Charge a small "adoption fee" to prevent snake owners from using your free puppies or kittens as food.
I have a coworker who routinely looks at online advertisements for
free puppies, kittens, or bunnies. She will pretend to be getting the
animal for her children, but will really take it home and feed it to her
reticulated python. She admitted that she won’t pay over 10$ to feed
the snake. Charging a small adoption fee of $15 or $20 will deter her
and other like minded individuals from dishonestly taking the animals
for a food source.
Note: I understand that snakes are animals too, and need to eat. I’m
not bashing on snakes or snake owners. I merely take issue with the
dishonest means by which this is happening. In some examples that she
shared with me, the previous owners are calling and texting to check in
on the animals, so she lies to them. If these people care enough to
check up on the animal, they most likely would not have given the
animals away if the true intent were known. Sketchy.
Edit: Wow, this ended up being a really controversial topic. For the
record, this is a true story. This woman is emotionally unstable, and
quite frankly, doesn’t have the mental agility to pull off a prank on
this level as some have suggested. I do agree with many of you who have
pointed out the possible warning signs of a sociopath, and I will
definitely be reporting her. Thank you to all those who PM’d me
resources and contact information.
Also, I had never considered the concept of the bait dogs/fighting
dogs and I found that to be enlightening as well. As some have
mentioned, the dog fighting rings may be the bigger more prominent
threat. There were many comments that mentioned the fee really doesn’t
solve the problem, and that solid interviewing and vetting of new owners
is a better strategy. I do not disagree. The argument of
spaying/neutering pets was also made, and again, I do not disagree. The
purpose of this post was not to spark ethical debate about the food
chain, or which type of animals should be labeled “food” vs. “pets”. Nor
was the purpose of this post to vilify snakes or their responsible
owners. This story would have read the same, even if the animal she
owned was a Saltwater Crocodile.
My goal in sharing this post was to raise awareness that there are
sketchy people out there who are dishonest in their dealings, and who
may not have your pet’s best interest at heart. So, whether charging a
fee, or conducting more extensive interviews, or spaying/neutering, we
can all be a little more responsible with the animals we value, to make
sure that they do not needlessly suffer. Hence the LPT.
So I was waiting with some Americans in the hope of Becky coming and taking a picture with us, but to my surprise the only one signing stuff and taking pictures was Carli. She was about to go but I asked her nicely if she would take a picture with me too, and then she did before finally walking away after nearly everyone was in the locker room.❤️
It’s been really bothering me that people refer to Too Little Too Late as their couple song. ;-; Sure they sung it together but don’t you guys remember the message of that song. “We had a good thing but you broke my heart now it’s over and can’t be fixed.” I don’t like thinking of their relationship like that. And it’s not even accurate. But you know what’s more accurate and also played in the episode Friendenemies?
“At first I turned my head but then you really turned my day around” it could be referring to them beginning to get along during the montage as they were bonding even though originally Marco didn’t really want to go hang out with Tom. Or maybe that was referring to towards the end of the episode when Marco was so done with Tom so to make it up to him, Tom literally brought Marco’s idol, Mackie Hand, back from the dead. That really made a difference, did it not?
And then we have “We started out as friend-enemies but then you opened up to me and found out we have chemistry.” How did they end the episode? As friend-enemies. And I don’t what it’s referred to by you guys, but usually when I hear that people have chemistry it means that they’re good together in a romantic sense. So with Tom joining the main group that leaves some space for some finding of chemistry. Because honestly if Jarco isn’t endgame, I want Tomco to be. But we don’t what will happen, I just hope it’s one of those two ships.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my thoughts on their couple song so yeah.
“ my love, ” she coos, dipping her head almost shyly, “ as much as i appreciate the gesture, these gifts are far too grand. ” though her time in the crimson ring had not robbed her of the sin’dorei’s lust for the lavish, she had since learned to enjoy … a simpler way of life, && her king’s gold, though seemingly infinite, surely could have gone better spent elsewhere. “ these jewels are fit for a queen. ” // @puerdelumine
Touch is an important aspect of every human’s life. Mother embracing her newborn develops a bond with him which lasts forever in most cases. Actually, the whole world revolves around it and it’s amazing how essential it is.
Dean’s relationship with Cas started with a simple touch, too. It all began when angel gripped the hunter’s arm for the first time, rescuing him from hell. His handprint burned into Dean’s skin like a mark. The hunter thought that it was the creature’s way to claim him somehow and it scared the crap out of him. However, it turned out that Castiel wasn’t a monster at all. He was Dean’s savior.
And just like that, the bond between these two started to grow. Even though Cas wasn’t an ally of the Winchesters, he quickly became one, unable to bear the other angels manipulating Sam and Dean.
Back then, touch was only a way of getting attention for these two. The hunter would grab angel’s arm to make him turn around. Castiel would put a hand on Dean’s mouth to make sure he won’t scream and will understand that he’s not a threat. It wasn’t different for Dean than touching other people, though, even if he thought it would be.
Tati’s ‘Mr Hulot’ and Chaplin’s 'Charlot’ are two of a different kind.
Closely observed, Hulot seems to be an inside-out Charlot from every possible angle…
- pipe vs cigarette - short pants vs way too big pants - never centered, nor in the frame, nor storywise vs the center of all things going wrongfully - umbrella vs cane stick - leaning forward vs leaning backwards - tall, mannered vs short, trampy
In an interview, Tati himself talked about how he had an inside out Chaplin in mind when creating Hulot.
Michel Chion: “Hulot is the guy you recognize because he was in the same barracks as you, even though he never became a close friend. He gives you the illusion of familiarity, which really doesn’t exist. He develops into a real person only when you bump into him by accident one night… By creating Hulot, Tati aims to re-establish a distance. From the start, Hulot is someone who exists only in the eyes and mouths of the beholder. He is someone who awakens suspicion or amused attention… Hulot is a blurred man, a passer-by, a Hulotus errans.”
Aditionally, Affirmative action is NOT about racial quotas (which was prohibited in Bakke vs. University of California) nor lowered admissions standards…that is a demonstrable myth made up by angry white people who weren’t “intellectual” enough to get into (their preferred) college. Otherwise, we would surely be talking about lowered standards for “legacy admissions” like George W. Bush, among scores of other less qualified, “lesser intellectual” white people (please see also: ”White grievance industry” and Abigail Fisher)
Anyone who honestly wants a better understanding of how Affirmative Action is used in college admissions should really read THIS
Today I read an article handling the topic of “the it’s all in how they are raised” argument, used most predominantly regarding bully breeds. It’s a great anecdotal article. Link is at the bottom of the post. Here is an excerpt that particularly stuck out to me:
“Ask any behaviorist what’s more important – nature or nurture – and they’ll answer ‘both’. Some dogs can be raised by the book, socialized to everything, and still become dangerously aggressive. […] If you truly believe ‘it’s all how they’re raised,’ no stray shelter dog or abused dog would be safe to place in a home.” (emphasis mine)
Years of studying basic psychology in high school, educational psychology in college, and now animal behavior and psychology at university, one fundamental concept has remained consistent: It is not “nature vs. nurture”, nor is it “nature or nurture”, but “nature and nurture”.
Genetics and environment both play an incredibly important role in animal behavior (and human behavior), and it frustrates me and professional animal behaviorists when people try to pass puppies off as blank slates.
No dog is a blank slate. To assume that genetics is that predictable and passive is to wildly underestimate the complexity of biology. That certain animal behavioral traits are engrained genetically is undeniable. We see it in hibernation, mating rituals, migration patterns, and so forth.
But what is truly fascinating is when learned behavior becomes instinctive behavior, such as the migration patterns of the monarch butterflies, who still circumvent a mountain that has not existed for a very long time.
You can breed a dog for behavior. No one denies an innate drive in sheep dogs to herd, or for retrievers to retrieve, yet somehow people are blatantly unwilling to admit that decades of breeding a dog to fight has impacted their genetic code.
That being said, nurture also plays a huge role in the behavioral development of a dog. Most dogs with slight to strong herding instincts can be taught to leave children alone, but there will always be that one dog that just can’t stop themselves. You can discourage a retriever from retrieving, but there will be that one dog who just can’t stop himself from trying. In the same way, many dogs who were bred to fight can be discouraged from fighting, and “raised right”, but there will be that one dog, who just can’t help himself.
Behavior is made up of both nature and nurture. To disregard one or the other completely is to show an incredibly dangerous lack of understanding of basic principles of behavior and genetics.