It seems different species of mammal are able to recognise that another animal is a baby/very young one, and react accordingly. We've seen exactly this from our cats when we had our first baby just over a year ago. We bred cats before hand so we're very accustomed to how cats react to their kittens, and they reacted in exactly the same way to our newborn's cries.

It's probably fair to say that the horse understands that the goat is young and playing and responds to that, rather than thinking it's being attacked. There's such a huge size difference that the horse wouldn't be feeling threatened or anything anyway. Animals like this do play. Horses like company and are social animals, as are goats. It's no surprise they'll play together when they can :0)

Besides how cute it is, and it is super cute, I just want to understand what is going on here.

So animals have emotions or am I anthropomorphizing? It's amazing to me when I see inter-species animals connect this way. This mare being so patient and nurturing. Dogs adopting kittens etc. I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I think I should go vegetarian, but I do love a juicy steak. If dogs and cats and horses have emotions, don't cows?

edit .. I probably shouldn't include cats. Jury is still out on if they have their own agenda in all this or not.

edit 2 .. not saying we should eat cats.

Try googling "dear kitten". Apparently there are lots of these.

Your video, Dear Kitten: Regarding The Big Game, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Dear Kitten in a Spacesuit:

Thanks for the promote!

It won't get votes because it shows how difficult it is to work under these conditions.

Queue the next kitten video....it should get plenty of votes.

You could have stopped your comment there

Everything about this video was wrong wrong wrong. If you want to own an animal and are not willing to invest the time to understand the behaviour of that animal. Firstly, you shouldn't own it but secondly, you deserve what's coming to you.

You never ever "play" with a cat with your own limbs. Not with protection on, not under the bed sheets, not as a kitten with their cute harmless teeth, never. Cats are built to kill things and they're very good at it.

This wasn't play though, this was deliberate intimidation and the cat was extremely distressed. Cats are very protective of the top of their heads, as you would rightly imagine and it tells you a lot the cat is immediately angry he goes near it.

This means they have no bond, none, so the history of this person and the cat is not good. If a cat trusts you, it would not react in this manner, it may shy away or gently tell you "I'm not in the mood for a head scratch", even to a stranger a cat is unlikely to do more than give a soft warning bite at first (they hurt but generally won't penetrate skin).

So you really shouldn't have any sympathy for this person, nothing in this video remotely suggests he has ever been kind to this cat and if it is feral, well then he's just a damn idiot.

Oh, yeah. Totally!

Dude stole my lunch money and I heard he kicks kittens..

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

The experts have only proven the idea of microevolution, and that is where the usable science comes from. You're telling me that you believe whatever they say on that basis. Isn't that anti-intellectual?

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

How about just one piece of evidence for macroevolution? That would do nicely.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

What you're doing is simply giving the teapot the same essence and characteristics of God, and then calling it something else. That doesn't exactly disprove the idea of God, does it? I think you are trivializing the subject without understanding it. There are good reasons, philosophically and scientifically, to believe that an all powerful being created the Universe. There are logically sound reasons for deducing such a being exists. Have you ever studied the history of philosophy? The subject is a little bit more indepth than you are giving it credit for.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

How am I conflating the origin of the Universe with evolution? So far, the best idea they've come up with is that nothing created everything. Not exactly encouraging, is it?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

Again, this is anti-intellectual isn't it? You dismiss the evidence against your belief while being totally ignorant of what it is. Worse yet, you rail on those who do believe it without understanding their positions. You have also said that if evidence were to be posed, you would simply seek out someone who agreed with your view and copy and paste their views on it. Where exactly in that process is your own brain being used?

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

I used to believe what you believe. I stopped believing it because of the evidence, not in spite of it. It's easy to dismiss me but if you actually do investigate the major claims of evolution you will find, not indisputable proof, but a pile of weak, circumstantial evidence.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by ant.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Assassins-Creed-Re-enacted-by-Kittens

http://videosift.com/video/Assassins-Creed-Re-enacted-by-Kittens

Although I strongly suspect that we're only discussing whose pqueue it ends up in.

Heretic. The word isn't to torture a kitten. It's to pee on a pigeon.