Removed by mod

It’s fine. Taking at face value you’re supposedly 18 I was remembered of my kids talking about the old days - i.e. 10 year olds talking about stuff merely 2 years ago (Ok to them that’s like a is decade to us). So that granny comment was tongue in cheek as well… :-)

18F? Were you born a granny (or old person)?

Sorry, I’ll make it easy: just 3 little things to know:

1. Your study doesn’t prove what you say.
2. This is tricky, not just good or bad.
3. You need help; this is too hard for you.

Version for anyone reading this with at least average analytic capabilities: I’m sorry, I seem to keep overestimating your analytic capabilities. I’m boiling it down to 3 simple points:

1. Your study - even while showing some bias - does not support your claims.
2. This - like most cases - is not a black and white one.
3. You are out of your depth - not only in this thread. Get help.

If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks.

Except the conclusion does not state that - regardless of how much you want it to. Please have someone explain that to you.

You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren’t as much of a risk?

Did you even try to read that study you linked? There are more risks than cars and their severity depends on time and location. Is it to hard a concept that in former times e.g. the risk of predation, disease , and other accidents combined with lack of access to veterinarians pose a higher risk?

But there’s such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can’t understand …

Similar to this snippet all of your replies seem to be motivated by emotion only - so much that it impairs your ability to assess your own sources. Just because you want your source to agree with you it doesn’t mean it really does.

… to accept the obvious conclusion.

Again, there is no obvious conclusion. There are no absolutes here - there are pros and cons related to both. How big they are varies by location (see e.g. #2.2 paragraph of the study you linked). I’d like to add that the character of the cat also plays a very massive role - This is missing in this particular study though. Again, have someone explain it to you. Alternatively you could feed it to an AI (see below).

I’d guess most cat owners would prefer their cat|s stay indoors, at least in cities (me being one of them tbh). Some cats don’t accept being locked up though - regardless of the amount of entertainment provided.

(AI) E.g. here is what mistral.ai answers to “does this study say you should only keep cats indoors?”

The study does not explicitly state that cats should only be kept indoors. Instead, it presents a balanced review of the risks and benefits associated with outdoor access for cats. The study discusses various welfare concerns related to uncontrolled outdoor access, such as increased risks of disease, parasites, injury, and predation, as well as negative impacts on wildlife and human neighbors. However, it also acknowledges the welfare benefits of outdoor access, including the opportunity for cats to engage in natural behaviors like hunting, exploring, and climbing, which can improve their physical and mental well-being.

Overall, the study emphasizes the need for further research to better understand the impacts of different housing and enrichment strategies on cat welfare, as well as the attitudes and practices of cat owners regarding outdoor access.

Assuming you have noone explaining complicted stuff to you or you being unwilling to listen to advice: Feed the study to an AI with reasoning engine (e.g. deepseek) and ask some questions about it. Make sure to ask whether the study is biased and whether (obvious) factors have been omitted. You can learn somehting there as the analytic capacity of AI with reasoning engine is vastly superiout to yours.

The study weighs the pros and cons of outdoor and indoor keeping. It also offers some ideas how to mitigate the cons. It’s an interesting study, you should ask someone to explain it to you.

The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.

Please elaborate your claims about past and present dangers for pets, I’m curious about specifics.

Also how are you mitigating the risk of “such dangers” for pets and children?

wtf. Where was that?

Date & location please.

As a cat owner I approve using a a super soaker. I use a mini-soaker on my own cats in rare cases (being bengals they love water but despise being sprayed) - they probably catch on quickly and should bolt when they see you reaching for it soon.

That being said throwing a whole cup at a cat or making it soaking wet is not ok.

It’s also how house cats have been living for about 10000 years.

Even the studies most friendly to your position put the conglomerate that cats are counted it in 4th place - e.g.:

1. Habitat Loss & Degradation (40-50%)
2. Climate Change (20-30%)
3. Pesticides & Chemical Pollution (10-15%)
4. Predation by Domestic & Invasive Species (5-10%)
5. Collisions (5-10%)
6. Disease & Parasites (1-5%)
7. Illegal Hunting & Trapping (1-3%)
8. Light Pollution (<1-2%)

Let’s be very generous and concede cats could contribute 5% (sorry magpies, crows, etc pp. - you contribte almost nothing)

I don’t argue this point because I am way to fond of cats. I don’t even agree with the above scale - at least when it comes to (formerly) common birds such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and common blackbird (Turdus merula). Their main problems are Usutu virus and loss of insect biomass.

I am shit-scared about the loss of insect biomass. I am old and observant enough to have recognized the Windshield phenomenon by myself. I concur with the Danish study hinting at a 80% decrease from 1997 until 2017 (I actually think it is higher now). I live in major city with nice parks - the decrease is observable here too.

If the food supply of songbirds has declined by at least 80% that is your biggest problem right there - and it does not only affect songbirds and not only insectivores.

Over-emphasizing cats in this situation is a smoke screen/ red herring akin to BP pushing the carbon footprint of the common man.

The current problem of insectivores is a massive massive lack of insects, not cats.

How about multi-booting via Ventoy?

I wouldn’t put it past Samsung to try and force you to have internet access enabled so they can spy on you.

However having additional hardware to directly access the internet via cellular is a bit much. That might have been an Aprils fools article by some IT site.

When Sony tried to install root kits on PCs of folks just trying to watch a movie on a legit purchased DVD there was a quite large shitstorm.

Some require you to be online.

I’d take it back to the store as broken. Never heard of that though.

Some took it a step further and are equipped with 4/5G modems to bypass your network restrictions.

Never heard of this either and it would raise a massive stink in the EU. Can you share an example?

Or you could just block the Spyware TV from accessing the internet.

Well I’m trapped in it (purchased software, connected devices). The fence is knee-high at most though.

I’m using both iPhones and Android phones (vanilla and rooted), the only valid point you make is about using themes. I belong to to the 99,9% of users who don’t bother.

You forgot some important feature that Android phones have: They don’t pester you too much about privacy: they allow apps per default to use the GPS, message you, etc. Also they come with a lot of unneeded apps preinstalled, some of these being impossible to deinstall

In Germany even calling the the emergency numbers frivolously is a felony. An ambulance is for emergencies. if you call them because you don’t feel like taking a cab somebody else might die because the ambulance can’t reach them in time. That being said that conservative chud is still a fucking idiot.