Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Straightup32 t1_j6dai2l wrote

Reply to comment by DasMotorsheep in 9 lives by PewPewAnimeGirl

Well if we want to get technical with it, I said that cats CAN survive from great heights. I think one example is enough to prove that theory correct. “Can” and “do” are wildly different claims.

I’m merely saying that it is possible for a cat to survive, and it is. And it is because of the reasoning I mentioned.

1

DasMotorsheep t1_j6djmbd wrote

Yep, that's all correct, but it's pretty obviously not the part of your comment that the other commenters and I were referring to, which was:

​

>In fact, the most dangerous height they can hurt themselves is between 4-5 stories because it’s high enough for them to get hurt, but not high enough to position themselves.

1

Straightup32 t1_j6dk8iz wrote

Well it’s the truth. Cats can survive those falls by positioning themselves in a way that reduces their terminal velocity.

And the inverse is also true, injuries and death are sustained when the cat can’t position itself to reduce terminal velocity.

The only speculation is the height at which they aren’t able to accurately position themselves and reduce terminal velocity in time before impact.

And in that regard, my speculation and evidence is just as good as yours.

3

DasMotorsheep t1_j6do637 wrote

apart from my speculation and evidence being based in common sense and something that everybody with a cat in their house can reproduce, there is this bit...

​

>in fact, the most dangerous height they can hurt themselves is

emphasis by me

>my speculation

no emphasis needed, I guess.

1

Straightup32 t1_j6dp7fo wrote

Now we are arguing semantics.

“In fact” is just as much a phrase used to tie two points ago as it is a literal declaration of fact.

And if we are going to take things at the literal definition of fact, it’s impossible to obtain any concrete fact from this si auction because it’s just open to so many uncontrollable variables. So the sincere interpretation would have just been that I was using it as a phrase to tie two statements together.

And for the record, it’s not like my speculation is unfounded. There are plenty of statistics and observations that corroborate my speculation.

Edit: and you seem to be missing some key points. One of them being it’s not enough to position itself, it needs time to reduce the current terminal velocity, that’s not instantaneous.

1

DasMotorsheep t1_j6dr9ps wrote

> it’s impossible to obtain any concrete fact from this si auction because it’s just open to so many uncontrollable variables.

Point to you. In the meantime I did some googling on the terminal velocity of cats and how long it takes them to reach it, and found varying statements ranging from 60mph @ 4 stories to 45mph @ 7 stories... So if we go with the extreme of 4 stories and 60mph, it could be reasonable that cats who fall longer would be able to control their fall better and actually reduce their initial terminal velocity that they reached in an uncontrolled fall.
It still sounds a bit extreme to me that a cat would need this long to reach its "ideal falling" position, given how quickly they can actually position themselves in the air during very short falls.

In the end, I guess I have to concede that my speculation and evidence really isn't any better than yours. Anyway. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, have a good one!

2

Straightup32 t1_j6dsjaa wrote

Hey, I always enjoy a good debate! And thank you for keeping it civil as well. You made some great points and really had me challenging my view points without making me defensive! And that’s an amazing quality to have!

2

DasMotorsheep t1_j6f59ez wrote

Gold??? Aww my person, that wouldn't have been necessary. Thanks <3

1