43
Cats or dogs? (lazysoci.al)

Cats. I feel very strongly about this.

(page 2) 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 points 6 days ago

I used to be fully a cat person, but through my sister being a dog person and her having had multiple dogs over the years I've come to enjoy dogs too. At least medium-to-large sized ones. I really love playing with and playwrestling with dogs in a way you can't with a cat.

I really have a hard time (near phobia) of dealing with poop though so I don't think I'd be able to handle having either personally.

[-] Berttheduck@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Both are good. Cats are definitely less effort than a dog (as someone who's never owned a cat at least) as they don't need walking or training particularly, if you don't train a dog it will be a menace, cats just do their own thing. I've got a dog and wouldn't change that for anything, the love and entertainment they give and the fact you have to go outside with them and exercise is great for your mental health. If I couldn't have a dog, due to not being able to exercise them properly cuz of work etc, I'd happily have cats.

I'd also like to recommend rats as alternatives, they are super sweet pets, very clever and social critters. The only downside is they don't live very long.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Cats, very much so, for most of my life. I've enjoyed dogs, but cats have been my heart. While I was working at a shelter one of the dogs that arrived to us from a southern transport was a quiet, shy, but very sweet German Shepherd. It was love at first sight, and she never hit the adoption floor.

We were nervous to bring her home, because we didn't know how she would react to the cats. It was seamless, and now she enjoys fussing over foster kittens when I have them. She's opened my heart to dogs in a way I didn't think was possible. We're thankful for Ferda every day.

I do still categorize myself as a cat person, though.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

It depends on the breed.

[-] Lembot_0001@lemm.ee -1 points 6 days ago

None. Just food-demanding noise-mess-shit generators.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
43 points (92.2% liked)

Casual Conversation

3135 readers
213 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS