Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
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).
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A pupper is a pupper and a member of the doggo family. But that's not what you said. 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.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
█████░░░░██████████████
█████░░░░██████████████
█████░░░░█████░░░░░░░░░
█████░░░░█████░░░░░░░░░
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
███████████████████████
░░░░░░░░░█████░░░░█████
░░░░░░░░░█████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
██████████████░░░░█████
Post this windmill on 5 other profiles to keep Steam properly air conditioned