Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
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. A pupper is a pupper and a member of the doggo family. You said a pupper is a doggo, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the doggo family doggos, which means you'd call piggos, sluggos, and other species doggos, too. Which you said you don't.
░░░░░░░██████╗░███████╗██████╗░░
░░██╗░░██╔══██╗██╔════╝██╔══██╗░
██████╗██████╔╝█████╗░░██████╔╝░
╚═██╔═╝██╔══██╗██╔══╝░░██╔═══╝░░
░░╚═╝░░██║░░██║███████╗██║░░░░░░
░░░░░░░╚═╝░░╚═╝╚══════╝╚═╝░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
2Dank
We have noticed you haven't logged in for 2 weeks, we're just checking to see that everything is okay with our biggest fan. Since you visited us last time we've updated the Gay section with many videos we know you will enjoy. See you soon