Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Driver Reverses Away From Sliding Car" video.

  1.  Aluzky  Funny that you seem to be put off by anyone who throws any reasonable alternative to your theory and go straight into debate mode. Again, no one (including your and I) knows for sure why the cat in the video did what it did. To casually dismiss possible/plausible explanation as unlikely while only believing your own (without definitive) proof is just golden idiocy.
    3
  2.  Aluzky  Frankly we don't know why the cate in the clip did what it did. It may be playing or it really did felt concern for the baby. Cats can sometime be protective of other living that that are close(which they may sees as family) to them. Case in point : remember that vide where a cat save her owner toddler from being mangled by a dog?
    2
  3.  Aluzky  You are a prime example of Dunning–Kruger effect on display. "Facts are not up for debate. i mean, they can be debated but odds of those facts being proven wrong is almost non-existent. Which is why they are called facts, because they have survived human scrutiny for hundreds of years without being proven wrong." For a guy who allegedly have a PhD you don't' seem to be able to distinguish the difference between facts and opinion. Everything you sated here are not facts : they are opinions based on your observation (which may or not be clouded by your own cognitive bias) . ". Again, I could claim that cars engines run on fairies burning fuel. That is a reasonable alternative (to many delusional people who think fairies exist) yet not a valid one''. Talk about false equivalency. If you think that " the claim that cars engines run on fairies burning fuel" is as a reasonable alternative to the idea that "cats understand danger and may be inclined to protect those that formed bond with it against perceived danger" (something animal behaviourist have noted in cats) , that show a horrible lapse of logic on your part. " Same way many cat delusional people think that cat is truly intelligent on a human level and is protecting a human from a fall." "The cat is not trying to save the child. Cat is being a cat and playing like cats do. You are an idiot for humanizing the cat." "Say the idiot who humanizes cats. lol" Stooping to strawman , huh? Perchance you accidentally buy too many straw are yard sale you frequent and now desperately trying to build as much strawmen out of them as possible. Care to point out (quote me , I dare you) where I ever stated that cats have human level intelligence? "Also, just on logic alone we know the cat is not trying to protect the human, cats are not intelligent enough to understand complex though" All animal are intelligent enough to perceive danger though (lest they would never be a viable species) what the may perceive as " dangerous" may seem strange to humans (why virtual barriers work on animals). A mother cat knows enough about dangers of high ledges (which wouldn't pose any problem to an adult cats) to prevents her kitten from crossing them when possible eg . " if that cat was as intelligent to know the child is in danger, he/she would also know that the child does not have enough force or grip in his hands to lift himself and hurl himself out the balcony. " For guy who claim tna cats are not intelligent enough to form complex thought you seem to be expecting that cat to do some highly complex deduction.. " Conclusion: the cat is stupid and does not know any better. " Equally plausible conclusion supported by observed/recorded behaviours of animals (including cats) : that cat was smart enough to know high ledges are dangerous and is attached enough to the baby (or his family) to protect it but not smart enough to know that the baby can't cross it on its own "Not casually, Literally use facts and logic to do so. " You have failed to present a single example of facts and logic. As I said: Everything you sated here are not facts : they are opinions based on your observation (which may or not be clouded by your own cognitive bias) .
    1