this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
1001 points (96.8% liked)
cats
21841 readers
2231 users here now
typical internet cats. videos, pics, memes welcome!
rule 1) be kind
other cat communities midwest.social cats
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a parent, if my kid did that, I'd likely side with the neighbour. I would put it (very loosely) in the category of "natural consequence" punishments.
It fits the crime, it discourages the crime, it forces empathy with the cat, and it does no real harm.
I think it depends a bit on where the cat is. If my cat is in somebody’s yard and the owner does not like it, it’s perfectly fine to spray my cat with water. In fact I do the same to my neighbours cat to prevent cat fights. If my cat is on neutral territory, I would be more pissed.
Agreed, there are 1001 context points that could change things around, one way, or the other.
This is my favorite answer. I'd argue that he got less than the natural consequences of his actions. In nature, when one assaults another, even with something as harmless as water, it's usually reasonable to interpret it as a threat, the response to which is usually violence. That kid is lucky he didn't get a face full of claws. I've gotten a lot worse from gently touching cats that, as it turned out, didn't want to be touched. Boundaries are important.
Natural consequences doesn't mean "law of the jungle" here. It just means linking cause and effect in a proportionate manner.
I tend to use a lot of "natural consequence parenting". Basically, the response should flow from the cause. If you throw water over your friend, you can't then complain if they throw water over you. You learn that, while it's fun when expected, it can be deeply unpleasant when unexpected.
It's a lot more effective than random generic punishments. The trick is shielding them from excessive results, while allowing proportional ones to play out. E.g. swinging on a chair will get a warning, but often not stopped. When they fall, there's an "I told you so" before/with the cuddle. If there is a risk of a more serious injury however, e.g. the corner of a table where their head may hit, then I step in and stop things.
I don't have kids but this is pretty much how my dad raised me. It made me really respect when he gave me a hard no for something, it meant "no really the risk majorly outweighs the reward" and even if I didn't understand it at the time I trusted it. I got a lot of I told you so after varying seriousness of injuries lol. Eventually I learned that the soft warning meant I was going to have a lot of fun but I needed to be ready for if it went sideways. Now I've got a pretty healthy sense of my own limits and when to start gauging risk/reward
That's basically the goal I'm aiming for. It's also worth remembering to always give an (age appropriate) explanation with the "no". If you're using a hard no, then there is something they don't yet understand. Explaining it lets them integrate that knowledge into their future risk management.
The only downside is their confidence is high enough to terrify me! The job of containing and shaping that confidence, without damaging it gives me plenty of grey hairs.
It's not really about the proportion. The rest you have right. Things (good or bad) may happen as a result of your behavior (good or bad). Those things are natural consequences. We talk about it a lot in the context of punishing behavior, but natural consequences can also reinforce behavior. Of course, if we design those consequences, they're no longer natural.
As a native social media pedant, I'd just like to take a moment to split hairs and point out that's the literal definition of that phrase.
With all that said, I'm glad you've taken that approach. They're very lucky to have you. I wish I could've had more adults like that in my life as a child. Here's to you and your contribution to supporting the next generation. May they pass on those values, too.
That's why I clarified. There's 2 ways to read the phrase, one a lot harsher than the other.
It seems to be working well. It also results in me being surprised a lot of the time. I'm ready to deal with a scuffed knee, or a bruised ego. Instead they either get back up and try again, or just pull it off. At that point I need to mentally correct for their new capabilities.
The key thing is, I'm not looking after a small pet, I'm training a future adult. They need to both instinctively understand how the world works, while packing as much awesomeness and magic into the formative years as possible. Letting them learn and practice is a big part of that.
I like that approach. But when the parent only has their kid's half of the story, it's understandable why they would be pissed. I think most of us would be. Why did they do that to my kid? I'd want answers amd I wouldn't be happy about it.
I suspect most kids who would throw water at a cat like that would not be very good liars about it. Also, adults tend not to dump water on kids for no reason. I would definitely take the time to pick apart what happened, before going full papa bear mode.
I might be pissed, but my instinct would be to find out who I should be pissed at first, before going on the war path.
Many people are not like that.
Unfortunately so. I know I'm slightly weirdly wired.