Go ahead, make my day.


And I didn't call you crazy I called you and your views ethnocentric and xenophobic, not to mention unintentionally hetero-normative.

It's pretty immature to think that creatures don't have the right to kill eachother.

Sarn, I'll call you crazy if you'd like.

And suddenly you're a cat expert because you've had cats. Apparently also all of your cats were violent. Sounds like you weren't much of a cat person

There's a big huge flaw in the argument you keep putting up:

They weren't fighting. I don't care how much on the verge you think they were, they weren't fighting.

Last I checked, this wasn't Minority Report, we're not convicting cats of pre-crime.

This is one of the dumbest arguments Massassi has had.

i think you mean awesomest

yeah, this is one of the dumbest awesomest Massassi has had.

Much like how having a penis doesn't make you an authority on how to use it, and being married doesn't make you a marriage counselor.

I think a person who has 'owned some cats' is one of the least qualified people to speak to the behaviour of the whole species.

I can make generalizations about my border collie but I am by no means an expert. At penis use I reign supreme ly bad

I have seen a cat once

Ok forget it. I give up. Between Cool Matty saying that stomping your foot on the ground to break up a potential cat fight is the same as holding a little cat trial and convicting the furry little guys of cat pre-crime and Spook saying that people have a right to kill each other, I just don't think I can take the amount of crazy in this thread anymore. I really don't care enough to bother. Can we just leave it at that I don't find the video funny? I'm sorry for having an opinion on the matter. Apparently that's some kind of huge taboo around here.

Surely that's why you're both in the armed forces?

Holy **** you are hot **** now, got a nice passive aggressive signature and everything!
(Da Fett)

I accidently killed a cat with my pellet gun when I was 9

I was so sad

Gun rule #4

Opinions are not valid just because they are opinions. Your opinion isn't well supported, that's why people are giving you ****.

The opinion he was referring to was the fact that he doesn't find the video funny. That's not something he needs support for. He doesn't find it funny. Full-stop.

He also attempted to explain a part of why he doesn't find it funny. I'm sympathetic to what he said: it seems sadistic (if not cruel) to derive amusement from another creature's discomfort. Others have a lower degree of empathy with cats, apparently, which is fine, too. But apparently everyone decided to take a holiday from reading comprehension and reasonable discourse. Hopefully it was fun, because it looked pretty idiotic.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret that... thanks?

I can't remember... was it always this easy to start a debate about nothing on Massassi in the past? If I would've know this would happen, I would've posted the one where the two cats and the two birds...

Well yes, but that's not the opinion that's been debated here. I don't find it funny at all, but I do object to calling it cruel.

The easiest way to start a debate goes like this:

ME: Sir, you go to far! I find your opinions disgusting and offensive and I shant stand for them any longer!

YOU: How dare you insult me! I shall have my satisfaction!

ME: No, it is I who will derive satisfaction from you! To the duelling grounds!

YOU: To the duelling grounds!

and so on...

But Emon, I can have an opinion that something is cruel in the same way that I can have an opinion that it's not funny. What's the difference? I'm not writing laws here, I don't have to go with the legal definition of cruelty. It's my OPINION that letting two domesticated animals remain in a tense situation when you have the power to do something about it is cruel. Whether it fits the legal definition of animal cruelty is irrelevant, and whether I can "back up" that OPINION is just as irrelevant as whether I can "back up" the opinion that it's not funny.. You can of course formulate your own opinion.

Everyone knew it was your opinion.

Everyone who was giving you **** for your opinion did so because they thought your opinion was ****.

No one is disagreeing with your right to have opinions.

Your justification for what was cruel isn't based on anything factual.


Cruelty can be defined fairly well in terms of emotional and physical effects, even on animals. By your logic, I can say that the Abu Ghraib prison torture wasn't cruel because "well, that's just like, my opinion, man" which would be ****ing stupid. According to you, the opinion that Abu Ghraib was candy and lollipops wonderful time for the prisoners is just as valid as the opinion that it was extreme human suffering.

This is the dumbest and most obvious thing ever. Why would you possibly think this adds anything of value to the discussion? The level of misunderstanding that must exist inside your brain frightens me.

My principal problem is your assertion that it is animal cruelty, when the greater animal cruelty is depriving them of their right to be animals.

What does a cat have if not catfights? Hmm? Regular fights? Are they boxers? If you take the cat out of fights all you get is ****ty montages in movies and ruined marriages.

I have no problem with your irritation at me and all of the other even keeled people in the world who think it is amusing to watch to beings rage at eachother*. I do have a problem with your silly bellbottomed trousers. Get a real man's uniform that requires sock garters.


*See any drama film about people, EVER. That's the point of the video. If one is to dislike getting pleasure from the discomfort of others I suggest you disconnect yourself entirely from modern society and start sucking dick to get out of the military.

-One person just got trolled by an entire forum. Massassi just jumped the 4chan.













P.S. I'm allergic to cats so I'm kind of biased in this discussion.