Play Them Off, Keyboard Cat

[PostalCode74]

Really? REALLY?!?!?

[MrNosfaratu]

Well its not a panda, nor are they really cats. Felines yes, however those are panther cubs.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Facepalm.... panther cubs ARE cats -.-

Black panthers are considered to be "large cats".

A cat does not have to mean "house cat".

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Felines is the correct term. Yes they are cats, just larger. Although most people who study large felines refer to them as cubs. It is a common term amongst mammals and is used to describe various animals. Not all mind you, but some. Besides the fact that the correct dictionary term of "cat" is a small domesticated animal from the family of larger felines. So you are welcome to facepalm some more.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Ok... great job using google for the definition of cat *facepalm*...

A cat is any animal that's in the biological family "felidae". Felinae is a subfamily of that group.

Therefore, any feline is a cat, because everything in the felinae subfamily, is in the biological family of felidae..

So, YES, they are CATS. Cats does NOT have to mean small domesticated animal! That's just one definition!

They are cats, more specifically, large cats. Period. Idiot.

[MrNosfaratu]

You'd think I insulted you by saying you have a puny mind. Though having assumed that one would not be far off. You are now arguing semantics. If you wish to do so, then go do it with someone at your level. I knew the definition of "cat" thanks to years of extensive reading about what ever it is fancies me at the moment. Although you are right, that is just one definition. Yet it is the official definition to what most have adopted. If its interpretation you seek, than talk to a linguist.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

First: I would actually claim that you were the one arguing semantics in the first place, by claiming that panther cubs aren't cats.

Second: You didn't know the definition of cat, because like I said earlier, a cat is an animal in the family felidae. That's the most scientific definition of a cat.

Just because when most people think of a "cat", they think of their housepet, doesn't make that the official definition. That is a piss poor argument.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 No it does not make it the official definition. I suppose I should write a letter of complaint to various publishers of highly respected Dictionaries of the English language. So should you for that matter. Your vulgar and senseless attempts at insulting someone shows how immoral you are, not to mention a poor upbringing. I defined the literary terms. You defined your opinion and interpretation.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 One more thing. Why would you accuse me of using the internet to research something and then do it yourself. You clearly never knew those terms beforehand, otherwise you would have used them. Just because you use Latin terminology, it does not make you seem anymore right than you are.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

You are correct, I should not have accused you to using the internet. If you had used the internet, you probably would have come up with the correct conclusion that panthers are cats.

[MrNosfaratu]

They are cats. Felines. You should know since you used the internet you ever so follow like a holy way of life. You even pulled up the Latin terms, which if you noticed or not are from where the word Feline derives. We use the word cat to describe the small domesticated cat. If we used the word cat to describe all felines we could then assume that most people have Panthers, Leopards, Cheetahs and Lions for pets. This animal was a Panther and since it was young it is indeed a baby Panther. A cub.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

What? Why would you assume it to be a panther or lion? 99.9999% (estimate) of people who own felids, or even felines, own a house cat. So when someone claims they have a cat, you assume house cat.

That is THE worst argument ever... "You said cat, therefore you have a panther durrr".

Why don't you understand that the REAL, scientific, definition of a cat, is a felid plain and simple.

Cat does not ALWAYS mean house cat. Just like all rectangles aren't squares...

[MrNosfaratu]

"What? Why would you assume it to be a panther or lion? 99.9999% (estimate) of people who own felids, or even felines, own a house cat. So when someone claims they have a cat, you assume house cat". Your words not mine. Cat is by definition of the word, domesticated feline. Most dictionaries will have this and this is what linguists in the English language agree on. They are all cats in terms, but cat is referred as the housepet. Other cats, have specific names but are none the less cats,

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

What fucking dictionary are you looking at? Merriam-Webster: "any of a family (Felidae) of carnivorous usually solitary and nocturnal mammals (as the domestic cat, lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar, cougar, wildcat, lynx, and cheetah)", dictionary com: "any of several carnivores of the family Felidae, as the lion, tiger, leopard or jaguar, etc."

THESE PANTHER CUBS ARE CATS!!!! Period. End of discussion You lose, game over.

[MrNosfaratu]

Really at this point I think you are losing. "Felids" is incorrect. It is either a Felid or if you want plural try Felidae. This was in your second to last message. There is also just one more thing. All dictionaries will mention the first definition as small, carnivorous mammal. You keep seeing only what you want. The same dictionary you use also defines cat as, first clause: a carnivorous mammal long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice. Also (1st clause b:) what you defined.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

So what if the first definition says that it's a house cat? That's just one of the many definitions. You DON'T just use the first definition you idiot; you look at all of the definitions and look at which one fits. In this situation, you use the def. that it's a felid.

If someone says "that guy is a cool cat", you don't claim "he's not a slightly cold feline!". You use a different definition that makes sense.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 You are such a tool. Why would you use the "cool cat" definition from the actual definition of Cat? Besides that analogy does not work for this. If both definitions are correct than both are appropriate to use. This time, it was in general cat. Used in terms to the housepet. If the anchors began using Latin terms, then one would have to specify what family of subfamily.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

No, my analogy is perfectly correct. These anchors claimed these panthers were cats. You said, they weren't cats, basing that on the first definition, where the second definition claims they are cats. My analogy of "cool cats" (which I chose because I just saw this under the def. of cats, and it worked) is correct, because if you only use the first definition, that statement doesn't make sense. My point is that you use the best def. that fits the statement.

[MrNosfaratu]

At this point you are struggling to keep yourself on top. "cool cat" is a saying. It's a slang terms of sorts. If you wanted to say "he's not a slightly cold feline" than you can. Slang terms do not have any significant bearing on actual definitions of words. You try to, instead of arguing about the definitions now, explain yourself. Why would I care why you chose to use that definition? It just does not work. It has no bearing on what this discussion definitions. You are simply deluded.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Also, Felidae is the name of the family. Felid, is a single member of that family. Felids are multiple members of the felidae family. So, there goes your last argument of "you made a typo one time" when in fact, you're just a dumbass. Felids is plural of felid. Look it up dude.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 I really think you should look it up. A typo is different, making a mistake by pressing another key by accident. You made a grammatical error. Yes Felidae is the name of a family of cats, yet making it plural will not end up as Felids. Have you realized that both of what you and I said is correct? The foremost and most common definition is what I had stated. Your definition is also correct. There are clauses in a dictionary, derivatives, meaning and context.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Ok, typo or not, plural form of felid is FELIDS!

Where the hell do you get your information? Plural form of felid is the same as the name of the biological family, felidae? No, plural form of felid is felids.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Well it is. You are trying to mesh English with Latin by simply adding an "s" at the end of a word to make it plural. Maybe you can use the "s". Although the proper plural would be Felidae. Use what you want at this point.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Lastly, just for completely overkill ownage of you, these are probably not FELINES!

Most black panthers are jags or leopards. Guess what subfamily they are in? Not Felis lol. They're in Pantherinae, which include lions, jags, leopards, and tigers.

So not only are these cats, but they're not felines. Wow, could you be anymore wrong?

Play him off, keyboard cat.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Oh my. You better re read that last comment. You've just went against everything you had argued over. Besides Lions are in the Feline family. The rest are as you stated.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Wow, no... That last statement is completely correct.

I have argued that these black panthers are in the family, felidea, and that any animal in the felidea family is a cat. The subfamily, pantherinae is in the family felidea, and so is the subfamily felis.

Pantherinae subfamily contains jags, lions etc. Felis contains mostly small cats like ocelots, bobcats, but also contains cougars and cheetahs.

Most black panthers are jags and leopards, who are pantherinae, not felis!

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Yes. Yet you mentioned "So not only are these cats, but they're not felines" so at this point are felines not cats? Furthermore, if they are not felines they are Pantherinae. Which are not felines? So if not felines they must not be cats? If you meant something else you should re read what you wrote and choose your words carefully. Most importantly why are you spewing exact information you find in any dictionary. You are using the first thing you find with google.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

You are misreading the phrase "not only". I'm not saying they're not cats.

I'm saying: not only *are* they cats, but they're *not* felines. So, I'm saying that my argument with you doesn't end with "they are cats", but that they're also "not felines."

You see what I'm saying? The phrase "not only" just is referring that there's more than one thing, or, the first thing isn't the only thing.

I.e. not only am I human, but I'm a man. You see? Reread the phrase, and you'll get it.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 No, you see you are not getting it. What you wrote earlier, and the example you gave would then to your logic come out as "Not only am I human, but I am not man". Besides what the hell is this jabber "You see what I'm saying? The phrase "not only" just is referring that there's more than one thing, or, the first thing isn't the only thing"? Not only is also not a phrase. This is why I can't continue this. You HAVE no credibility.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

"Not only... but..." is an extremely common phrase.

"not only am I human, but I am (not) man" adding the not doesn't make this phrase implode on itself. It just means that I am human, AND I am not a man (in this case meaning I was a woman). In my first example, it means that these are cats, and also these animals are not felines.

Also, that "jabber" was just trying to break down what "not only" meant. Not only = opposite of only = more than one thing = what I said earlier.

[MrNosfaratu]

The words "not" and "only" do not make a phrase alone. You mentioned that is was. Using an ellipses in one phrase is also incorrect. If you want to make an example than do so with an actual phrase not just with "Not only... but...". The human-man thing, the context you had used it in meant exactly what I wrote. You are just working around words now. This "Not only = opposite of only = more than one thing = what I said earlier." cannot be used in any argument. It is nonsensical.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Have this your way. I rather not argue with you anymore, since with the last couple of your responses you have used ridiculous sentences. Not only is easy to explain. Not only insists that "an apple is a fruit, not only that an apple is..." at that point you find something to finish with. Not only never insists the opposite of what it is being used to refer to.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

But, the entire subfamily of pantherinae is in the family felidae! Hence the reason they're called SUBfamilies.

Oh yeah, and the lion's latin name is panthera leo, in the genus panthera, in the subfamily pantherinae!!!!!

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 You are struggling. I am finding the exact information you can find by looking up two links in google after searching keywords. You are no more than delusional and in an absolute fury to prove yourself. One last thing, would you be confortable by placing all those subfamilies into the large category of Feline/Felin/felinae? At this point nothing is really going anywhere. You are googling and using wikipedia to find your sources.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

The "large category" of felinae is a SUBFAMILY. It's on the same level as pantherinae!

It goes:

Family: Felidae

Subfamily: Felinae and pantherinae

Genus: bunch of them

Also, I will actually correct myself on one thing. I kept using "Felis" instead of "Felinae". Felis is a genus, and I mean felinae. Either way, replace those and my point stands 100%.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Replace yes they stand. No more than mine. The definitions describe and one would review to understand both of our points are correct. All the Latin terms came much before the word cat. Cat came from the small domesticated animal. A furry little cat. Egyptians had them. Cats, those are cats. If you want specifics in genus, family and subfamily. Than you have encyclopedias for that. This has turn into a study of the entire species. Not the definition.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

No, we are not both correct.

You state: These are not cats. These are felines.

When in fact, they are cats, they are not felines.

And the definition of cat includes stating an animal from the felidae family.

If you still think these aren't cats, I honestly feel sorry for you. Stating that domesticated cats came before the word felinae has no relevance. Cat's. Don't. Have. To. Be. Domesticated.

[MrNosfaratu]

When have I stated the domesticated cat came before? If feline are not cats then what are they? Feline then falls null and belongs to no category. I stated that cats were domesticated by Egyptians. Later on, people referred to cats as the domesticated cat. The English language adopted calling the domesticated feline, a cat. In terms, the way the reporter saw them, he thought more than likely of the common cat. In this context he is wrong, it is not a cat. It is a Panther. Technicality can apply.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

And if it makes any difference, my main source of info is a biology book I used last quarter. It has a whole section of biological families, and all of the other stuff I mentioned.

Speaking of struggling, your now argument of why these aren't cats is "I just figured out you can find a lot of info, and prove me wrong, by typing in some keywords into google."

Seriously though, game over. I am surprised how hard it is for you to admit that you're wrong. Felids=cats. Nuff said.

[MrNosfaratu]

You re wrote my words. You can't paraphrase someone if you can't use their exact words. If you would have paid more attention, you would have noticed. I never denied they were not biologically cats. They are in fact, linguistically not cats. The cat is the common name given to the small feline, what ever family it is actually from. It does make a difference. We began an argument about the English definition to Biology.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

"You re wrote my words. You can't paraphrase someone if you can't use their exact words."

Ok, that is funny!

Do you know what paraphrase means? Paraphrase is where you take a quote, and restate it, but use different words. I have to rewrite words if I paraphrase something, if not, I would just be quoting you...

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Perhaps that was not the right word to use. My original intention was to state that you have tried to quote me but worked around my actual quote to better your argument. Which was not fair. I have given you the courtesy of using your actual words and logic without warping it to work better for me.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Linguistically not cats?

I gave you layman's terms: Panthers are "big cats", big cats are "cats".

I gave you scientific terms: Panthers are felids, felids are cats.

I gave you proof by it's definition: dictionary com: 1b cats are any member of felidae family.

Show me anywhere of anyone claiming that a leopard isn't a cat? All you have is "when I say cat, I mean domesticated cat, therefore, that is the only thing a cat can be, not a panther."

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 You said in context you have to use the best term to express what one is trying to communicate. Whether you are blind and do not notice that "cat" means no more no less, a small domesticated cat than what you have described. I told you, I never denied saying that Panthers are not cats. Just in this situation, cats was used to describe the small cat. As I said before if "cat" was used as a broad term you could fairly assume some people have domesticated a lion or panther.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 Fact of the matter is you've become frantic, inconsistent, and delusional in what you even want to prove. You just like seeing your own words in writing and feeling good about how much obvious problems you have. You probably spend lots of time with consuming your life with material possessions to fill what ever void is suckling away at you. You have more and more swayed further from your first argument to: using google, wikipedia, Latin terms, childish tactics, and insults. Pathetic.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

I swayed from my argument? This post up here ^^, your post, doesn't even mention cats aka the argument lol.

Classic changing subject? Turning this on me? What's wrong with using wiki, google, or latin terms?

There's not English term for felidae... Well, I guess you could make the argument the english word would be "cat"!

Hahahahahahaha!

Seriously though, I apologize for using biological families and latin terms for shitting on your argument.

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 It isn't even that. There is not English term for Felidae, or as you said it would be "cat". That is what this was about. If you want to delve deeper into technicality then go ahead. You can use what ever sources terms you want. It does not change the way that the word "cat" was originally used to describe the panther in this video. Yes technicality says it is a cat. Yet in what the English language entails, and the culture, cat is a very suitable term for the domesticated cat.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

Yes, normally cat means domesticated cat. That doesn't change the fact that cat can also mean panther.

Tell me why the statement "panthers are cats" is wrong? I have typed a bunch of reasons why it is a correct statement, but the best you have is "English language ...cat is a very suitable term for the domesticated cat."

Wow...

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 I told you. Before the definition of the word is can be used it depends on the context, and what use it will provide. This time it is suitable. I told you, I NEVER SAID THEY ARE NOT CATS. I keep repeating this, yet you keep asking the same question. I can only gather you are probably some person who needs a pat on the back and a good for you. We think you are a kick in the pants and are so right. The reason why it is the best I got, is because it is the best in this situation.

[BMason3604]

@MrNosfaratu

"nor are they really cats," I think this is close to "they are not cats."

[MrNosfaratu]

@BMason3604 It may be close but is not saying that at all. Say they are not cast is stating something that they are not. Saying they are not REALLY cats is stating that it is not necessarily just that.

[bamapagedesign]

Did anchor died?

[Cory3129]

now i want a pet panda

[MrCheezyBeef]

hahahahahaha

[norwegianspace]

he just had to say " they look like cats" just to make her look dumb....... nice one asshole

[alakaboom4]

pandas are a little bigger lol

[cernex]

Am I the only one who hears she actually said "Baby Panthers", just with an extremelly thick Cardiff accent? Maybe is just me, though...

[Trainbuff2008]

baby panthers by the looks of it.....

[n8w]

she says pandas, then he says they look like cats, as in not pandas.

[NeONh8]

"those look like cats...????....."

[dedrawilliams]

lol his stupid ass ;; lolz

[slartibartfarst]

@dedrawilliams its a woman

[dedrawilliams]

@slartibartfarst :/ The man said "They look like cats".

[NinjaAssassinX]

OOH...swing and a miss. I hope she didn't freak out and demanded to do it live.

[naredhil]

But those are baby panters D:

Did their brains died??

[SammyMorris2015]

THANK YOU NEWSCASTER OBVIOUS

[Batmandee1]

stupid foreigners lol

[slartibartfarst]

I am British, and they are British, so I guess that makes you the foreigner.

[finalorbit]

Well played. LOL!

[danielallen12]

@slartibartfarst

BBC is british, and im british too, its just that woman making us look bad XD

[SRH911]

@slartibartfarst

Your username is very nerdy.

Marry me?

[bloodclert]

its BBC NOT BCC

-_-

[hyrael2]

Idiot.

[makvarochapollo]

did BCC die?

[justinmumm]

"they look like cats"

ahahahah

[schmoogleman]

did anchors died?

[uWaAvenger]

they ATE the PANDAS?!?!?!?! lol ;)

[BaronOfBacon]

Um, Maybe it's just me but I don't think those are pandas.

[LucyKaraoke]

Did the 'pandas' died?

[spartylover1]

that made my day!

[hootowl2112]

Did panther died?

[dellsdeli]

Doffy BCC people!