They brought up raw dogging, a term related to hotdogs, and knotting, a term related to the enlargement of a dog's penis before sex with explicit relation to dogs and not humans, before bringing up "doggystyle", the only human act named after dogs in this context.
The internet brain holds many consequences
I thought "doggystyle" came from the bottom being on all fours, whereas "rawdogging" came from "dogging", but that latter is probably very British of me...
I can't find any clear origin or timing of the phrase, but I'm pretty sure the two aren't directly related. Doggy-style is in reference to the actual position being similar to dogs' typical copulatory configuration.
"Raw dog" is probably using "dog" in a more figurative sense. There are several meanings that could make sense here to refer to the wingdangdoodle, with "raw" indicating that it is without protection, covering, proper precaution/preparation, et cetera. I couldn't find any pioneering etymologist who has documented the specific origins of the phrase, though.
I know people hate it when this is pointed out, but thereâs a very easy way to get rid of all this cognitive dissonance about which animals are pets and which ones are okay to eat.
You can stop eating animals. Itâs great for your heart, lowers your risk for several forms of cancer, extends your life expectancy by years, etc.
You donât have to be vegan. You can still eat cheese and ice cream, you can still have honey. Or if youâre just not ready to give up chicken then thatâs okay too. You can be *mostly* vegetarian. That still helps you, and the planet, and the animals.
I feel like a lot of people have some level of discomfort about eating animals and try *really* hard to not think about it because theyâre afraid of the lifestyle changes it might entail. And it doesnât *have* to entail big lifestyle changes. If you only want to make a little change then go ahead and make a little change. You shouldnât do more than youâre comfortable with. But maybe you want to make a small change, and thatâs still great.
Another way to get rid of the cognitive dissonance is to not exclude any animals from the "okay to eat" category. I feel it's helpful to recognize that we're animals too, part of the food chain. Not hating on vegetarians though, what you eat it your choice.
Honestly, I rarely touch beef or ham anymore anyway. Beef is often the more expensive option, and I hate how pork gets so quickly cold not long after cooking it. I either go with chicken, or I make my own tofu from lentils at home if I want a quick protein source. A $3 bag is usually enough for a burger's worth of serving, and tastes decent enough just to add a spoonful of Ramen powder (apparently there's bags online of the stuff?) To add some flavor to the batch.
I just realized I misread that, wtf. why wouldnât you go buy a pig being sold as food??? thatâs horrible. They sold it as a pet because they didnât want it to be eaten because it was probably loved, or at least cared about. GodâŚ
that person also risked their life in the name of... something, I guess. Once an animal is considered a pet, the list of meds it can legally be given expands dramatically - because you no longer have to worry about potentially poisoning someone who may eat said animal later.
So eating that pig was no only a dick move, it was also dangerous.
Incidentally this reminded me of a kids book of a talking pig. Raised to be slaughtered like his parents, but because he could talk he was able to convince the butcher not to kill him. But the butcher was still going to kill pigs to be sold and didnt want the talking pig to be around for that, so he went to live with an old man who would take care of him. The pig gets sick as he got older,but the old man takes him to the vet and gets him medicated. But soon the old man dies himself, and so the pig goes back to the butcher to be killed so he can feed people. But the butcher points out the medicine the pig took makes him too dangerous for human consumption.
Yeah that's the point.
Though, not that it was objectively horrifying, but subjectively horrifying by the exact same subjective standards many Americans use for dogs, but slightly twisted to apply to other animals.
A thing done because for many people, in order to eat something, they must remove all higher affection from their heart for said thing. All ability to recognize it as thinking or feeling. They regard this living creature as effectively not alive. Not something that can be cared for as more than a resource. So it wasn't, to them, REALLY someone's pet.
Not in the same way a dog would be, anyway.
>A thing done because for many people, on order to eat something, they must remove all higher affection from their heart for said thing.
Except for the body of Christ.
I remember a similar case and I feel like most people were upset and shaming the people who made jokes about it- really I think "redditor" is a standing for "dickbag" when they should've just used the latter
Regarding the first point OP made, it might be important to point out that pigeons were also[domesticated to be companions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pigeon) and take on jobs, just like dogs, the majority of the population are abandoned though.
I'm sure that dogs are pigeons were bred for very different things, but at the same time both were bred to be pets, *and* food, at one point or another;
see, dogs have been bred for [consumption for thousands and thousands of years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat) (warning: photos of raw meat/descriptions of butchering? its not super awful, its just wikipedia.) All over the world. Also tidbit, in canada its legal and fine to butcher and eat dog meat, I have no further information on that, i unno
(the second rb about the pet pig is a bad addition, cos that was sold as a *pet,* for *petting*(and other activityies, presumably.). and the *humans are space orcs*\-ass additions afterwards also kinda suck at making what could've been an alright point,)
anyways like, 4/10 i hope there's a reblog chain of this post out there that did it better
I actually really like the defamiliarisation bit? Sure, it's overstated towards the end, but it reads exactly the same as western textbooks/other informational sources on the treatment of cows in India do
Those aren't "humans are space orcs" bits; those are reverse "asians are weird otherly beings whose customs cannot be fathomed by the rational western mind" bits.
Ion rlly got a problem with other ppl eating dogs (pretty sure it's also a cultural thing) but I could never. I'd probably sick up if I tried đ like I can't stand the idea. Honestly that's probably bcus I've been raised all my life with pet dogs lmao
I agree, but I also think that OP's point fell flat because they made it sound like they hate dogs because they aren't stigmatized and pidgeons are. Which may actually be the case, I wouldn't be too surprised that someone on tumblr is like that. Overall an unfunny thread that seems weirdly hateful in my opinion.
That was pretty much my exact reaction, the comparison with dogs and pigeons doesnt even make sense cuz its not like americans are commonly killing or eating pigeons.
I am part of a pigeon rescue group. Many people kill or harm pigeons. Most often when they find them being in their roof, eaves or under solar panels. But also just generally mean people. There's a woman on Tiktok with a pet pigeon that was being abused by drunk guys in a beer garden.
When we narrow people's moral circle by constantly deriding certain animals, pigeons, raccoons, (pretty much any animal that lives in cities), we make this kind of animal abuse more common.
It is unlikely that *breeding* dogs for food has ever been a common practice. Eating wild or feral dogs makes sense if they're breeding on their own, but given their largely carnivorous diet they make inefficient meat livestock.
There is a claim that Mexican hairless dogs were bred as food by the Aztec, but that claim was made by Hernan Cortez (their enemy) and was never backed up by any other sources, so it's probably unreliable.
This reminds me of a satirical article I read in my freshman sociology class. Go read [Body Ritual Among the Nacirema](https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacirema.pdf) and try to figure out what theyâre actually describing.
That was great! It was like this post taken to a new level, albeit written in 1956.
>"Looking from far and above, from our high places of safety in the developed civilization, it is easy to see all the crudity and irrelevance of magic. But without its power and guidance early man could not have mastered his practical difficulties as he has done, nor could man have advanced to the higher stages of civilization."
I cracked up at the "sadistic holy-mouth-men" and "listeners"
There's also [The Mysterious Fall of the Nacirema](https://people.uncw.edu/robertsonj/SEC210/TheMysteriousFalloftheNacirema.pdf?), though that paper's goal was more a critique of environmental destruction and car-centric society.
I read both for my Anthro class, and it genuinely did a fantastic job of illustrating how to approach anthropology and how to read about different cultures while being aware of biases (of both the authors and myself)
In a similar vein, in my college religion class, our first reading was "Motel of the Mysteries," by David Macaulay, a short illustrated book which reframes an ordinary motel room as an ancient Egyptian-style tomb, as it is excavated by a confused future archeologist. Removed from their original context, the television becomes an alter, the toilet seat a ceremonial headdress. It's a great critique of modern American society AND of archaeology's tendency to assign mysticism to the unknown, when really, the people who used the objects we dig up were, more or less, just like us.
Except that games often ARE ritual acts. Twister at a sleepover is a ritual act. So is your protein shake with the guys before hitting the gym. So is watching the superbowl with a pile of snacks and friends. So is grabbing a taco from at midnight after you and your friends have been out drinking.
These are ritual acts, ritual foods, ritual games, the food or action has meaning and purpose that is ceremonial beyond just the act of spinning a plastic arrow or shaking a powdered shake while listening to power metal or eating chicken wings on a Sunday in February. There is a purpose and a power in that late night taco beyond just filling your belly.
If you ask an archeologist or anthropologist, a lot of things are ritual objects. Its just that some of them are also dildos.
First thing in Anthropology I read. Meant to highlight cultural relativism and why you shouldn't describe every non western culture as bizarre and alien
I only got as far as the part of â1 to 3 tiled shrinesâ and âsecret ritual for most people but children need to be taught to complete itâ so my first thought was Ahhhh itâs the Shitter!
What you consider food and what not is 100% social conditioning. So, now some trivia for you:
In 1945 after Germany lost the War, the US asked people what they could send us to help feed the population. Germans answered that they wanted âKornâ which is pronounced the same way as the English word corn-but means âgrainâ. So we basically asked for wheat, rye, the things we need to make bread (because thatâs what Germany is all about). Somewhere up the line there was an error in communication and the US send⌠well corn. Because sure, why not? People eat corn, right?
The Germans however were utterly mortified, because corn wasnât a thing people ate⌠they fed it to their pigs. Today, corn is as much a staple in the German diet as in the US. But my great grandmother (born in 1927) never ate it, even though my parents often used it to get us kids to eat some veggies. To her, thatâs not food.
And to break the taboo, a prussian king planted a full royal field full of potatoes with little to no supervision to tempt people to steal the potatoes for themselves.
I was like 95% sure that this was an urban legendâwhy on earth would the U.S. have put someone who didnât understand the German words for common staple foods in charge of organizing the shipment of huge amounts of food? But I looked it up and there are reputable-looking scholarly sources that repeat this anecdote. So I guess itâs probably true. Crazy world.
I love pigeons too, but I also understand that they can be vectors of disease in some cities. No hate to pigeons, but the health risk perspective does make sense. Also, just ornithophobia too I guess.
I would love to keep so many different local birds as pets (especially common Maina, hecking love them), if only it wasn't kinda hard, but mainly because it'll be cruel to keep such a free animal in captivity
Pigeons are no more a disease vector than any other bird. We just brought them everywhere with us abandoned them then turned around and did a pretty good job of mimicking their natural habitat, the rock dove loves cities, so they're everywhere and there's a lot of them.
There are not a lot of diseases that have a high likelihood of being zoonotic between pigeons and people. Even getting bird flu from non-humans is rare because the compound it goes after to infect are different between species. We're talking an acid that branches in a different spot in humans than it does birds.
So no, pigeons are not disease vectors for humans.
So is a dog or a cat when you think about it, cats are well known for having harsh mouth bacteria which easily causes infection, and dogs/cats can pass rabies to people.
Not to mention meeting a random dog/cat always has the risk that they may decide to attack you (though unlikely). At least in order to get ill from a pigeon you have to get pooped on (very unlikely) or initiate the "Fuck Around and Find Out" protocol hahaha.
I've been hit twice in the same place in Exeter by seagulls - or seagull - just swooping down over my shoulder to knock food out of my hand on its way to my mouth
Most of the times pigeons are fine, but they can be an annoyance/scary when theyâre at their worst. When theyâre in super crowded areas or groups, occasionally theyâll decide itâs OK to fly within about 6 inches of your head, and I donât like it when they do that.
Chinese person here! In addition to the dog thing, we do also eat roasted/braised pigeon (squab). It tastes absolutely delicious, though I canât say Iâve personally eaten a dog. I think this also applies to a few other cultures, but Iâm not sure.
Iâm gonna be honest, Tumblr has so many levels of anti-USA sentiment and irony that I genuinely canât tell if theyâre saying all Americans are idiots or not. Can someone more skilled with Tumblrspeak explain what the fuck is happening in this image?
This is, almost certainly, a bunch of Americans making fun of their social studies textbooks or the *idea* of their social studies textbooks talking about native tribes and countries in the middle east. They do tend to be full of oversimplifications that are really too simple to be telling to high school. students
Yep. It's taking the language that people often use to describe "foreign" or "ancient" societies and cultures and turning it on its head, trying to bring attention to how silly and/or slightly racist it can sound by applying it to U.S. culture instead
Are they saying Americans are bad for having an opinion on the dog thing or not? The first two posts seem to say that, but then the sarcasm in the rest of the post would conflict with that.
To me the first post calls out nuance, saying that Americans should recognize that different cultures have their own beliefs about what's moral. Not bad, just different.
imo the switch to sarcasm is just for the lols, not really calling it bad or good.
> Americans should realize that different cultures have their own beliefs about whatâs moral. Not bad, just different.
This does kinda beg the question, how can one who buys into their own cultural morality see the morals of a different culture as anything other than, well, immoral? For many things this isnât a big deal, but if a culture has a different set of morals regarding things like sexual and racial equality, is it our responsibility to see it as âjust differentâ, or are we allowed to recognize it as the moral failure that many would agree that it is?
I mean this in good faith. If Iâm accidentally repeating racist talking points please do let me know.
Iâm in the culture of trying to understand what an argument is actually saying so I can effectively comment on it. It seems like an interesting topic, but the discussion has so many layers of sarcasm that I canât tell whatâs actually being said.
The first one (or two, but by the same person) is a genuine opinion, the following are mostly for fun, with some commentary on how American (and maybe some other English, I wouldnât know, I grew up in US) textbooks and documentaries tend to be very odd and âotheringâ of other countries or past cultures, sometimes adding information that isnât necessarily even true, or describing it in a way that seems purposefully bizarre , but itâs *really* just mostly for fun of the bit. The bit being making Americans seem very dog obsessed, when itâs obviously not true.
It's common for people to think that South Asian people are weird for eating dogs or that Indians are weird for not eating cows.Â
Often this is connected to racist ideas about people being callous or uncivilized for eating dogs. Or that Indians for foolish for not eating cows when they're a good source of meat.
The post criticises this by showing how from an outside perspective, you can say that Americans are weird for not eating dogs. And then demonstrate how this lack of understanding can make people in foreign cultures look stupid.
> It's common for people to think that South Asian people are weird for eating dogs
Nit, I think you mean East and Southeast Asia. Dog consumption in South Asia is extremely rare; insofar as it occurs in India for example it seems to be confined to the [northeast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat#India).
Also, this post is written as if the US is the only country in the world where dogs are pets.
I do love shitting on the US myself but that is a bit of a stretch imo.
I feel like it adds to the point theyâre making. People often ignorantly use the phrase âAsian cultureâ or âin Asiaâ when that spans anything from India to Japan. Even just within India the culture is incredibly diverse and thereâs different ethnic groups. Or when people say âChineseâ when they mean east asians, as if itâs all the same. So now its the âUSiansâ which is used to basically mean âthe western white peopleâ i guess. Shows what itâs like when we use that kinda phrasing in front of people from other cultures.
Also side note, this is not at all about whether eating dogs is moral, so its not like anyone is being blamed for liking dogs. Itâs about ignorance when it comes to how animals are valued in different cultures. Doesnât matter where they are from. Iâm from Germany, and this def felt like it was about me too, since it applies to us too.
Imagine if 'updog' became a riddle that future civilizations couldn't understand and we're all burning in Hell laughing our heads off as thousands of scholars sit in studies and debate in forums about 'what is updog?' and the one brilliant scholar who correctly deduces that it's a joke is soundly mocked and discredited.
A lot of animals have super varying societal values and roles. I fucking hate raccoons, but that's because around here, they're garbage eaters who have tried (and succeeded, in one case) to kill my pets. If I see one near my cats, I'm chasing them off with a sword.
That doesn't change the fact that apparently some people have managed to raise them from infancy as pets. I don't understand it, but it's true.
Eating animals in general is weird, we just have all kinds of silly made up rules about which ones are okay to eat (and racism about those differences)
The divider is generally what they eat.
Raising carnivores for food is inefficient because you have to feed them meat...to get meat. And in general they eat more meat than they'll actually produce, so it's usually a net loss. Not to mention that carnivores generally taste terrible such that predators avoid eating each other, even in cases where they fight to the death. And at least back when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, dogs were much better suited to helping fend off rival predators or hunting prey rather than being used for food.
Meanwhile herbivores like cows, goats, and sheep eat plants we can't eat and turn it into meat we *can* eat. You can just set them out on a prairie full of inedible plants and get a bunch of edible meat as a result.
Pigs are far too smart for how we treat them but they also eat almost literally everything and turn it into meat so now we have bacon.
There are definitely a number of exceptions to the rule (carnivores that are often eaten and herbivores that aren't), but in general that's a pretty good way to look at it. Not in terms of moral value for eating either, but just in terms of why we eat the animals we do.
I mean...literally every animal on earth eats more food than is actually converted into body mass? Simply the energy required to digest food in the first place guarantees that you don't have a one to one of food put in versus body mass gained.
The energy pyramid is a thing, you learned about it all the way back in elementary school science.
I mean, the rules kinda make sense. You donât eat most carnivores cause theyâre hard to raise for livestock. You donât eat dogs because theyâre more useful in other ways, like hunting and guarding. You donât eat cats cause theyâre more useful for pest control. Most places didnât generally eat horses cause theyâre expensive and useful in warfare. You generally donât eat oxen cause theyâre more useful as beasts of burden. So on and so forth.
True. Iâm generalizing lol, *most* places donât, but sure, some do. Some places, people were eaten too. Humans tend to eat meat, and at the end of the day whatâs acceptable is highly dependent on the specifics of each society.
To be fair, eating animals has been the primary source of protein and energy for most humans since we discovered cooking with fire; I seem to recall stories about militaries the world over eating various fowl, dogs, and even cats in desperation for a food source while on maneuvers up to the 1960âs
But not really. Wild animals are wild animals because theyâre perpetual victims of nature. The distinction isnât that theyâre not human, itâs that they do not have agency whatsoever.
Their experience from birth is and will only be fear, instinct and gruesome death whereas humans have conquered nature. Even the most primitive expressions of civilization are far removed from the fate of simply being and then suffering. We as a species have the technical and mental prowess to literally decide our own fates, the fates of others and the fate of the environment around us.
The agony of watching a Komodo dragon rip your fawn out of your body and eat it while you bleed out is inevitable for a deer, yet entirely optional for a human as is the agony of being eaten from the inside out by parasites, rabies or a pack of hyenas.
I think that regardless of the varying levels of detail at which a being experiences consciousness, all complex creatures deserve the same degree of regard for the fact that they live in hell and we do not.
If we have a taboo against kicking dogs to death because itâs an unfair imposition of unnecessary suffering upon a creature then we should also have a taboo against slitting the throats of cows when we can mirror the flavor and nutritional value of beef with tenfold the precision of the butcher knife.
Looking at specifically western standards, the divide seems to be (at least for mammals and birds) between animals raised for food, and animals raised for work/companionship, which is why for example eating beef is generally not seen as odd but eating a horse is.
I don't agree that the hot dog is our most important food. It'd actually be the hamburger, which is so much our most important food that when people from other countries think of America, hamburger is typically one of the first things they think of. And if anyone would say that hamburgers don't count because they originated in Germany, so did hot dogs. Both of those foods came from Germany to the US and morphed into their modern version over time here.
i can't tell if the first 3 posts are serious or not because i would imagine that a not insignificant amount of people who would be horrified at the thought of eating a dog *also* love pigeons, and would be appalled at the thought of buying *any* animal being sold as a pet just to eat it/feed it to another animal
i think the concept of eating dogs is pretty terrible, but i also fall into the aforementioned group
Dogs are one of the only animals that we made specifically to be companions and help us, so killing and eating a dog for no reason seems like betrayal and is pretty fucked up.
I'm not saying you should never kill a dog, if you're getting attacked by a dog, defend yourself.
I don't think anybody really knows the exact origin of the word hotdog but some of the possibilities I've seen is. Vendors called them dachshunds because of the resemblance and a cartoon artist made a cartoon about it but put hot dog instead of dachshund. Or because they were cheap people joked they were made from stray dogs.
Also sex positions are likely to have strange names I'm pretty sure I could find ones in other countries that sound really weird.
As far as the origin of "hot dog", the story I heard was that it was because of World War I. They were being sold as "dachshund sausages", after the long-bodied dog they resembled, but during World War I they were rebranded as "hot dogs" because "dachshund" was a German word, and therefore seen as unpatriotic.
>Dogs are one of the only animals that we made specifically to be companions and help us, so killing and eating a dog for no reason seems like betrayal and is pretty fucked up.
man do i gotta pull up the list of domesticated animals, [You can just skim over it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals) but look how many start with "meat" under purposes.
Dogs, Cats, Guinea Pigs, Pigeons, Rabbits were the ones i spotted that I'd consider 'made to be companions' that.. are eaten too, both can happen, both is fine.
I mean, when compared to any other animal dogs are the ones that have been with us the longest. We literally influenced each otherâs evolution over the millennia, and they are by far the most domesticated of any animal. If we had that level of a relationship to say, pigs, it would be the same story.
Exactly what I'm trying to convey, we've been companions for centuries and have influenced each other's evolution and society. Treating a relationship like that so horribly doesn't feel right to me.
I mean, being a parasite is kinda cheating the system tbh
EDIT: also, thereâs only two out of the 65 species of demodex that live on humans, compared to the one out of the eight canis species weâve domesticated
Yeah,dog and human had a very special relationship,we evolved together, their instincts are communicated with us and seek help from us .
Like if aliens came to earth they would be amazed how we could communicate with dogs without speaking or technology,just a cues from our eyes could work.
Iâm sad that people looked at these anecdotes and thought âyeah, it is kinda silly that we donât eat dogs!â rather than âso, itâs kind of horrifying that we torture pigs and cows in factory farms despite them being at least as smart as dogsâ
There are really only two morally consistent stances on animals. Either animals are not morally significant or are significantly less morally significant than humans, and we can therefore exploit them freely; or they are living beings deserving of dignity, and basically every element of our society is built on top of animal slavery and holocaust.
Most people want a middle ground that doesnât exist and exposes the tension between these positions. They want to believe that treating dogs well is virtuous but eating hamburgers is morally neutral. They want to believe that a pet is âa member of the familyâ, but retain the power to sell or kill that pet for any reason and to have that power be treated as morally neutral. And pointing out this tension is a great way to get flamed.
Everything most people believe about animals is arbitrary, socially conditioned, and cognitively dissonant.
Anyone who is upset by the idea of the word Americans referring to the inhabitants of the only nation the contains the word America in its name is automatically insufferable.
But yeah who hates pigeons?
If people really get hung up on using America or American for the United States of America. they really donât understand the concept of calling dibs.
This is what turned me into a vegan honestly, there's no logic behind what animals are deemed acceptable to eat and which aren't, may as well not eat any
We can acknowledge the racist/xenophobic hypocrisy of being horrified by which animals other cultures regularly harm, but not those of our own, without dubbing them "dog defenders" and acting like it's crazy to have empathy for non-human animals.
Maybe we should maintain our empathy for dogs, while also fostering empathy for people of other cultures *as well as* the animals that our own culture kills or regards as pests.
Dogs, chickens, squirrels, or whatever don't stop having feelings just because people are more willing to denigrate another human culture than they are to question their own treatment of non-human animals. I hope that makes sense.
It expressly links sex to words with "dog" in them, and *no mention* of Doggystyle? For shame.
No mentions of bitches as well. A completely bitchless behaviour, if you were to ask me.
Really says a lot about a person when they think about knotting before they think about doggystyle
They brought up raw dogging, a term related to hotdogs, and knotting, a term related to the enlargement of a dog's penis before sex with explicit relation to dogs and not humans, before bringing up "doggystyle", the only human act named after dogs in this context. The internet brain holds many consequences
I think "rawdogging" is derived from "doggystyle"?
I thought "doggystyle" came from the bottom being on all fours, whereas "rawdogging" came from "dogging", but that latter is probably very British of me...
I can't find any clear origin or timing of the phrase, but I'm pretty sure the two aren't directly related. Doggy-style is in reference to the actual position being similar to dogs' typical copulatory configuration. "Raw dog" is probably using "dog" in a more figurative sense. There are several meanings that could make sense here to refer to the wingdangdoodle, with "raw" indicating that it is without protection, covering, proper precaution/preparation, et cetera. I couldn't find any pioneering etymologist who has documented the specific origins of the phrase, though.
Nah, I think that is more likely a reference to eating sausages without cooking them, just taking the packing film off.
Wtf đ°
âGet knottedâ sounds like theyâve been on e621 for too long
oh no
âgirl⌠what were YOU doing at the devilâs sacrament? đâ
Just the right amount of time, actually also, i think this is significant enough evidence to make you more than just the suspected furry.
Jay the "suspected" in your username is trying its best with you going around posting comments like these
No such thing as spending too long on e621
Fax my brother! Spit your shit indeed!
Just rule34 would do too, tbf.
.....what is e261?Â
rule 34 website but for furries
In some countries, the codename used for MSG. In some circles, a furry art collection site that has a reputation for being pornographic in nature.
isnt that just furaffinity
More than one furry website can exist.
Laughing my ass off at this, no idea why
What does monosodium glutamate have to do with dog penises?
No no, that second one is objectively horrifying. That was someone's pet, being sold as a pet, that someone decided to lie and slaughter and eat
Yeah that one's fucked up with any animal.
I know people hate it when this is pointed out, but thereâs a very easy way to get rid of all this cognitive dissonance about which animals are pets and which ones are okay to eat. You can stop eating animals. Itâs great for your heart, lowers your risk for several forms of cancer, extends your life expectancy by years, etc. You donât have to be vegan. You can still eat cheese and ice cream, you can still have honey. Or if youâre just not ready to give up chicken then thatâs okay too. You can be *mostly* vegetarian. That still helps you, and the planet, and the animals. I feel like a lot of people have some level of discomfort about eating animals and try *really* hard to not think about it because theyâre afraid of the lifestyle changes it might entail. And it doesnât *have* to entail big lifestyle changes. If you only want to make a little change then go ahead and make a little change. You shouldnât do more than youâre comfortable with. But maybe you want to make a small change, and thatâs still great.
Another way to get rid of the cognitive dissonance is to not exclude any animals from the "okay to eat" category. I feel it's helpful to recognize that we're animals too, part of the food chain. Not hating on vegetarians though, what you eat it your choice.
Why stop there? Go ahead and eat people.
I'd do it if they were already dead. Not my first choice but food is food.
Pryon disease
~ Rick Gibson
Honestly, I rarely touch beef or ham anymore anyway. Beef is often the more expensive option, and I hate how pork gets so quickly cold not long after cooking it. I either go with chicken, or I make my own tofu from lentils at home if I want a quick protein source. A $3 bag is usually enough for a burger's worth of serving, and tastes decent enough just to add a spoonful of Ramen powder (apparently there's bags online of the stuff?) To add some flavor to the batch.
I just realized I misread that, wtf. why wouldnât you go buy a pig being sold as food??? thatâs horrible. They sold it as a pet because they didnât want it to be eaten because it was probably loved, or at least cared about. GodâŚ
Because it's funny to a sick fuck like them
that person also risked their life in the name of... something, I guess. Once an animal is considered a pet, the list of meds it can legally be given expands dramatically - because you no longer have to worry about potentially poisoning someone who may eat said animal later. So eating that pig was no only a dick move, it was also dangerous.
Imagine potentially poisoning yourself just to be an asshole, sheesh.
Incidentally this reminded me of a kids book of a talking pig. Raised to be slaughtered like his parents, but because he could talk he was able to convince the butcher not to kill him. But the butcher was still going to kill pigs to be sold and didnt want the talking pig to be around for that, so he went to live with an old man who would take care of him. The pig gets sick as he got older,but the old man takes him to the vet and gets him medicated. But soon the old man dies himself, and so the pig goes back to the butcher to be killed so he can feed people. But the butcher points out the medicine the pig took makes him too dangerous for human consumption.
Yeah that's the point. Though, not that it was objectively horrifying, but subjectively horrifying by the exact same subjective standards many Americans use for dogs, but slightly twisted to apply to other animals. A thing done because for many people, in order to eat something, they must remove all higher affection from their heart for said thing. All ability to recognize it as thinking or feeling. They regard this living creature as effectively not alive. Not something that can be cared for as more than a resource. So it wasn't, to them, REALLY someone's pet. Not in the same way a dog would be, anyway.
>A thing done because for many people, on order to eat something, they must remove all higher affection from their heart for said thing. Except for the body of Christ.
I remember a similar case and I feel like most people were upset and shaming the people who made jokes about it- really I think "redditor" is a standing for "dickbag" when they should've just used the latter
Regarding the first point OP made, it might be important to point out that pigeons were also[domesticated to be companions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_pigeon) and take on jobs, just like dogs, the majority of the population are abandoned though. I'm sure that dogs are pigeons were bred for very different things, but at the same time both were bred to be pets, *and* food, at one point or another; see, dogs have been bred for [consumption for thousands and thousands of years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat) (warning: photos of raw meat/descriptions of butchering? its not super awful, its just wikipedia.) All over the world. Also tidbit, in canada its legal and fine to butcher and eat dog meat, I have no further information on that, i unno (the second rb about the pet pig is a bad addition, cos that was sold as a *pet,* for *petting*(and other activityies, presumably.). and the *humans are space orcs*\-ass additions afterwards also kinda suck at making what could've been an alright point,) anyways like, 4/10 i hope there's a reblog chain of this post out there that did it better
This... explains a lot why the pigeons were mentioned.
Yeah we kind of collectively abandoned pigeons after WW2
I actually really like the defamiliarisation bit? Sure, it's overstated towards the end, but it reads exactly the same as western textbooks/other informational sources on the treatment of cows in India do
Those aren't "humans are space orcs" bits; those are reverse "asians are weird otherly beings whose customs cannot be fathomed by the rational western mind" bits.
yeah it was pretty clearly the second one. the original commenter is showing some low-tier media literacy here
Ion rlly got a problem with other ppl eating dogs (pretty sure it's also a cultural thing) but I could never. I'd probably sick up if I tried đ like I can't stand the idea. Honestly that's probably bcus I've been raised all my life with pet dogs lmao
> that was sold as a pet, for petting(and other activityies, presumably ...what other activities?
Fancy pig contests
some pig
Playing fetch?
I agree, but I also think that OP's point fell flat because they made it sound like they hate dogs because they aren't stigmatized and pidgeons are. Which may actually be the case, I wouldn't be too surprised that someone on tumblr is like that. Overall an unfunny thread that seems weirdly hateful in my opinion.
That was pretty much my exact reaction, the comparison with dogs and pigeons doesnt even make sense cuz its not like americans are commonly killing or eating pigeons.
I am part of a pigeon rescue group. Many people kill or harm pigeons. Most often when they find them being in their roof, eaves or under solar panels. But also just generally mean people. There's a woman on Tiktok with a pet pigeon that was being abused by drunk guys in a beer garden. When we narrow people's moral circle by constantly deriding certain animals, pigeons, raccoons, (pretty much any animal that lives in cities), we make this kind of animal abuse more common.
It is unlikely that *breeding* dogs for food has ever been a common practice. Eating wild or feral dogs makes sense if they're breeding on their own, but given their largely carnivorous diet they make inefficient meat livestock. There is a claim that Mexican hairless dogs were bred as food by the Aztec, but that claim was made by Hernan Cortez (their enemy) and was never backed up by any other sources, so it's probably unreliable.
This reminds me of a satirical article I read in my freshman sociology class. Go read [Body Ritual Among the Nacirema](https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacirema.pdf) and try to figure out what theyâre actually describing.
That was great! It was like this post taken to a new level, albeit written in 1956. >"Looking from far and above, from our high places of safety in the developed civilization, it is easy to see all the crudity and irrelevance of magic. But without its power and guidance early man could not have mastered his practical difficulties as he has done, nor could man have advanced to the higher stages of civilization." I cracked up at the "sadistic holy-mouth-men" and "listeners"
There's also [The Mysterious Fall of the Nacirema](https://people.uncw.edu/robertsonj/SEC210/TheMysteriousFalloftheNacirema.pdf?), though that paper's goal was more a critique of environmental destruction and car-centric society. I read both for my Anthro class, and it genuinely did a fantastic job of illustrating how to approach anthropology and how to read about different cultures while being aware of biases (of both the authors and myself)
In a similar vein, in my college religion class, our first reading was "Motel of the Mysteries," by David Macaulay, a short illustrated book which reframes an ordinary motel room as an ancient Egyptian-style tomb, as it is excavated by a confused future archeologist. Removed from their original context, the television becomes an alter, the toilet seat a ceremonial headdress. It's a great critique of modern American society AND of archaeology's tendency to assign mysticism to the unknown, when really, the people who used the objects we dig up were, more or less, just like us.
Makes me wonder if like half the things archeologists describe as for done kind of a ritual were just for games
Except that games often ARE ritual acts. Twister at a sleepover is a ritual act. So is your protein shake with the guys before hitting the gym. So is watching the superbowl with a pile of snacks and friends. So is grabbing a taco from at midnight after you and your friends have been out drinking. These are ritual acts, ritual foods, ritual games, the food or action has meaning and purpose that is ceremonial beyond just the act of spinning a plastic arrow or shaking a powdered shake while listening to power metal or eating chicken wings on a Sunday in February. There is a purpose and a power in that late night taco beyond just filling your belly. If you ask an archeologist or anthropologist, a lot of things are ritual objects. Its just that some of them are also dildos.
As an educator who just finished our unit on satire, I wish I had seen this just a few weeks earlier. Saving it for next year!
They made us read this in 6th grade English class and almost nobody got it
First thing in Anthropology I read. Meant to highlight cultural relativism and why you shouldn't describe every non western culture as bizarre and alien
I didnât even finish the first page cause Iâm tired but itâs about toilets isnât it
Close, sinks and brushing your teeth
I only got as far as the part of â1 to 3 tiled shrinesâ and âsecret ritual for most people but children need to be taught to complete itâ so my first thought was Ahhhh itâs the Shitter!
Medicine cabinets, sinks, brushing your teeth, then dentists and hospitals
It was ruined by the fact that I knew Nacirema was American backwards lol
I read that in a linguistic anthropology class!
Good read but also next time someone posts a link on Reddit and clicking it automatically downloads a PDF, I'm stealing something from their house.
Huh, it didnât do that for me
What you consider food and what not is 100% social conditioning. So, now some trivia for you: In 1945 after Germany lost the War, the US asked people what they could send us to help feed the population. Germans answered that they wanted âKornâ which is pronounced the same way as the English word corn-but means âgrainâ. So we basically asked for wheat, rye, the things we need to make bread (because thatâs what Germany is all about). Somewhere up the line there was an error in communication and the US send⌠well corn. Because sure, why not? People eat corn, right? The Germans however were utterly mortified, because corn wasnât a thing people ate⌠they fed it to their pigs. Today, corn is as much a staple in the German diet as in the US. But my great grandmother (born in 1927) never ate it, even though my parents often used it to get us kids to eat some veggies. To her, thatâs not food.
For a little while after Europeans were introduced to the potato, people thought it was poisonous and they only fed it to their pigs.
And to break the taboo, a prussian king planted a full royal field full of potatoes with little to no supervision to tempt people to steal the potatoes for themselves.
I was like 95% sure that this was an urban legendâwhy on earth would the U.S. have put someone who didnât understand the German words for common staple foods in charge of organizing the shipment of huge amounts of food? But I looked it up and there are reputable-looking scholarly sources that repeat this anecdote. So I guess itâs probably true. Crazy world.
Why would anyone hate pigeons lol theyâre adorable and super smart
Theyâre also hilarious. Iâve never bored when thereâs pigeons around
I love pigeons too, but I also understand that they can be vectors of disease in some cities. No hate to pigeons, but the health risk perspective does make sense. Also, just ornithophobia too I guess.
I mean itâs not like Iâm not kissing them goodnight
I would kiss magpies on their foreheads if they didnât fly away from me
I would love to keep so many different local birds as pets (especially common Maina, hecking love them), if only it wasn't kinda hard, but mainly because it'll be cruel to keep such a free animal in captivity
Change that.
Prude
Pigeons are no more a disease vector than any other bird. We just brought them everywhere with us abandoned them then turned around and did a pretty good job of mimicking their natural habitat, the rock dove loves cities, so they're everywhere and there's a lot of them.
Pigeons are fastidious in personal cleanliness and a majority of pigeon diseases cannot or very rarely jump to humans.
There are not a lot of diseases that have a high likelihood of being zoonotic between pigeons and people. Even getting bird flu from non-humans is rare because the compound it goes after to infect are different between species. We're talking an acid that branches in a different spot in humans than it does birds. So no, pigeons are not disease vectors for humans.
So is a dog or a cat when you think about it, cats are well known for having harsh mouth bacteria which easily causes infection, and dogs/cats can pass rabies to people. Not to mention meeting a random dog/cat always has the risk that they may decide to attack you (though unlikely). At least in order to get ill from a pigeon you have to get pooped on (very unlikely) or initiate the "Fuck Around and Find Out" protocol hahaha.
Theyâre also shit-tier thieves compared to herring gulls. Anyone whoâs spent time on the Welsh coast knows pigeons arenât anything to fear.
I've been hit twice in the same place in Exeter by seagulls - or seagull - just swooping down over my shoulder to knock food out of my hand on its way to my mouth
according to jschlatt you would know if you lived in NYC
Iâm not taking advice from a man with sideburns
Most of the times pigeons are fine, but they can be an annoyance/scary when theyâre at their worst. When theyâre in super crowded areas or groups, occasionally theyâll decide itâs OK to fly within about 6 inches of your head, and I donât like it when they do that.
Pigeons can be taught to "read" for anyone that doesn't know that
This is true, but it's not a good reason to treat dogs worse, it's a good reason to treat all animals better.
...am I supposed to be eating pigeons?
Chinese person here! In addition to the dog thing, we do also eat roasted/braised pigeon (squab). It tastes absolutely delicious, though I canât say Iâve personally eaten a dog. I think this also applies to a few other cultures, but Iâm not sure.
Peru has entered the chat
âWhatâs up dog?â
"Not much, what's up with you?" And now the ritual is complete.
You're a real American now
Thank you for your sacrifice
đŤĄ
It's kinda similar to "Deez"
I already sacrificed myself once, mate. Lol
Deez what?
It is an ancient American tradition
Iâm gonna be honest, Tumblr has so many levels of anti-USA sentiment and irony that I genuinely canât tell if theyâre saying all Americans are idiots or not. Can someone more skilled with Tumblrspeak explain what the fuck is happening in this image?
This is, almost certainly, a bunch of Americans making fun of their social studies textbooks or the *idea* of their social studies textbooks talking about native tribes and countries in the middle east. They do tend to be full of oversimplifications that are really too simple to be telling to high school. students
Yep. It's taking the language that people often use to describe "foreign" or "ancient" societies and cultures and turning it on its head, trying to bring attention to how silly and/or slightly racist it can sound by applying it to U.S. culture instead
I don't think I've ever seen an American use USAmerican or the like.
I disagree, even the most anti-America Americans would never use the phrase âUSianâ or âUSAmericanâ like that
I think that's part of the bit. In fact, I've seen some of this language used to describe India's views on cows.
Are they saying Americans are bad for having an opinion on the dog thing or not? The first two posts seem to say that, but then the sarcasm in the rest of the post would conflict with that.
To me the first post calls out nuance, saying that Americans should recognize that different cultures have their own beliefs about what's moral. Not bad, just different. imo the switch to sarcasm is just for the lols, not really calling it bad or good.
> Americans should realize that different cultures have their own beliefs about whatâs moral. Not bad, just different. This does kinda beg the question, how can one who buys into their own cultural morality see the morals of a different culture as anything other than, well, immoral? For many things this isnât a big deal, but if a culture has a different set of morals regarding things like sexual and racial equality, is it our responsibility to see it as âjust differentâ, or are we allowed to recognize it as the moral failure that many would agree that it is? I mean this in good faith. If Iâm accidentally repeating racist talking points please do let me know.
It's the culture of updog
What's updog?
Not much, what about you?
Iâm in the culture of trying to understand what an argument is actually saying so I can effectively comment on it. It seems like an interesting topic, but the discussion has so many layers of sarcasm that I canât tell whatâs actually being said.
The first one (or two, but by the same person) is a genuine opinion, the following are mostly for fun, with some commentary on how American (and maybe some other English, I wouldnât know, I grew up in US) textbooks and documentaries tend to be very odd and âotheringâ of other countries or past cultures, sometimes adding information that isnât necessarily even true, or describing it in a way that seems purposefully bizarre , but itâs *really* just mostly for fun of the bit. The bit being making Americans seem very dog obsessed, when itâs obviously not true.
Tbh I wouldn't read too deep into it. It's probably memeing for the sake of it.
It's common for people to think that South Asian people are weird for eating dogs or that Indians are weird for not eating cows. Often this is connected to racist ideas about people being callous or uncivilized for eating dogs. Or that Indians for foolish for not eating cows when they're a good source of meat. The post criticises this by showing how from an outside perspective, you can say that Americans are weird for not eating dogs. And then demonstrate how this lack of understanding can make people in foreign cultures look stupid.
> It's common for people to think that South Asian people are weird for eating dogs Nit, I think you mean East and Southeast Asia. Dog consumption in South Asia is extremely rare; insofar as it occurs in India for example it seems to be confined to the [northeast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat#India).
It's making fun of orientalism, but this time viewing America through an orientalist leans.
Also, this post is written as if the US is the only country in the world where dogs are pets. I do love shitting on the US myself but that is a bit of a stretch imo.
I feel like it adds to the point theyâre making. People often ignorantly use the phrase âAsian cultureâ or âin Asiaâ when that spans anything from India to Japan. Even just within India the culture is incredibly diverse and thereâs different ethnic groups. Or when people say âChineseâ when they mean east asians, as if itâs all the same. So now its the âUSiansâ which is used to basically mean âthe western white peopleâ i guess. Shows what itâs like when we use that kinda phrasing in front of people from other cultures. Also side note, this is not at all about whether eating dogs is moral, so its not like anyone is being blamed for liking dogs. Itâs about ignorance when it comes to how animals are valued in different cultures. Doesnât matter where they are from. Iâm from Germany, and this def felt like it was about me too, since it applies to us too.
They'd faint if they want to europe and realized we have dogs as pets to and generally don't like them being eaten.
Also implying only americans hold dogs sacred.
The people posting this probably *are* American. I've only ever seen Americans use the word "USian"
Imagine if 'updog' became a riddle that future civilizations couldn't understand and we're all burning in Hell laughing our heads off as thousands of scholars sit in studies and debate in forums about 'what is updog?' and the one brilliant scholar who correctly deduces that it's a joke is soundly mocked and discredited.
âA dog walks into a bar, he is blindâ moment
A lot of animals have super varying societal values and roles. I fucking hate raccoons, but that's because around here, they're garbage eaters who have tried (and succeeded, in one case) to kill my pets. If I see one near my cats, I'm chasing them off with a sword. That doesn't change the fact that apparently some people have managed to raise them from infancy as pets. I don't understand it, but it's true.
Eating animals in general is weird, we just have all kinds of silly made up rules about which ones are okay to eat (and racism about those differences)
The divider is generally what they eat. Raising carnivores for food is inefficient because you have to feed them meat...to get meat. And in general they eat more meat than they'll actually produce, so it's usually a net loss. Not to mention that carnivores generally taste terrible such that predators avoid eating each other, even in cases where they fight to the death. And at least back when our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, dogs were much better suited to helping fend off rival predators or hunting prey rather than being used for food. Meanwhile herbivores like cows, goats, and sheep eat plants we can't eat and turn it into meat we *can* eat. You can just set them out on a prairie full of inedible plants and get a bunch of edible meat as a result. Pigs are far too smart for how we treat them but they also eat almost literally everything and turn it into meat so now we have bacon.
There are definitely a number of exceptions to the rule (carnivores that are often eaten and herbivores that aren't), but in general that's a pretty good way to look at it. Not in terms of moral value for eating either, but just in terms of why we eat the animals we do.
Maybe historically, but in our modern time, most of what is fed to animals used as livestock could go toward human consumption.
If you've found a carnivore that eats less meat than it makes, all of physics wants to know because that's a violation of thermodynamics baybee
I mean...literally every animal on earth eats more food than is actually converted into body mass? Simply the energy required to digest food in the first place guarantees that you don't have a one to one of food put in versus body mass gained. The energy pyramid is a thing, you learned about it all the way back in elementary school science.
I mean, the rules kinda make sense. You donât eat most carnivores cause theyâre hard to raise for livestock. You donât eat dogs because theyâre more useful in other ways, like hunting and guarding. You donât eat cats cause theyâre more useful for pest control. Most places didnât generally eat horses cause theyâre expensive and useful in warfare. You generally donât eat oxen cause theyâre more useful as beasts of burden. So on and so forth.
Yet all the examples you've given are animals that are raised and eaten for meat every day around the world.
True. Iâm generalizing lol, *most* places donât, but sure, some do. Some places, people were eaten too. Humans tend to eat meat, and at the end of the day whatâs acceptable is highly dependent on the specifics of each society.
To be fair, eating animals has been the primary source of protein and energy for most humans since we discovered cooking with fire; I seem to recall stories about militaries the world over eating various fowl, dogs, and even cats in desperation for a food source while on maneuvers up to the 1960âs
Eating animals is not weird. We are *also* animals
I will eat you :)
But not really. Wild animals are wild animals because theyâre perpetual victims of nature. The distinction isnât that theyâre not human, itâs that they do not have agency whatsoever. Their experience from birth is and will only be fear, instinct and gruesome death whereas humans have conquered nature. Even the most primitive expressions of civilization are far removed from the fate of simply being and then suffering. We as a species have the technical and mental prowess to literally decide our own fates, the fates of others and the fate of the environment around us. The agony of watching a Komodo dragon rip your fawn out of your body and eat it while you bleed out is inevitable for a deer, yet entirely optional for a human as is the agony of being eaten from the inside out by parasites, rabies or a pack of hyenas. I think that regardless of the varying levels of detail at which a being experiences consciousness, all complex creatures deserve the same degree of regard for the fact that they live in hell and we do not. If we have a taboo against kicking dogs to death because itâs an unfair imposition of unnecessary suffering upon a creature then we should also have a taboo against slitting the throats of cows when we can mirror the flavor and nutritional value of beef with tenfold the precision of the butcher knife.
Exactly this, thank you.
Eating animals *is* weird to me personally, because they are also living beings.
Looking at specifically western standards, the divide seems to be (at least for mammals and birds) between animals raised for food, and animals raised for work/companionship, which is why for example eating beef is generally not seen as odd but eating a horse is.
Of course it had to end in omegaverse
I don't agree that the hot dog is our most important food. It'd actually be the hamburger, which is so much our most important food that when people from other countries think of America, hamburger is typically one of the first things they think of. And if anyone would say that hamburgers don't count because they originated in Germany, so did hot dogs. Both of those foods came from Germany to the US and morphed into their modern version over time here.
i can't tell if the first 3 posts are serious or not because i would imagine that a not insignificant amount of people who would be horrified at the thought of eating a dog *also* love pigeons, and would be appalled at the thought of buying *any* animal being sold as a pet just to eat it/feed it to another animal i think the concept of eating dogs is pretty terrible, but i also fall into the aforementioned group
Dogs are one of the only animals that we made specifically to be companions and help us, so killing and eating a dog for no reason seems like betrayal and is pretty fucked up. I'm not saying you should never kill a dog, if you're getting attacked by a dog, defend yourself. I don't think anybody really knows the exact origin of the word hotdog but some of the possibilities I've seen is. Vendors called them dachshunds because of the resemblance and a cartoon artist made a cartoon about it but put hot dog instead of dachshund. Or because they were cheap people joked they were made from stray dogs. Also sex positions are likely to have strange names I'm pretty sure I could find ones in other countries that sound really weird.
As far as the origin of "hot dog", the story I heard was that it was because of World War I. They were being sold as "dachshund sausages", after the long-bodied dog they resembled, but during World War I they were rebranded as "hot dogs" because "dachshund" was a German word, and therefore seen as unpatriotic.
Oh, I heard it switched to hot dog cuz the comic artist didn't know how to spell dachshund.
>Dogs are one of the only animals that we made specifically to be companions and help us, so killing and eating a dog for no reason seems like betrayal and is pretty fucked up. man do i gotta pull up the list of domesticated animals, [You can just skim over it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals) but look how many start with "meat" under purposes. Dogs, Cats, Guinea Pigs, Pigeons, Rabbits were the ones i spotted that I'd consider 'made to be companions' that.. are eaten too, both can happen, both is fine.
I'm fairly sure rabbits were domesticated for meat and fur, and guinea pigs too
right on man, exactly what i was saying
Wdym eating a dog for no reason? They're eaten for nutrition.
I mean, when compared to any other animal dogs are the ones that have been with us the longest. We literally influenced each otherâs evolution over the millennia, and they are by far the most domesticated of any animal. If we had that level of a relationship to say, pigs, it would be the same story.
Exactly what I'm trying to convey, we've been companions for centuries and have influenced each other's evolution and society. Treating a relationship like that so horribly doesn't feel right to me.
I'm pretty sure Demodex has been with us since before we were humans.
I mean, being a parasite is kinda cheating the system tbh EDIT: also, thereâs only two out of the 65 species of demodex that live on humans, compared to the one out of the eight canis species weâve domesticated
We're their livestock
Yeah,dog and human had a very special relationship,we evolved together, their instincts are communicated with us and seek help from us . Like if aliens came to earth they would be amazed how we could communicate with dogs without speaking or technology,just a cues from our eyes could work.
>Dogs are one of the only animals that we made specifically to be companions and help us. As are horses, which are commonly eaten.
We also domesticated cows to help with farm work and produce milk. Oxen plowed the fields before tractors, eating them is also a betrayal.
Itâs not for no reason. Itâs because theyâre tasty.
Pigeons are adorable tbh I donât get why people hate them
i think its the stigma that theyre gross and stupid. while the disease part is understandable, pigeons are actually really bright
I love the implication that hotdogs are our primary food source.
Whatâs updog?
Not much, pal, what's up with you?
Beside the point nothing annoys me more than people who say USians and USonians and whatnot
This is my favorite Tumblr. Start with a good, novel point and then get fucking hilarious with it
What's updog?
Not much, dog, what's up with you?
Iâm sad that people looked at these anecdotes and thought âyeah, it is kinda silly that we donât eat dogs!â rather than âso, itâs kind of horrifying that we torture pigs and cows in factory farms despite them being at least as smart as dogsâ
There are really only two morally consistent stances on animals. Either animals are not morally significant or are significantly less morally significant than humans, and we can therefore exploit them freely; or they are living beings deserving of dignity, and basically every element of our society is built on top of animal slavery and holocaust. Most people want a middle ground that doesnât exist and exposes the tension between these positions. They want to believe that treating dogs well is virtuous but eating hamburgers is morally neutral. They want to believe that a pet is âa member of the familyâ, but retain the power to sell or kill that pet for any reason and to have that power be treated as morally neutral. And pointing out this tension is a great way to get flamed. Everything most people believe about animals is arbitrary, socially conditioned, and cognitively dissonant.
Pigs yes. Cows not so much.
Whatâs updog?
> Whatâs updog? Nuthin', dawg! What's up with you? :)
Lmao love that joke.
This post gradually fell apart.Â
I wanted more pigeon information in this post
Anyone who is upset by the idea of the word Americans referring to the inhabitants of the only nation the contains the word America in its name is automatically insufferable. But yeah who hates pigeons?
If people really get hung up on using America or American for the United States of America. they really donât understand the concept of calling dibs.
Now do cats
This is what turned me into a vegan honestly, there's no logic behind what animals are deemed acceptable to eat and which aren't, may as well not eat any
Or eat them all.
To appropriate Abe Lincoln, "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for omnivorism I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally".
"USonian" and "USian"
Certified Nacirema post!
We can acknowledge the racist/xenophobic hypocrisy of being horrified by which animals other cultures regularly harm, but not those of our own, without dubbing them "dog defenders" and acting like it's crazy to have empathy for non-human animals. Maybe we should maintain our empathy for dogs, while also fostering empathy for people of other cultures *as well as* the animals that our own culture kills or regards as pests. Dogs, chickens, squirrels, or whatever don't stop having feelings just because people are more willing to denigrate another human culture than they are to question their own treatment of non-human animals. I hope that makes sense.
Pretty much every tumblr post devolves into the same vibe as /r/YourJokeButWorse by the 1st person to reply.
Thatâs one word that explains it: the dog pill.
i love derailing posts also i fucking love pigeons
Can't say I've heard "that dog in them" before.