People always make Juliet out to be dumb in Romeo and Juliet, but I think she at least had some sense where Romeo didn't have much of any
Romeo:I was thinking about this chick earlier who I said I was in love with but now I love that girl over there that is very likely to either belong to my family's enemy or be close with my family's enemy as it is their party I am crashing
Juliet:I do not like being so young and forced into a relationship with an older man, but oh there's a cute guy more my age over there. And since he's here he must have been invited and is there for a reasonable love match for myself
Romeo:We should kiss right now at this party
Juliet:No that is a super dumb idea
Romeo:*kisses her anyway*
Juliet:That was dumb of you
Romeo:We should get married right now
Juliet:We don't know each other. Shouldn't we wait until at least a little time has passed?
Juliet:We're married now, so we have to try and make things better between our families.
Romeo:It seems I have killed your cousin and am now exiled.
Juliet:Ok so since Romeo fucked up I'm gonna fix this shit by taking a harmless sleeping liquid. He'll come and get me and we can go away together.
I want to write an alternative version of Romeo and Juliet where instead of being a little ponce and trying to work things out for himself, Romeo asks his smarter friends what to do about the whole thing and Benvolio and Mercutio come up with the world’s greatest…
Do you think pugs should be allowed to die out? Scottish folds? Are there any [other] breeds of dogs and or cats you think we should let go extinct?
I think wording it this way is extremely misleading. First of all, dog (and cat) breeds are not individual species, or even subspecies (dogs themselves are a subspecies of the gray wolf, and cats are a subspecies of the African wildcat!). Since the biological definition of “extinction” refers to the loss of an entire species or subspecies, the disappearance of a dog breed isn’t extinction because the dog subspecies, as a whole, is going to be just fine.
I do understand that the common usage of “extinction” can be applied to the disappearance of most anything, that’s fine; I’m just trying to explain the broader context here.
Dog (and cat) breeds are not that genetically different from each other at all; their differences largely come from a series of mutations that have been reproduced by humans via selective breeding. That’s it. So if a breed were to “die out” all that means is that that particular combination of mutations aren’t showing up anymore in the species (or subspecies). Frankly speaking, it’d probably be possible to get most or all of them back in a few generations of crossbreeding other dogs- unless their traits are really really rare. (Rare traits often come with their own caveats, as with folded ears in Scottish folds.)
"Purebred" dogs and cats are kind of a paradox in and of themselves, and so are dog shows; all that purebred animals are is creatures bred in such a way that most offspring have the same set of desired traits that their parents have. The positives of purebred animals are more predictable looks and slightly more predictable temperaments, energy levels, and health issues; the downside can be, of course, those same health issues that can stem from excessive inbreeding.
So, okay, now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s address your question: Should some breeds be allowed to disappear?
All purebred dalmatians have a genetic defect that results in hyperuricemia (abnormally concentration of uric acid in urine, causing painful bladder stones). Unfortunately, the recessive allele that causes this condition is present in every single purebred dalmatian, and it is impossible to get rid of by breeding dalmatians with other dalmatians (unless a once-in-a-lifetime mutation occurs). This is one of the major risks of inbreeding or backbreeding: with the loss of genetic diversity comes the loss of protective alleles.
One dalmatian breeder decided to try and solve this problem in a very simple way: she bred a purebred dalmatian with a pointer, then bred the puppies with other purebred dalmatians for a couple generations. The result? Dogs that looked exactly like purebred dalmatians that didn’t have hyperuricemia thanks to the protective alleles from their pointer ancestor.
Despite this- despite the fact that they look exactly like normal dalmatians- there are many dog breeders who are outraged at the idea of even calling these dogs dalmatians; there has been a great deal of difficulty even registering these dogs in shows because of the single outcross they received- a dog named Fiona who was 13 generations removed from the pointer just barely managed to get registered to participate in Crufts.
I guess the real question is, what defines a dalmatian? If we go far back enough, the ancestors of purebred dalmatians certainly wouldn’t look like dalmatians. Why does the breed have to be locked in to its own lineage? If we’re going to argue that real dalmatians have to be descended from “purebred” dalmatians (what does that really even mean?) than part of what defines a dalmatian is hyperuricemia. And that’s horrible.
And it just doesn’t have to be that way. Unlike show line animals, many working line animals do have what are known as “open stud books,” which means crossbreeding is permitted, and offspring will be classified as the breed of whichever parent they most resemble. This is, arguably, because working dogs need to be healthier than show dogs, and is a reason why working and show dog lines don’t usually mix.
Of course, there are some breeds with issues that can’t fixed with a single outbreeding. These animals have health issues that are caused by the specific physical traits that define their breeds: for example, the flattened shout of the pug causes, among other things, severe breathing difficulties, and the folded ears of the Sottish fold cat are caused by a cartilage disorder that also leads to debilitating arthritis.
But without the flattened snout or folded ears, these animals would arguably not be Scottish folds or pugs anymore. In that case, I say, that’s just fine. I am never, ever, going to value an animal’s physical traits over its health and well-being. If that means that there will be no more “pugs” or “Scottish folds” or any other manmade subgroup of cat, dog, et cetera, I’m perfectly fine with it.
And no, obviously I’m not advocating for immediate euthanasia of all members of breeds with severe health issues, or even that these animals never be bred (though some of them might be better off). I would just like some compassion for the animals we intentionally produce. Breed a pug to a beagle and you get a longer snouted-puggle; breed a puggle to something with an even longer snout, and you might actually get to a healthy dog. And isn’t that what we should all hope for?
Greene County, Ohio coroner Dr. Kevin Sharrett has ruled the death of 37-year-old Angela Williams a homicide due to a heart attack she suffered when police officers stormed a Beavercreek Walmart on Aug. 5 and shot and killed 22-year-old John Crawford III, reports Dayton Daily News.
so so hold on now. is motherfuckers gonna prosecute the police for this white woman collapsing and dying but not for actually fucking killing the black man? is this what is going to happen?
You know what…..
Is this a joke? This gotta be a joke
Ya gotta be shitting me
I’m not even sure what to say, except, “justice” is nothing but a fable and tall-tale, it does not exist for Black people.
Our “justice system” is legit trolling us at this point.
So…. The Black person who was shot to death by police for SHOPPING is justified, but the white woman who died of natural causes = homicide?
That’s it. Someone let me off this bitch cause I’m DONE.
“It seems to me that on one page I recognized a portion of an old diary of mine which mysteriously disappeared shortly after my marriage, and, also, scraps of letters which, though considerably edited, sound to me vaguely familiar. In fact, Mr. Fitzgerald (I believe that is how he spells his name) seems to believe that plagiarism begins at home.”—
—Zelda Fitzgerald, in a review of her husband’s book in 1922 (via trishahaddad)
Reminder that F. Scott Fitzgerald stole his wife’s writing, many times, while suppressing her works. See “Save Me the Waltz”, which he forced her to revise so that he could use parts of it in his own book “Tender Is the Night”. And which author do we study in school?
Yep. All true. Learned about his trifling ass studying creative writing and English lit. at CSU. Didn’t read ONE of her books on high school, yet we’re taught how amazing and talented he was. Makes me sick. xBx
Dante Gabriel Rosetti did this with Elizabeth Siddal’s drawings, and her contributions to his drawings, as well. Then drove her to suicide by using her as his romantic and sexual scratching post. Then disinterred her body to retrieve the poems he had placed in her open coffin because they were “too good” to let her rest with them. Cool art dudes from history.
if youre feeling like a big awkward fuck up who messes up everything just think about how if u were a character in a work of fiction sooo many people would see your perceived flaws as lovable and endearing character traits and how youd still be their favorite character to draw coffeeshop AUs of regardless
today is bi visibility day. as such, bisexual people will be completely visible for the next 24 hours. this is a bad day to engage in bank heists, ghost impersonations, covert operations for vague yet menacing government agencies, and other common bisexual hobbies that rely upon our powers of invisibility.
An identity is something that you claim, not something that claims you. Some people prefer not to use bi or bisexual as their labels, and that is so completely okay. Regardless of behavior, desire, whatever, no one is ever mandated to claim an identity.
But damn, if you want to claim that identity but are afraid that you aren’t bi “enough,” aren’t queer enough, that you aren’t enough in any way, I say that’s bullshit. If you identify as a girl and sometimes kiss girls, if you’re a guy who fantasizes about guys, if you’re hetero-flexible, homo-flexible, bisexually open-minded, pan-attractional, biromantic, bi-curious, not 100% gay or straight-identifying, just to name a few, I say that the bisexual label is yours to claim if you want it.
I spent years questioning myself, worrying and stressing about whether I would be invalidating other people’s experiences if I claimed the bisexual label. I spent years afraid that I would give bisexuals a bad name if I kissed other girls at parties, or if said I was bi now and then at any point in the future ever said that I was straight again. I spent years worrying that I wouldn’t be accepted into the LGBT community, that there wasn’t a space for me here.
And I know some people don’t agree with me, feel that there are “real” bisexuals, that straight people are trying to take up queer spaces, that some bi folk make the community look bad. People say these things, and I’m sorry. But if you’re questioning, unsure, afraid to take up a label, know that there is a space for you. There are people who accept you, whatever your experience of your own sexuality. It’s okay to not know. It’s okay to change. And not knowing or changing does not mean that any part of you is wrong, or a mistake, or less than. Labels may be for soup cans, but if the bisexual label helps you, take it.