at 2:55 PM

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

I actually try not to use "it", didn't mean to

but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist

So is it anti-speciesist to assume all species of animals have equal intelligence? lol

it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans

It is not abliest to recognize that there are cognitive differences between humans. I have adhd, it's not ableist for someone to recognize that I function differently to others. That's ridiculous.

while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers

Okay, so wouldn't you agree that in the meantime, while those dangers still exist, that there is some reason to be cautious of allowing certain domesticated species or humans with severely limited cognitive abilities to explore (specifically urban) outdoor spaces alone in order to keep them from harming themselves or being harmed by others?

By the way you can respond but I am not replying any further because I don't think either of us are going to convince each other of anything and I'm kind of sick of you calling me ableist and speciesist for caring about the well-being of nonhuman species and differently abled humans. It's not bigoted to understand that some folks need care and companionship in order to thrive in an ableist, speciesist world.