fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3819 ]

[ SECRET POST #3819 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3819 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #547.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fuck breeders. There are way too many dogs as is. The only dogs that should be breeded are ones intended to be service dogs.

Ayup!

Better dogs as pets than cats though. At least dogs don't carry a disease which turns people into zombies who worship them. Nor do dogs destroy whole ecosystems just by their presence. There is nothing wrong with a dog as pet and companion.

Incidentally both labradoodles and otterhounds make great service dogs.

Toxoplasmosis effects are greatly exaggerated (nor does every cat have it) and indoor cats are not issue for wildlife.

As a cat lover, you would say that. That is exactly the sort of thing a Toxo-Zombie would say. This is why cat owners have to be excluded from the debate on whether cats should be pets at all.

I'm not though. Never owned a cat in my life. Can't own one due to not currently having the money, time, or resources for proper care. Never had one as kid since my mom never liked animals.

Again, that is the sort of self-serving lie a toxo-zombie would put forward.
When dealing with the subject of domestic cats only cat haters can be trusted to have a non-infected point of view in the debate.

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 21:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 21:16 (UTC) - Expand

The wildlife issues are also exaggerated. Cats kill a lot of wildlife, yes, but they aren't fucking up the ecosystem - town ecosystems are already fucked up. Most "local" town wildlife consists of non-native species and has at any rate already been fucked up by humans. My cat can kill as many house sparrows as she wants, they're non-native and invasive. And the bunny population is intensely skewed because there are no natural predators besides cars, so there is a mass overpopulation. My cat killing bunnies and sparrows if anything does the ecosystem a favor.

It depends on where you live. Sure, many cities are massive piles of introduced vermin (aside from cats) that have wiped out endemic wildlife, but there are also areas where cats outcompete native predators, help further endanger already threatened species, or both. And I like cats and currently own one.

Dogs DEFINITELY terrorize local wildlife and ecosystems when let outside. Dogs are constantly killing wild animals and destroying shit. They just aren't (usually) let to wander free, though some asshole owners will, as well as dogs that live in the country. Plus, dogs can actually kill humans and are infinitely more dangerous than cats.

Both dogs and cats are wondering companions and pets, but neither is a more responsible choice than the other.

you're a loony

Breeding is fine, when done responsibly.

Puppy mills, not so much.

Personally, I don't care if a dog comes from a breeder or a shelter, but I'm sick of people who don't do their research on breeds before getting a dog. Few things are worse than some self-righteous twit who thinks they're a hero for adopting a dog they know nothing about, and then whining when they find out it's incompatible with their lifestyle and end up returning the poor thing.

I always find it hilarious when humans, of all species, complain that there are too many *insert any other species here*.

Even one mosquito is too many.

Why do you hate the bottom layer of the food chain? Or rather, why do you hate life on earth? If you get rid of the mosquitoes then a huge swathe of wildlife which depend on them and their larva as food sources will die of starvation and go extinct. And then so will the animals who depend on the previous set of animals, all the way up to humanity itself.

Lol yes, that's why there's no life at all on Iceland.

There's life on Iceland and plenty of mosquitos.

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 22:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 22:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 22:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Dog breeding

(Anonymous) - 2017-06-18 23:05 (UTC) - Expand

Hoo boy, if I were to talk about all my opinions on the human population, I'd make a ton of people angry. Don't ever suggest people should stop having kids.

If humans were to suddenly disappear, I'd think the only animals who might have a problem with that would be some (not all) domesticated ones, ie. the ones who cannot function in the wild. Otherwise, Earth as a whole probably would not care that we are gone.

Sparrows, starlings, and bluetits would suffer huge population crashes. Watervoles would probably go extinct in the UK as it is only human intervention to cull invasive american mink that escaped from fur farms that is keeping watervoles hanging on. That is just the UK. There would be more, but our driven grouse and intensive farming industries have already crashed many animal and bird populations.

There are also some species of migrating cranes who have shifted their migration routes to human based feeding stations in deserts.

There are lots of animals which now depend on us for their survival. They've adapted to us as if we were a natural force.

We do need to control our numbers, and that sadly means targeting some of the more populous nations and regions for that population reduction down to about half our current numbers, but totally extinct (at least in terms of a quick extinction) would be massively damaging for the ecosystem too.

Targeting highly populated areas and countires would be part of it, but so would lowering the standard of living/per capita carbon footprint in a lot of Western nations. Like, one person in the US uses the same resources as a whole bunch of people in parts of India.

The places that are most densely populated with humans in this world tend to use significantly fewer natural resources. The "rich" countries that use the most are not overpopulated.

Agreed.

Plus, a lot of dog breeds are seriously fucked up. when you're breeding an animal with a smooshed face that causes respiratory problems, or tiny peg legs, seriously go fuck yourself. Those animals just shouldn't exist.

Hell, even bulldogs, who are incapable of giving vaginal birth, either shouldn't exist, or should at least be bred with a dog that allows for the puppies to pass through the birth canal. IMO it's a little messed up to force another living creature to have their babies via C-section (unless it really, really, really can't be helped).

Depends on the variety of bulldog. Some bulldog breeds are fully capable of normal birth. It is really only one breed of (modern)English Bulldog that has that problem. There is a new English bulldog breed called (confusingly) "Old English Bulldog" which is a very modern breed but bred to look like the pre-Victorian English Bulldog that doesn't have the respiratory or birthing problems. There are various other continental bulldog breeds which do not have them either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog#Birth_and_reproduction

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only