ATTENTION: SIGNAL BOOST THE SHIT OUT OF THIS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT OK I HAVE FOUR DOGS AND I WOULD KILL THE BASTARD WHO TRIES TO HARM THEM OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL. SIGNAL BOOST PLEASE.
KEEP ALL ANIMALS INDOORS ON HALLOWEEN
Whether or not this Pit Bull thing is legit (it probably is—people love any reason to kill Pits), it’s just a good idea to keep all your animals—dogs, cats, whatever—indoors on Halloween evening and night.
There are some really gross people out there who will use Halloween, or the night before Halloween, as an “excuse” to kill domestic animals for fun.
I had a friend who left her cat outside during the day on Halloween and didn’t make it home until after dark, and by the time she returned someone or a group of people had killed it. Don’t take any chances with your pets.
Fuck, this pisses me off
if anybody thinks of coming near my dog they are in for a rude awakening
If anyone hurts my dogs I hurt them
I am so sickened by this.
So fucking powerful.
can’t get over this
every fucking time..
In high school I took a lot of social science classes. It was interesting, but all the politics and the roaring debates in classroom was a major turn off. Don’t get me wrong. I recognize it’s important. But to me, it was a whirling pool of anger and resentment.
That’s not the major reason I chose to be a science major, but it’s a contributing factor. I thought science was all factual information. People in lab coats striving to better understand our world. To me that was beautiful and I wanted to be a part of it. Burning people at stake for a different viewpoint was centuries ago… right?
Wrong. Science is just as susceptible to that “whirlpool of anger and resentment” as anything else. Even if something has been proven with impeccable data and results, it does not guarantee acceptance with open arms.
Take Dr.Bruce Lipton for example. We now take epigenetics (study of changes due to modified gene expression) seriously. But in the 1990’s when the topic was first introduced, scientists blew up into hysterics at the thought of the concept. This is why Dr.Lipton left the academia for good in 1992, because although his experiments supported his views, he felt his message was falling onto deaf ears.
An interesting book, I’m reading called The Mind (edited by John Brockman) also highlights an example. When Darwin came back from his voyage, he displayed his Galapagos finches and reptiles, the crucial evidence of evolution. John Gould who was a great ornithologist at the time and knew a lot about birds, corrected some of Darwin’s information and gave him more crucial information in support of evolution.
But Gould himself still remained a creationist and didn’t stand for evolution. As the book says "the man who knew more saw less and the man who knew less saw more"
I learned that great things take time. Facts and statistics don’t persuade people. Some are forever imprisoned by their own beliefs.
Here is a great article on how some people respond to scientific evidence by twisting information to fit their preexisting views (LINK)
Ofcourse science is a ever changing field and I’m sure by the time I’m 40, science textbooks will be revised and edited many times over. But many new concepts are heavily ridiculed and then gradually accepted generations later.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
I aspire to be you.
No one get’s lynched for exfoliating is the greatest come back I’ve ever witnessed.
"Yesterday I was a puppy, today I will dog."