Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
like no scars or anything, just flat skin
and then once you leave your room you find out your dad died last night
and then several days later, you find out that for your entire life your dad had been sneaking into your room while you slept
and sucking on your chest to make to gigantic hickeys where your nipples should be
because you were born without them
not for any sexual reason, just so you would fit in
god bless you dad
-Derek
-Derek Jr
-Crustian
-Crapstian
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies puppers, doggos, yappers, and even woofers, I am telling you, specifically, in doggology, no one calls puppers doggos. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "doggo family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Doggodaemous, which includes things from sub woofers to birdos to sharkos (the glub glub kind not the bork bork kind).
So your reasoning for calling a pupper a doggo is because random people "call the small yip yip ones doggos?" Let's get penguos and turkos in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A pupper is a pupper and a member of the doggo family. But that's not what you said.