I thought the same thing, the only absolute I read into it was the “we all agreed” part which I assumed was a summation of a previous discussion.
Because the assertion is: If anything else had been wrong with him, the mother would not have cared for him. And that’s simply not correct.
Regardless of how you read that sentence, the poster was clearly overstating the conditions under which a mother cougar would reject a cub. As I noted in my initial response-- had the cub not had a tail, it’s highly unlikely the mother would have rejected it. In fact, one can think of any number of other deformities (missing ear, loss of sight in one eye, extra nose on his butt) that would not generally trigger a rejection response in the mother.
Typically a mother will abandon or flat-out kill a baby who is unlikely to survive due to deformity, illness, or injury.
But a purely cosmetic deformity is unlikely to bring that result. I think that’s what you’re arguing here. If nearwildheaven meant that the cub was healthy or not disadvantaged because of the deformity or the mother would not have raised it, then that seems accurate. To say there is “nothing else wrong” is too broad and could mean another cosmetic abnormality would lead to the cub’s neglect. So I agree with you.