thinktoomuch.net

Pondering the South African Memesphere – Looking for the Good in Everything

thinktoomuch.net header image 2

AtA: Are Cats Evil?

August 5th, 2009 · Posted by Hugo · 51 Comments

Have you ever seen a cat play with a mouse? If you have, you will understand the context of my first Ask the Audience question:

Are Cats Evil?

Evil?

That question is actually too broad, take it more limited in scope: is the way they play with mice evil? …encouraging a mouse to try and run away again, giving them (false?) hope, only to pounce on them moments before they get away, successively wounding them more and more, driving them to exhaustion, torturing them, making them suffer

Please motivate your answer. ;)

There is not supposed to be a right and wrong answer, this is an opinion question, I consider all answers to be correct. Hence, I don’t consider debate interesting — the interesting part is supposed to be the further exploring of other questions within the light of our chosen answers to this one.


A friend emailed/IMed me to say:

“ek dink cats is baie baie evil. as hulle so groot as ons is, dan sou hulle ons opeet. onmiddelik.” Translation of the conversation:

P: since my twitter isn’t working… I just want to say, I think cats
are very very evil.
H: <grin>
P: if they were as big as us, they would eat us up. immediately.
H: you mean like lions? or you mean house cats as big as lions…
P: yeah even more evil

Some discussion took place below. Two comments were dropped on the imported Facebook note, good discussion took place on a Facebook status message.

Categories: Religion and Science
Tags: · ·

51 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Michael // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Some people would argue that evil requires moral reasoning capabilities which the cat clearly doesn’t have. One wouldn’t argue that a person who accidentally stood on a child’s imaginary friend evil – just not informed!

    On the other hand, one might argue (with CS Lewis) that evil doesn’t necessarily mean “willfully evil”. Sickness that kills an innocent child is evil, not just unfortunate.

    In this second sense of the word then, cats are evil. They are an unfortunate plague on our existance…

    And they cough up hairballs.

  • 2 Ben-Jammin’ // Aug 6, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Well, the cat certainly seems to be causing unnecessary suffering…is it unnecessary? Or would changing this behavior only be possible by changing the cat’s brain (increasing its caloric needs without making it better at hunting OR lowering its ability to hunt while keeping the same caloric needs)? If the cat cannot conceive of the mouse as an agent of any sort (thinking, feeling) and only sees it as mobile food, are its actions evil?

    Even if the cat’s behavior IS evil, what should be done about it, if anything?

    I don’t think I would apply good or evil labels to cat behavior – the subjective experience of the participants is too different from our human experiences. Cruel, yes. Evil, N/A?

    I have a 5:2 question:statement ratio in my ‘answer’ above. Does it count as an answer? :)

  • 3 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 6, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    @Michael

    In this second sense of the word then, cats are evil. They are an unfortunate plague on our existance…

    I, for one, welcome our feline hairball-coughing overlords… ;-)

    No, I don’t actually have anything of value to offer this thread, why do you ask?

    /cheek-tonguing

  • 4 Hugo // Aug 6, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Kenneth asks:

    why do you ask?

    For audience participation! ;-)

    I’ve a couple of follow-on questions that might, or might not, be more thought provoking. I’m also testing the waters, to see what kind of responses I can draw in. In particular, participation by the non-philosophically-inclined, that haven’t spent as much time developing a consistent ethical framework, might conceivably be able to benefit more from participating.

    And lastly, even with low participation now, I’ll have a couple of posts I can point back to, should it become more relevant in the future.

    Let’s see if I can get some responses via less formal means – a tweet and Facebook status comments.

    With regards to the contributions above, they’re all good! Including “I don’t have much to add.” Pipe dream: suppose there was a multiple choice you had to fill in before you could read the comments, I could add: “Yes”, “No”, “I don’t know”, “I don’t much care for the question”, and an option in which you can give more detailed input (like the comments above). How would that be?

  • 5 Hugo // Aug 6, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    @Michael, your blog-links are broken btw – you’re using an @ instead of a “.” – want me to fix it for you? (Or is it intentional by any chance? ;) )

  • 6 Ben-Jammin' // Aug 6, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    In particular, participation by the non-philosophically-inclined, that haven’t spent as much time developing a consistent ethical framework

    I think ethical frameworks are more daunting than epistemologies. At least that’s how it looks to me.

    Oh, and that was me in comment 2. I didn’t look at what name my browser had stored. :) [Ed: it’s been fixed.]

  • 7 Hugo // Aug 7, 2009 at 1:12 am

    I just came across the idea that in RPG alignment terms, “moral” means the Good-Evil axis, whereas “ethical” means the Lawful-Chaotic axis… huh? Really? I don’t want that to be true. Apologies for changing the topic, but: does anyone agree with that idea?

    Ben-Jammin’, prefer to have your comment 2 name adjusted to your usual one?

    Oh, and four (or five) contributors on my FB status so far. I’ll summarise in the next post.

  • 8 Ben-Jammin' // Aug 7, 2009 at 4:07 am

    Ben-Jammin’, prefer to have your comment 2 name adjusted to your usual one?

    Sure!

    does anyone agree with that idea?

    Not me.

  • 9 Michael // Aug 8, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    @ Hugo:
    Thanks for the heads up. Not intentional. Please fix it!

  • 10 Michael // Aug 8, 2009 at 8:18 pm

    @ Hugo:

    I just came across the idea that in RPG alignment terms, “moral” means the Good-Evil axis, whereas “ethical” means the Lawful-Chaotic axis… huh? Really? I don’t want that to be true. Apologies for changing the topic, but: does anyone agree with that idea?

    I think that my form of Theism doesn’t allow “ethical” to be seperated from “moral” at all. Seems like a materialist idea to me.

  • 11 Hugo // Aug 8, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Fixed the things that needed fixing.

    Seems like a materialist idea to me.

    I checked wikipedia. It’s really just the names used to label the two axes of alignment in a particular pair of games: AD&D and D&D 3rd edition. The 4th edition simplified it back to a single continuum. (Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons))

    After all, ethics is really “moral philosophy”, isn’t it? One and the same.

  • 12 Ben-Jammin' // Aug 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    I used to internally separate ethics and morality in my head. Ethics would have been ideas of right and wrong conduct based only on the harm and justice foundations (to use Haidt’s divisions.) Morality would have been ideas of right and wrong conduct based on the other foundations, and more specific to particular groups than all humans.

    It was never a very helpful distinction. (shrug)

  • 13 Emil // Aug 11, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Alfred Whitehead has a definition of morality which I quite like:

    What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike?

    The question “Are Cats evil?” much reminds of Thomas Nagel’s “What is it like to be a bat?” albeit addressing the mind-body problem. Both really has no meaning without first understanding the predicate. Nagel succinctly captures the essence of the discontentment that many feel with current attempts to analyse mental life and consciousness. The first instinct in answering “Are Cats evil?” was to break it down to the question “What is Evil?” Nagal’s central point is that there is a subjective character to experience that is never captured by a reductive account, such as the question “What is Evil?” Thus, if we were the mouse, certainly our answer to the question “Are Cats evil?” will be a determinative YES! But no-one asks “Are Mice prey?” I much prefer to agree with Nagal in these matters, and conclude that it is a mystery how the true character of experience could be revealed in the physical operation of that organism – “Are Cats evil?” Well, will we ever really know?

    Cats are just cats, who at times hunt mice and other living things. It is the way of things.

    ;)

  • 14 Bad Ben // Aug 15, 2009 at 1:22 am

    Ebilz? Icanhazcheesburger.com=good!

  • 15 saneman // Aug 25, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Surely you cant really ask that question, because the cat is just acting on its instincts.

    Are we not just trying to apply a man made label to a natural process?

    Because we always try to find a reason why things happen to us, our natural instinct is to blame it on something that did it intentionally.

    who here hasn’t sworn AT a table after kicking there toe.

    When bad things happen its evil, when good things happen it is god or good or whatever.

    there is no such thing as evil.

  • 16 Hugo // Aug 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    saneman, what do you think of Google’s motto “don’t be evil”? Pointless, because there’s no such thing, everyone can just do what they want?

  • 17 Bad Ben // Aug 25, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Moral relativism is Soooo 1970s…

  • 18 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 25, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    OK, I kind of agree with saneman here.

    Shock! Horror! Pearl-clutching etc. etc…

    I see this as a graph. Any depiction of viewpoints on the morality of a certain act could be described as a distribution, or a continuum. People’s views will vary around certain central values. An absolute, objective moral act would have all viewpoints at precisely the same point on the continuum, with no variance. Certain moral acts will have very wide variance (how acceptable is cutting your hair) whilst others will not vary a great deal at all (incest).

    So, for the specific moral act of playing with your (live) food, such as a cat does, it is possible that the vast majority of humankind would cluster around the mean of considering this disgusting, morally unacceptable, etc. etc., whilst a (admittedly theoretical) poll of feline feelings about the matter would produce a distribution that barely overlaps the human one.

    So, I tend to agree with saneman that we are applying our own human average and variance on the morality of what the cat is doing, which is obviously inapplicable to the cat.

    The point is, as Bad Ben so aptly mentioned, morals are not absolutely relative. But they are not hard and fast, binary divisions either.

  • 19 Hugo // Aug 25, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Cool. But I’m still hoping for some input from saneman on Google’s motto… ;) I’m looking, from saneman, for a functional sense of “evil” that could be useful. (It need not be a modernistic definition.) It can be some distribution, or some properties of a distribution… you scientist you!

  • 20 gerhard // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    [saneman, what do you think of Google’s motto “don’t be evil”? Pointless, because there’s no such thing, everyone can just do what they want?]
    hugo. saneman is spot on. evil… it’s like saying “god” in a religious conversation. who’s god? what do _you_ mean by god and what does he mean by god? pointless when talking about cats. not because we’re special but rather because it has no meaning in their world.

    But , being human , if I were to personify the cat and situation, I would argue the cat does not intend to do harm but is rather innocently playing/training with it’s food. Just because we recognise the horror of what the mouse is going through does not mean we should actually care. i believe there is some example in nature of animals enjoying the actual cruelty behind it which is why we should think twice about our auto-repulsion against seal clubbing. so understanding and intending the negative consequence is what makes “evil”.

    while we’re on the topic. What do dogs and cats have in common? (yes , they are mammels mr smartypantsgoesforthemostobviousanswers)

    night.

  • 21 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    What do dogs and cats have in common?

    Dogs have owners, cats have staff!

    Oh, sorry, that’s the difference…

    *wanders off grumbling…*

  • 22 saneman // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    hehe

    we have the ability to foresee what events and situations our actions(which we are in control of most of the time) will bring about.

    If a person has this ability and continues on a course of action that negatively affects people for no reason but personal gain then you could describe them as evil.

    the Google kids just want to have fun, and you cant have fun if you don’t play nice.

    its a good marketing motto as well :P

    again we are trying to apply a man made word/concept to nature..

    and another thing “evil” is just the opposite of “good”, another concept we created while again trying to explain why that pesky table attack our toe.

  • 23 gerhard // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    the name. *the shock the horror* cat means dog. check the etymology.

  • 24 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 25, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Hmmm…Quite Interesting…
    Apparently it is one of the commoner theories. Thanks gerhard, I learnt something tonight!

  • 25 gerhard // Aug 25, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    yes to think, the general ignorance of it all.

  • 26 Hugo // Aug 25, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    @gerhard:

    hugo. saneman is spot on.

    saneman wrote:

    there is no such thing as evil.

    If that’s a philosophical statement that isn’t to be interpreted literally (like, for example, Nietzsche meaning something more deeply philosophical with “God is dead” than the literal meaning people sometimes ascribe to his infamous statement), then sure. And I was maybe making a mistake by taking him literally there?

    @saneman, so I’m assuming this is a fair summary of your thoughts regarding a useful meaning of the word “evil”:

    An aware entity operating purely for personal gain, at the expense of others.

    and/or

    “Evil” is that which is the opposite of what we consider “Good”.

    The reason it’s important for me for us to get away from a literal “there is no such thing as evil” is because I’m planning a handful of “evil?”-type posts. Let’s hope my intention to write a post on the plane actually bears fruit this time — I fly tomorrow night. Goal: publish by Friday.

  • 27 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 26, 2009 at 8:34 am

    @gerhard, fingers on buzzers!

    @Hugo, I don’t know how that second definition is useful, because all it does is shift the definitional burden onto the word “good”. It requires a second definition to be meaningful.

    I didn’t know you were back in SA. Have a good time?

  • 28 Hugo // Aug 26, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Second definition: I felt we’re all agreed that there is something we’d consider “good”, and hence “bad”, and it’s really just identifying “evil” as something similar to “bad” (as opposed to “doesn’t exist!” in response to e.g. identifying “evil” as something that “comes from satan”). Meh.

    Seems I’ve been relying too much on Facebook and Twitter. I’ve been here for a bit more than a week. Not sure if it’s really holiday if I’m so busy running around meeting various people. ;) Where are you these days, still in Stellenbosch? I would have liked for us to go grab some coffee (tea, whatever), but this being the last day, I think time’s caught up with me. I’ll be passing through for a day on the way to a wedding in October, we could schedule coffee/tea for then?

  • 29 gerhard // Aug 26, 2009 at 11:18 am

    hugo, well, the reason evil doesn’t exist is …. we’re talking about cats. we’re talking about from the human perspective are cats evil. we established they are not, not because evil doesn’t exist (yes, us and our puny human need for it to exist) but because in the context of evil as we define it the cat doesn’t meet the requirements.. Nietzsche was i think talking about the need for god. we figured out that the universe does not need god to function being the point. so we killed him and he faded into the realm of abstract delusions. an end to the classical view of the universe. so how does this relate again to the concept of evil?

  • 30 Hugo // Aug 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    The Nietzsche quote was just about interpretations. OK, let’s stop assuming what saneman meant with “evil doesn’t exist”, and dig a bit deeper into evil:

    …the insanity defence. Kinda answers the question I’m about to ask: would you consider the actions of someone that’s a bit wacky in the head and unable to contemplate his or her actions, “evil”? Consider they’re driven by instinct alone, and they do something terrible. Kill some people, or rape, or some of the worst things you can contemplate. But they’re not “of right mind”, they’d escape on an insanity defence and end up in groendakkies or something.

    So I presume you wouldn’t call them evil. Would you be prepared to label their actions as “evil”, even if you don’t label the insane perpetrator evil?

  • 31 gerhard // Aug 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    well, strictly speaking , evil means vomit. so , if other peoples actions make you want to vomit … then it’s evil. (way off tangent)

    but as i said earlier .. yes, because we define evil as a willing action of harm not being willing(undertsanding) implies the cat or the retard joe is incapable of it.
    that having been said, i think people are anyways more utilitarian with their meaning of evil. sure , the retard boy may not have understood what he was doing when he made the little girls cry while he raped her but he was still doing it. child rape is evil from the human perspective irrespective of “understanding” after all , we punish cildren who rape other children. we punish mentally retarded people if the “fault” is big enough.

    so yeah, the question is more does the term evil have any meaning at all in the real world. simply saying , killing is evil without qualifying , who , what , when, where and more importantly why is so fucking meaningless.. you may as well be speculating about dancing angles on the heads on needles.

  • 32 Hugo // Aug 26, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Right, thanks.

  • 33 Kenneth Oberlander // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    @Hugo

    I’ll be passing through for a day on the way to a wedding in October, we could schedule coffee/tea for then?

    Ja, cool. I still owe Bad Ben a coffee, so perhaps we can organise a communal meetup?

    well, strictly speaking , evil means vomit. so , if other peoples actions make you want to vomit … then it’s evil. (way off tangent)

    Interesting! Gerhard, are you an etymologist? Or just interested in word derivations?

  • 34 Bad Ben // Aug 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Yea! Im in! Cofficofficofficofficofficoffee!

  • 35 Ben-Jammin' // Aug 26, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Saneman in 15:

    Are we not just trying to apply a man made label to a natural process?

    In 22:

    again we are trying to apply a man made word/concept to nature.

    I don’t understand. Man is included in nature and is or consists of natural processes.

  • 36 gerhard // Aug 27, 2009 at 1:06 am

    ken: interested. gives a nice context to the “meaning” of words. it’s always surprising which words change and which ones stay the same. we call people nice, but do we really know what that means?
    Just imagine what coded messages one could hide because of this.
    we rely on the assumption that the person we are talking to and the messages we hear are using the similar meaning and context as the “norm”. how difficult is it for me to start calling hugo nice and saneman silly and those in the ‘know’ would be having a very different conversation than what the public would be hearing. We wouldn’t even be inventing an language , we would just be speaking it at a different age, whatever “it” is. i think this would be a much smoother way to hide text in conversation than tokenizing. no need for exotic words or deranged sentences that would be clues as to the nature of it?

  • 37 Hugo // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    @gerhard #23:

    the name. *the shock the horror* cat means dog. check the etymology.

    Curious what’s your source? I only looked at the etymology on wikipedia, and didn’t find anything suggesting that cat/dog connection…

    Ditto for no mention of “vomit” on Wikipedia’s etymology of “evil”

  • 38 gerhard // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    @hugo , google “does cat mean dog”

    evil == vomit. depending on how you translate the word ‘ueble’. the ill meaning of ueble. (i have a better book on this too , tho the name escapes me , i can look that up for u tho. )

  • 39 David // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    “Bad Ben // Aug 25, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Moral relativism is Soooo 1970s…”

    Agreed, its also copping out by taking a neutral stance, and instead trying to convince everyone you are smart by ‘exploring’ the intricacies of the subject, without ever really coming to a clear conclusion. You’re trying to offer a unique opinion, without realizing its just about the only opinion on this thread… Anyways

    One definition of evil that I’m sure most of you will agree with is as follows:

    Derriving pleasure from the agony of others, without being motivated by revenge.

    I have 3 cats. Black Female, Calico Male, and White/Grey Female. The First 2 are siblings and the White/Grey one has no sibling.

    Story:

    The Black cat was sleeping on a couch in a ball. I was sitting at my desk, about 5 feet in front of couch when I noticed the white cat slink up very slowly to the couch with her tail waving in the corner of my eye, then exiting my periphreal vision. I didnt think much of it at that exact moment.

    Suspicious, I turned around 30 or so seconds later to see the white cat with her front paws on the couch, staring at the sleeping black cat with her tail still wagging. She then raise her paw, swatted the black cat in the head, and took off running before I could scream at her (which I did anyways). The black cat awoke disoriented for a few seconds, but then shrugged it off and went back to sleep.

    Relative morality goes out the window whenever a creature KNOWS theyare causing grief to another. An evolved characteristic? Even flimsier argument since this was not playfulness, self defense, or food acquisition – but pure malice… evil…

    Humans are not alone….. cats have consciences, as evidenced by their awareness of wrong doing

  • 40 Hugo // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:37 pm

    Facebook imported note is at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=111188774393 – but some actual conversation took place at the status message at: http://www.facebook.com/hugovdm?v=feed&story_fbid=119156955871 – if these links work for anyone.

    It proved to be a lot of work to try to “summarise” the discussion, but I still intend to finish the summary and post a follow-up. Like, maybe, in another life perhaps. :-/

  • 41 Kenneth Oberlander // Oct 16, 2009 at 8:22 am

    @David
    Calico male????

    @Hugo
    The quote by Stephan Van Ellewee sums my stance up precisely:

    perhaps the universe is the universe.. Not evil or good in any way. And ‘Evil’ is a human construct, rather than something like a natural law?

  • 42 David // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:30 pm

    I checked into the proper definintion of a Calico and I suppose he is just a black/brown/tan striped/spotted cat. I used the term too generally. At least I learned something though.

  • 43 Kenneth Oberlander // Oct 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Well, actually you can get Calico males. They’re just really really really rare…

    Not that this alters the gist of your story, of course ;-)

  • 44 AtA: Are Lies Always Bad? // Oct 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    […] Back in August, we discussed the question Are Cats Evil? […]

  • 45 Farquar // Nov 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    American Indians believe (believed??) that Fox was here first, and his brother was the Wolf. Fox said “people will live forever, so that when they die they will not die for long”. Wolf knew this was wrong “people must die, all living things must. Else they will cover the earth, and eat all the salmon and buffalo and corn.”
    One day Wolf died and he said to his brother “quick, bring me back to life”. But Fox told him “no, all things must die, you convinced me”, and he wept as he said this. But, he had said it and it was final. Now Wolf would rule forever over the dead and Fox over the living, but still to this day he would mourn his Brother…

    Cat watched all this, hidden, as he was always, for Fox thought him dead. He laughed as Wolf died and knew he had no longer to fear Fox. He would forever deliver Wolf his people to rule, and Fox would forever hate him for it. But not kill him. For without Cat, Wolf could not rule. And so Cat watched, and Cat laughed.

    So, I guess based on Ancient knowledge, you could say cats might be evil.

  • 46 Hugo // Nov 19, 2009 at 12:47 am

    Ancient worldviews are fascinating. ;)

    Farquar, can you remember where you learned this story? /me’s always curious about such things.

  • 47 Is This Blog Evil? // Dec 8, 2009 at 12:30 am

    […] previous discussions contemplating evil and sin (the equality/inequality of) and […]

  • 48 Richard // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Yes cats are evil. If evil is ignorance they qualify.

    A cats are ignorant of , and are not interested in, mice in and of themselves. The mice, or whatever else it may be, are only of interest to the cats as they relate to their own needs and desires.

    They are not wilfully ignorant they just don’t give a damn which explains the mundane reality of most evil. Do not ascribe to malice what can be easily explained as stupidity.

    This may also explain the Google motto: “Don’t be evil.” If you use Google you’ll find out some interesting stuff, your horizons will expand and you may not be so ignorant about your world and those who live in it with you.

    Mice of the world rejoice, Google is your saviour!? You just have to teach the cats how to use Google.

  • 49 Hugo // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    Greater understanding, higher-level self-aware intellect, you could say that brought us some knowledge of good and evil, right? And with that knowledge comes responsibility, because with it we can choose to do better… (or fail to do so, or do the opposite, and be consciously evil), eh?

  • 50 Richard // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    Stupid/Evil is as Stupid/Evil does.

    Conscious choice is at the heart of most morality and ethical systems.

    Those who are unable to choose through temporary or permanent impairment, both forms of ignorance, are considered to be morally unaccountable for their choices hence the insanity plea or the question of extenuating circumstances; he was drunk your honour.

    If the cats can get a good lawyer then I’m sure they could get off with a warning or be classed as insane.

    But this also highlights the impossibility of inter-species moraltiy as the cats don’t ascribe to our tenets of morality; ignorance again. Even those of the same species can have differing ethical systems which have developed in their own particular culture.

    Absolute systems tend to work only in those cultures which are isolated. When cultures are no longer isolated watch the sparks fly.

    Consider the question of “honour” killings acceptable in one culture, but looked down upon and reviled in others.

    This can also be seen in the changing attitudes over time even in one culture.

    Consider the subject of duelling with pistols or swords which was thought to be the mark of a gentleman, 18th century, but eventually came to be replaced by the less lethal and more acceptable method for settling disputes by boxing, 19th century, especially in the Victorian school system.

    If it came to a prize fight between a mouse and a cat my money would still be on the cat. They fight dirty, they have the weight advantage and they have the better reach.

    The only time the mouse could win is if they were to agree on a wrestling bout. With a few Judo moves to turn the cats weight to their disadvantage the mouse might just get lucky.

    Enough for now.

    P.S. I like cats, I’m just allergic to them just like any mouse.

  • 51 Hugo // Sep 11, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Abstruse Goose weighs in:
    http://abstrusegoose.com/301

    Unfortunately where I am, I can’t watch the youtube clip. (Restrictions by Sony on copyright grounds, the music I’m sure?)

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>