u/Office_lady0328

One of the most unethical aspects of pet ownership, in my opinion, is people who allow their dogs and cats roam unsupervised and let them chase, harass, hunt and kill wildlife. And everytime I point out the ethical dilemmas of allowing dogs and/or cats unsupervised to chase wildlife, I always get the "Well, it's a natural instinct!". And I'm tired of it.

First of all, just because it's a natural instinct, doesn't mean we can't train it out or prevent it. Because we can. And yes, it is 100% possible to train a highly motivated dog or cat not to chase wildlife. It might take some work, but it is absolutely doable.

But also, the drive that we have artificially bred and trained dogs and cats to have, the drive to chase, hunt, and kill an excessive amount of wildlife is far beyond any natural instinct. Wild predators typically only chase/hunt for what they need, either in terms of food, protection, or territory. But we have bred and encouraged these genetics for a dog or cat to chase and kill several animals in a short span simply to benefit us. We've bred them to not have any limits. Hounds and terriers were bred to chase and kill several animals in a singular hunting session, sometimes up to and over a dozen, depending on the reason and target! For example, a terrier hunting rat infestation, or a hound hunting rabbits for food. And this is ESPECIALLY true for cats, who were mainly used for pest control. We bred and encouraged these cats to hunt entire infestations of rats, rabbits, mice and other small "pests" that were abundant. Not only that, but combined with the fact that we provide them with shelter and food, it gives them an excessive amount of health and energy to successfully chase and kill wildlife. Whereas wild predators suffer from lack of energy, injuries, and adverse weather that affects their ability to hunt. Where a wolf or a cougar might hunt 1-2 rabbits a day or 1 deer every few days, a dog or a cat could hunt several more in just a few hours.

And then, we also have to consider that dogs and cats didn't even exist as a species in many places until we brought them there. New Zealand being a very good example, they didn't have any predatory land mammals until we introduced them! So the ecosystem is completely unadapted to these predators. And even ecosystems where canines and felines were existant before, the ecosystem had built itself around their population. It was a natural, equal balance of prey and predator. And then we brought our dogs and cats, and not just a few hundred... Tens of thousands, millions even. It totally throws the natural balance that the ecosystem had built and adapted around.

All in all... Saying "it's their natural instinct" is not a justification for allowing dogs and cats to chase and kill wildlife. And keep in mind, the stress of being stalked or chase can literally kill animals, so even dogs that have excellent recall and "only chase" wildlife are still a problem. Allowing our pets unsupervised, and letting them chase and hunt wildlife (Apart from actual hunters that are using trained dogs for invasive species or actual hunting for food) is harmful to the environment and risky for our pets. We know better. And it is our responsibility to make sure our pets are not doing such a thing, regardless of their instincts. There are so many ways to provide simulated chasing and hunting to both dogs and cats to fulfill their instincts that it is totally unnecessary and irresponsible to allow them to do it on live animals.

Now, this is not to say that Pam Beesly is a perfect person and absolved of any flaws she had. She's a human being, of course she had flaws. But I am specifically talking about the excessive hate she gets. People calling her the worst character of the show, saying she's the worst kind of person, and how anyone who likes her character is immediately labeled as a horrible person, a slut, whore etc. Yet ignoring all of the same, or arguably worse things other characters did. And some of the things they criticise Pam for just aren't valid at all.

Did Pam cheat on Roy by kissing Jim? Yes, and it was a wrong decision on her part, but it was also JUST A KISS. While still cheating, arguably many other characters of the show repeatedly engaged in long term sexual affairs, some with, and on, their co-workers and friends (Angela cheating on Andy, the Senator, WITH Dwight, Oscar cheating with his friend & coworkers husband, Dwight cheating with Angela on both Andy and the Senator, and Stanley on his wife) and none of them get even half the hate for it that Pam does.

I also don't think it's fair to claim she purposely led Jim on. Obviously, there was something there for a long time, but I don't think she intended to or even realized the full extent of what she or Jim was feeling. We also have to remember that we knew what was happening because the show was purposely structured to demonstrate the feelings Jim had for Pam. But, in their reality, Pam wasn't watching Jim through the cameras, she didn't see his talking heads, or all the secret glances he made at her. It wasn't as obvious to her as it would of been for the camera purposely capturing those moments. She was also in an abusive relationship and found comfort in her friendship with Jim. She was confused by her relationship and friendships, and trying to work through them without making a wrong decision. Pam was also terrified of confront. Her staying with Roy while having confusing feelings for Jim wasn't a deliberate attempt to manipulate anyone, she was terrified of making the wrong decision and terrified of the confrontation that could come up by making any sort of decision. But yet, Jim purposely led on many women KNOWING he was in love with Pam and that the relationship wouldn't go further than dating, and still continued to date them. He even admitted to Karen that he still loved Pam, and stayed with her anyways. And again, he doesn't get half of the hate that Pam does.

There's also the criticism that Jim supported her dream, but Pam didn't support his. But the main difference is here, when Pam went to art school, her and Jim were only dating. They weren't even living together yet. They didn't have kids or financial commitments. Pam had just gotten out of a long-term abusive relationship. It was the perfect time for Pam to explore herself as a person, find out who she is, and follow her dreams. She also had spoken about the decision with Jim before leaving. When Jim decided to start his company, they were married, had children and had major financial commitments in the forms of a house and children. He also made this major decision without her including investing $10,000 (In deleted scenes, it was discussed they would only invest up to $5000). It's pretty clear Pam would of been more open to the idea of Athlead if Jim had been upfront with her about it. She was never against the idea completely, and she never wanted to prevent him from following his dream. It is very clear she wanted to support him, but with the children and mortgage, she needed more communication and better planning. I think this is proven by how at the end of the show, after her and Jim become better at communicating and decision making together, Pam willingly leaves Scranton so Jim can follow his dream. Also, no one ever talks about or hates on Roy when he literally made fun of Pam and refused for her to follow her dream of wanting to go to art school. He ACTIVELY didn't support her in her dream as an artist and constantly put her down for it.

A lot of people also say she's a fraud for the stunt she pulled with getting the Office Administrator position. Was it questionable? Yes. But she didn't invent a whole new position and then sit around just letting money come in while not doing any work... Pam was already doing the bulk of the position for many years, without the title or the compensation she deserved. She only found a way to get the title and the pay for what she was already doing.

Another argument is that people consider Pam unambitious. But, I don't think that's true. As we've already established, Pam was in an unhealthy and abusive relationship. She was afraid of confrontation, and it's easy to see that her relationship with Roy largely fueled that. Pam gains a lot of courage and ambition as the show goes on, and despite that she fails in some of the projects she attempted, she kept being ambitious and never have up, and succeeded in many others projects. I think the fact she continues to try, even after failure, shows true ambition and perseverance. You can really see her gain her confidence as the show goes on, and I think that is a true character development.

Also, compared to some of the things the other characters did, Pam wasn't nearly as bad. Angela tried to have her friend and co-worker assassinated. Roy was not only abusive to Pam and purposely conducting himself intimidatingly to other coworkers, but he also displayed physical violence by throwing a glass at a wall next to Pam and attempted to physically assauIt a coworker, and still, they don't get half the hate for that. Pam wasn't perfect, but she was an overall empathetic person who cared about the safety and well-being of her coworkers. She always stepped up when they needed help, even if they weren't particularly nice or helpful towards her. She always tried to help Angela when she was going through difficult times, she helped Michael in many different scenarios, especially during his heartbreak with Holly. And not only did she no Dwight, but often stood by him even when other characters were totally against him, for example when he made the Doomsday device, everyone was against Dwight but Pam gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Overall, I think a lot of the excessive hate Pam gets is really blown out of proportion, mostly by misogynistic ideologies. They expect Pam to be a perfect, quiet, obedient woman. That she should never question Jim's decisions otherwise she's "holding him back". Her haters criticise her for having conflicting emotions, for trying to navigate a toxic/borderline abusive relationship, and they hated on her for never speaking up her mind. But then when she does speak her kind, they hate on her for that too. And yet, they never hate on any of the other characters for doing the same, or worse. It just follows the typical misogynistic ideologies that people have about what a perfect woman should be.

People have very strong opinions about spay & neuter of pet, and I totally understand why, given the obvious overpopulation issues in many countries. *This post is specifically about dogs, by the way. My opinion is different for cats and other pets.*

However, I think people have this false idea that ALL dogs need to be neutered, and that it is automatically irresponsible to own an intact dog. Also the assumption that the only reason people keep dogs intact is for breeding... There's often a kneejerk reaction when someone sees or learns of someone else owning an intact dog. For example, lots of videos online, if a male dog has testicles, the comments will be filled with people saying "Spay and neuter your dog!", "You're an irresponsible owner for not neutering him!", "You must be a greeder (Greedy breeder)", or "You refuse to neuter your dog for your own gender biases" and other backhanded comments. Even in person, when I used to live in the big city, I used to get a lot of judgemental comments when people noticed my male dog is intact.

I definitely agree that most dog owners aren't responsible enough to own intact dogs. And, there are benefits to spay/neuter, as well as cons. But, as someone who worked in veterinary medicine, I also know that depending on many factors like age, breed, size, genetics and lifestyle, the risks may outweigh the benefits. There are valid reasons why someone may choose to keep their dog intact, and I think it's fully possible for them to be responsible about it. For example, there are medical reasons, mainly dogs who for one reason or another can't or shouldn't have any general anesthesia or surgery due to risks. There's also the increasing studies that for some breeds, it is beneficial to wait longer to neuter or not neuter at all, due to size and/or common genetic health predispositions. And then of course we also have the individual lifestyles... Mainly for very active dogs like sport or working dogs, the additional hormones are good for further supporting their bones, joints and ligaments during high impact activities. It's also beneficial for their confidence and drive. It's actually very common for people in the dog sport world to leave their dogs intact if possible.

As for the responsibility of it, I think most people who are making the choice to keep their dog intact for one of the above reasons, are likely doing so with some consciousness of the responsibility of their actions. They have weighed the pros and cons and understand how to mitigate their decision. Most of them will keep their dog supervised and contained, with a leash in public areas, and enact lots of training (Especially sport and working dog owners). They will make sure to teach their dog threshold boundaries and a strong recall, and how to manage their impulsive and instinctual behaviours. They won't let their dog interact with random dogs, and when they do interact with other dogs, will monitor their dog and intercept any problematic behaviour. They will teach their dog not to mark or hump. And if any problematic behaviours arise that they cannot effectively manage, they will then make the decision to neuter their dog. As proof, countries like Norway and Sweden, it is actually illegal to spay/neuter your dog without a medical reason, and they have some of the lowest number of stray and shelter dogs in the world... Which goes to show it absolutely is possible to responsibly own intact dogs without litters.

Overall, I think we need to stop automatically judging people who have intact dogs. If you're wanting to advocate for helping the overpopulation crisis, I think it's valid to ask someone *why* they chose to keep their dog intact, and educate them if it's not for good reason like backyard breeding or just because... But we need to realize that nowadays, new science is showing new information about spaying and neutering and there are valid and responsible reasons for some people to choose to keep their dogs intact.

I used to work in veterinary medicine. I take dental care very seriously. My dog gets daily teeth brushing, a daily dental chew and a daily kelp dental supplement. I use only VOHC approved products.

I'm curious to know what other people do for daily dental care.

If Other, what else do you do?

Remember, as important as it is to keep our teeth healtht, it's important to keep your pets teeth healthy too! 😁

View Poll

Edit: To those of you threatening or wishing for me to be killed, or for my rabbit's to be killed is extreme... And really goes to show what kind of "good hearted" people outdoor cat owners are. You're proving my point.

OG post: I recently moved to a suburb area, originally I lived rurally. The first thing I noticed is how many unsupervised cats there are... And people are just comfortable letting their cats roam in the streets and other people's yard...

Anyways, I don't want cats in my yard. I love having birds, hummingbirds, rabbits, reptiles and other small native mammals in my yard. And the cats scare them away. Not only that, but they also have been peeing and pooping around my yard (and even a few times on the balcony) which is gross.

I also have pet rabbits that I put outside in an enclosure. The enclosure is fully fenced in, but still the cats harass them. One neighbours cats in particular comes up and tries to hunt them through the cage. It runs around the cage and it stresses my poor rabbits out. This cat also sits at the sliding glass door, and when my rabbits walk by will claw and chirp at the window trying to get in. I can't open my screen door or my windows anymore out of fear it'll bust the screen in and kill my rabbits. My rabbits rarely come into the living room anymore because they're scared of the cat in the window.

At first I was just chasing the cats away when I see them, but they still come in when I'm not there. I'm avoiding using any oils or scents because I don't want to deter wildlife... My next course of action has been catching the cats and bringing them to animal control. I figure that if they really love their cat, they'll have a microchip and will be easily identified at the shelter and called to come pick up their cats. And if they don't have a microchip, well that's on them. Most don't have collars. Those that do, I return them to the owners and warn them first not to let their cats in my yard again. If the cat does come back in my yard, then I bring it to the shelter and they can go pick it up there.

The neighbours who've had to go pick up their cats at the shelter have complained to me that they were charged a fee for the time the cat was in the shelter... I guess it's $50 the first day and $25 every day after. Some neighbours have even complained about it on the local Facebook page. Most people seem to agree with them that "whoever" is doing it is awful, and that cats "deserve" freedom. That they can't control where their cats go and they INSIST their cats don't even cause any disturbance or damage.

AITAH for bringing unsupervised cats to the shelter? What's else is there to do here to keep their cats out of my yard? I don't feel like I should be responsible for monitoring other people's pets and bringing these cats home every time they come in my yard. That's literally what animal control exists for... Controlling unsupervised animals that people find.

I'm wondering what is a vegan's opinion of participating in dog sports or having a working dog... I understand that the general opinion of vegans is that any exploitation of animals if wrong, but is it considered "exploitation" if it benefits the animal?

It's undeniable that dog sports, when trained ethically and done safely, positively engage a dog physically and mentally. Sports like tracking, lure coursing (fake lure, not a live animal) and scent detection directly tap in to their natural instincts of chasing and smelling. Same goes for search and rescue K9's. Agility, frisbee, fly-ball, harness sports and dock diving less so, but they still require a dog to use their body and brain, which is beneficial for them. And you can tell from their body language that dogs LOVE to do these activities.

Of course, I can understand why some may see large scale competitons as exploitation, the ones where people are purposely breeding prospects to win large sums of money. Or a job where the dogs are put through unnatural and dangerous situations, such as police work. However, most people participating in dog sports are amateurs doing dog sports with their rescues as a form of enrichment. We spend more money on training, trials and equipment than we ever get back (Which is often $0). And, for working dogs, such as search and rescue K9s, they are using their natural instincts and are generally not at any increased risk as any other dog hiking or camping with their owners out in nature.

I can also aknowledge the argument that we shouldn't breed dogs at all, and we shouldn't breed dogs with such high drives or energy that they need to do sports/work as a form of enrichment. But, as it is right now, that's just not realistic. The dogs already exist, and they already exist with the genetics that they have. We can't change the dogs that already exist. And, try as much as we might, we simply cannot stop all breeding with the snap of our fingers... It would take decades before we get to that point. So it's currently, at this time, unavoidable to have dogs that need homes, either buying from a breeder or adopting from a shelter, that will benefit from sports/working.

And, specifically, what do vegans think about harness sports? Sports like dog sledding, skijoring (dog pulls human on skis), bikejoring (dog pulls human on bike), Canicross (dog pulls human on foot)? I totally aknowledge the feelings people have about commercial dog sledding, and I understand why... But if someone just has a dog or two, rescues, who love to run and pull, do you find that unethical? I have my adopted doberman, and he LOVES to pull. Instead of trying to supress him, I put a harness and just let him pull. And he LOVED it. So we continued to do it. First it was on foot, then we tried a bike, then we tried skis, then a sled. Now we participate in all the harness sports. He loves it, his body language shows that, I don't force him to pull, and when he doesn't want to pull anymore he stops. If you still consider that unethical, why? If the dog is clearly enjoying themselves, and it benefits them physically and mentally, why would you still consider it unethical?

Overall; If you completely disagree with dog sports, even dog sports done with rescue dogs as a method of playing games and giving enrichment rather than for competition... Why are you against it? Why is it considered unethical to you if the owner is simply doing it for the dogs benefit?

It is hypocritical when someone who hates breeders, because they "contribute to the shelter crisis!", will then adopt an animal that is already pregnant, and then refuse to spay abort.

While you may not have caused the pregnancy, you had the option to terminate the pregnancy and avoid contributing to the crisis of unhealthy genetics and overpopulation. And yet refuse it for your own personal beliefs...

This makes you no better than all of the purposeful breeders you dislike.

Hi everyone,

Long story short, from 2022-2024 I was in an abusive relationship. Mostly psychological and sexual abuse. He would threaten me in the form of "dark humour" jokes about killing me and my pets anytime I did something he didn't like (E.G cut my hair, went out with friends, wanted a tattoo etc). He also spent the last year or so of our relationship raping me using coercion.

Anyways, I finally left in August of 2024, after he killed my pet rabbit. I never sought any legal action against him because it's just too hard to prove psychological and coercive sexual abuse... And he's military, which means the whole stupid city praises him as a hero and no one would ever believe me.

It's been almost two years now that I've been gone. I moved far away with my dog and within weeks got my dream job. I didn't seek therapy, because I just didn't realize the extent of the trauma I had, but I bounced back very quickly which I'm wondering if that is contributing to my regression now.

I am in a healthy relationship now, we just celebrated our 1 year anniversary and live together. He is wonderful, caring, is very attentive to my consent knowing my past, and goes above and beyond for me and my pets.

The problem is, maybe a few weeks ago, I guess our cat woke up our friends who lives with us, at 4am by jumping on her bed. She was furious and started screaming, swearing, saying she's going to get rid of the cat, and then threw him outside (He is NOT an outdoor cat, she did it out of anger and spite). This yelling and swearing was similar to how my ex would act when he was angry, so of course, waking up to that sent me into an immediate panic attack. And now, ever since then, I feel like I've been regressing... I've been having a lot of anger surfacing about my rabbit being killed, anger I haven't felt in a really long time... I find myself crying almost every day about it lately. I've also been having more and more nightmares that my ex keeps coming back to kill me and my dog.

I didn't think I had PTSD. I've never had an episode like this until our housemate had her tantrum. It's really negatively affected me. My current partner has been great at trying to support me, and we are moving out and away from our current housemate after this incident.

But as for my regression.. Is it time to seek therapy? I feel bad seeking therapy now, while I'm in a healthy relationship, because I don't want it to seem to my partner and my family that I started dating him when I wasn't ready... But the reality of it is, I didn't have any of these PTSD-like feelings when I met my current partner. I also don't really feel like I need therapy, I feel solid enough without it (At least, until this regressiom started).. But maybe that's why I need it..

I don't know how to handle this. This is an entirely new emotion I'm dealing with. I am disappointed that after 2 years my abusive relationship till seems to haunt me.

Hi everyone, I'm being given an exotera terrarium, size being 24 X 18 X 24.

I've kept bearded dragons and leopard geckos in the past and overall have a lot of passion and experience in regards to animal care (Went to college for animal care and worked in animal care all my life). So while ideally beginner friendly reptiles would be better, I am confident I can tackle some more experienced ones (just nothing crazy difficult lol).

I really like the idea of tree frogs, or snakes. And something that won't be hiding all the time.

Any recommendations for a good reptile with the criteria?

Everyone's been talking about dog (owner) fatigue lately. And I get it, as a dog person and a sport dog owner... I am also tired of most dog owners. I'm tired of them letting their untrained dogs offleash, bringing them to non-pet friendly stores, letting them attack and harass everyone...

But under those videos I always see people saying "This is why I only love cats". But outdoor cats are just as much a nuisance as untrained dogs. And honestly? I have (outdoor) cat owner fatigue too.

As annoying as untrained dogs in public spaces are, why do we never talk about how cats left outside unsupervised willl literally come pee and poop in your yard and garden, on the vegetables you're trying to grow? They scare off and kill all the native animals. They come up to your windows and harass your animals inside... Or even your animals outside, if you have chicken, duckd, rabbits etc. My rabbit almost died because an outdoor cat came up to her hutch and was harassing her to the point she was panicking and running into walls.

Overall, I think that people who let their cats outdoors unsupervised SHOULD NOT be allowed to complain about dog fatigue, because the behaviour of outdoor cats are just as bad as untrained dogs and their irresponsible owners.

Hi everyone.

I'm in Ontario.

I don't think I've eaten Shellfish for over a year, and previously had no problems. Yesterday, I was trying to feed my fish who eats cubes of frozen shrimp. I didn't have a knife to cut a piece for him, so I bit into it to break it into 2. It's important to note I did not eat this shrimp at all, simply broke a piece off with my teeth and spit it out.

Anyways, not even 5 minutes later, I was having difficulty swallowing, my throat felt very tight and dry, coughing, nauseous, was very congested, lips extremely swollen, and in a panic when I rubbed my right eye, it also became swollen shut. Funny enough, I didn't have any hives or itchiness on my hands or arms where the shrimp touched...

I did not end up going to the ER because by the time I actually put two and two together that I was having an allergic reaction (I've never been allergic to anything in my life), the symptoms were already resolving.

Anyways all this to say, it seems pretty evident I have developed some form of severe allergy to shellfish.

My family doctor is on leave and her replacement is booked solid for months, meaning I can't get a prescription nor a referral. What are my next steps now? I'm terrified that if such mild exposure caused such a severe reaction, any future accidental exposure or ingestion could be really bad.

Long story short, can a pharmacist in Ontario prescribe an EpiPen without a doctor or a referral to an allergist?

I'm also wondering, shrimp is a staple in my fish's diet, so Is it safe for me to keep feeding frozen shrimp if I wear gloves? As I said my hands didn't react and I haven't had any reactions previous when handling the frozen shrimp, it was really because this time I put it in my mouth.

So, I have a dog and some pet rabbits. I have a hutch for the rabbits, that is enclosed on all sides except underneath (the ground). The rabbits never go in this hutch if I'm not home, but sometimes I will leave them in there while I turn my back to perform tasks around the yard or inside the house.

Knowing that I'm not always within direct reach of the hutch, I have trained my dog to look for and chase any predators that enter the yard, including any cats. It's important to note my dog doesn't chase any cats when he is outside of the yard. This is a behaviour I ONLY allow in our yard or if I give him a cue.

So, the other day, the rabbits were enjoying some lovely time outside when the neighbors cat snuck under the bushes and entered our yard, so I alerted my dog who immediately got up and chased the cat off.

I heard the neighbors yelling some upset profanities. A few hours later, he decided to come confront us. He told me that when my dog scares his cat, he hides away and sometimes doesn't come back for hours. I explained to the man that his unsupervised cat poses a risk to my rabbits and my dog is trained to protect them. I asked how he would feel if someone allowed their dog to run in to their yard, piss in their house, fight with their dogs and try to eat their other pets. He just retorted that it wasn't the same and that next time my dog chased his cat, he would call animal control for animal abuse.

When I told my friend about this encounter, they seemed to agree that it wasn't very nice to allow my dog to chase someone's pet and I should just "pick up the car and bring it back to his yard". Even though, the point of chasing them is so that they DON'T try to enter the yard anymore as they know there's a dog. No one seems to get that this someone's pet is RISKING my own animals and also peeing and pooping on MY property in MY garden. My rabbits have every right to enjoy THEIR yard safely and without fear.

So AITAH for allowing my dog to chase cats in our yard?

I moved in to a friend's house about a year ago. My boyfriend and I rent her studio style basement, with a shared kitchen on the main floor. We have a cat, a dog, and two rabbits. She knew this before we moved in. When I moved in, I told her under no circumstances can the cat go outside. She thought it was mean to leave him "trapped indoors" but agreed.

Now, I'm not here to argue about people's opinions on outdoor cats. Aside from my personal opinions on outdoor cats, the main reasons I do not want him outside is 1) We live on a main road with lots of traffic, and people go fast 2) We alive extremely close to woods with foxes, coyotes, predatory birds and even some reports of bears. 3) I do not want my cat to develop a habit of preying on small animals at the risk he might try to start hunting my rabbits too.

Despite what I asked, my housemate has started letting the cat outside. She assures me he never leaves the yard and doesn't even try to hunt any animals. I knew that isn't true because I see him run across the street into the wooded area, and I've SEEN him bring back dead animals. We've gotten into many arguments over it, and she claims that if she doesn't let my cat outside that he will start howling and scratching furniture (I have NEVER seen him do this, I don't think it's true) and claims that because she was generous enough to let us move in, she should get to make decisions on the pets living in her house.

I've now have to pay for flea and tick medications and get extra vaccines to protect him and my other pets. I've asked her to reimburse me for these items since she is the one letting him outside. But she refuses and says he doesn't need any of that, that her old cat never got anything and was always "healthy and happy" (He died at 8 years old from unknown illness).

The biggest problem is, exactly as I feared, my cat has now started showing predatory behaviour towards my rabbits. They are NEVER together, but he will sit at the gate to their playpen and will chatter. He has never done this until he started going outside. Unfourtunately, when I was living with my parents one of my previous rabbits was decapitated when one of our barn cats came into the house and pulled my rabbit through the bars of the playpen. So I am obviously traumatized and know what can happen if a cat is dedicated enough to want something.

I am terrified for my rabbits' life. I keep starting these massive arguments with my housemate hoping that if I get mad enough, she will listen. But she keeps telling me I'm too paranoid and that I'm overreacting, that nothing bad will happen to my cat or my rabbits. Although I don't want to, I am starting to consider sending my cat to a friend's house until we can move out.

So, AIO by not wanting my housemate to let my cat out?

My suburb is filled with these god awful alarms. The range of these alarms often extend to the *public* sidewalks and boulevards (The *also public right of way* strip of lawn between the road and sidewalk), and even often across the street.

​

I hear them go off from my yard every time a car drives by. It gives me immediate headache and nausea, I can't even imagine how my poor dog or rabbits feel when they are just trying to innocently enjoy either our own yard or a walk on a PUBLIC EASEMENT.

​

And I understand the frustration that leads to homeowners installing these devices is often irresponsible pet owners who do not pick up their dogs waste. But, not all owners are irresponsible, and why should responsible owners and their dogs have to unnecessarily suffer for what others do?

​

Would it be fair for a police officer to give you a speeding ticket, when you weren't speeding, because "Well, other people were speeding, and we don't want you to speed too, so this ticket is to discourage you from speeding in the future"?

​

These devices should be banned, or at least heavily restricted that they cannot go off past your front hard, before the sidewalk. If you really want to avoid dogs from using your front lawn, then build a physical barrier.

​

I also just think it's really unfair to use them to deter native wildlife, because what do you mean we destroy their habitat and then use discomfort to push them out and completely restrict them from trying to access the little bit of what's left of their destroyed habitat? Where else are they supposed to go when their entire habitat is destroyed?

Society (men) are for some reason highly afraid of false accusations, more than they are of rape (Even though they are almost 100x more likely to be raped by another man than to be falsely accused by a woman.), and it's come to a point where most men will automatically dismiss a woman talking about being raped/SA'd because "well, if I believe her and she's lying it could ruin that man's life"

Ignoring the fact that false accusations are so statistically rare... What if she ISN'T LYING? Which is way more likely. If she ISN'T LYING, and you didn't believe her, then you've barred her from accesing support and resources and essentially defended a rapist.

Rape is not only infinitely more common than false accusations, it is also infinitely more damaging, both physically and psychologically. Statistically, false allegations rarely ever ruin someone's life. PROVEN allegations rarely ruin the perpetrators life, even with evidence most of them walk away freely and guilt-free.

So, yes, I would rather believe a woman to later find out she is lying, than to believe a man to later find out he is a rapist. I would rather defend a liar than a rapist.

ETA: isn't to say we should convict everyone who is accused. The major issue is Rape & SA are hard to prove and therefore a lot of perpetrators are acquitted due to lack of evidence. Which is fine, the problem comes along when people automatically assume that the woman is lying because the accused was acquitted. And said woman loses significant access to support and resources, even though there is no proof she was lying. AGAIN, this doesn't mean we should convict everyone who is accused, it means that we should seperate the two and provide access to resources to the woman, without implicating the acquitted perpetrator, even if she doesn't have evidence.