@morph-

1. Dogs don't bark ALL the time. Generally their barking because:

a. They are barking at something "invading" their territory.

b. They are barking at another dog (this would be like a dog version of telephone conversations).

c. They are barking at something which you (the human owner) probably can't see.

2. They don't crap anyplace they want if you train them. Because if they did, dogs would be poopin' in houses and yards.

3. That's part of what I like about dogs. They're always excited to have you around. Using a phrase I particularly like: Dogs have friends, cats have staff.

4. Common sense and simple training have a remarkably immense effect on the good behaviour of a dog.

5. Those NEVER happen in my house. And we've got to dogs who weight 60+ pounds each.

As to the cat parts:

1. And this is an excellent way to have a cat contract infectious diseases that aren't very friendly to humans either (the disease, not the cat).

2. That's because generally wild cats have quite a few, oh, well, diseases that rather turns people off of trying to befriend them. It also doesn't help that wild cats are probably 99% more aggressive than house cats.

3. Dogs are more like "WHO R U WILL U PLAY WITH ME PLAY WITH ME PLZ I LUV U YOU R TEH BESTEST PERSON EVAR!!!"

4. Unless you have a litter box. And then there's the whole problem of a cat's personal grooming standards and pregnant women REALLY not mixing well. Like, detrimental to the unborn child's growth not-mixing-well.

5. That's because cats don't want to kill people; they want to infect them with horrible, painful diseases of various kinds and watch humans suffer. Quite a bit more diabolical really.

6. Dogs may be "noisy", but at least they will protect you, even if you haven't trained them as guard dogs. They'll try. It's a pack mentality thing; dogs consider their human owners to be part of a pack, and dogs are fiercely loyal animals. A cat will simply sit their while you get bludgeoned to death. And then probably munch on your corpse.

7. That, and the fact that some cat breeds LOOK pretty cool, is the only thing I think is remotely redeeming of cats.

Because Dogs are better (they like you, will protect you, are happy to see you, 99% of dog breeds aren't detrimental to human health (unless you've got allergies, but then a cat's probably a bad idea as well)) than cats (who consider you the equivalent of staff, and don't particularly care about if you get hurt or something; cats don't really have a sense of loyalty).

No wild dogs aren't like that lmao. Either way cats are the best.

@Whiskey:

1. - a/b/c : So basically, they bark at mostly everything You are pretty much repeating what I said. Dogs bark ALL the time. (I trust that you didnt take "all the time" part literally, of course.)

2. They crap anyplace they want, UNLESS you train them. Besides, like I already said, you have to take them for a walk in the park or something, and even so, they will take a dump almost anywhere, so good luck teaching your dog where exactly do you allow them to take a dump, outdoors. In other words, you have to teach your dog not to crap inside your house, and then you have to teach them where to take a dump outside the house, which is even more difficult. Good luck with all that

3. No, they just require so much from you, and they take too much of your spare time. If you want to devote yourself to your pet, to the point that the dog is almost like family, then yeah, look no further: dogs are the way to go, if you are that way. Cats require so little from you, and are almost never a nuisance.

4. Exactly. You have to train them not to do "bad things", and thats never too easy. A cat wont break too many things in your house, it wont jump on unsuspected visitors, it wont bite passerby's, etc etc. Do you want me to go on?

5. Yeah, you might have some well-trained, well behaved dogs. But that doesnt change the fact that cats are quiet, calm, and generally well behaved animals 99% of the time, while dogs are ill behaved and "naughty" 90% of the time. If you bought your dog from a store where they train it, then good for you. If you took a stray dog, and trained it yourself, then you can understand what I'm talking about here.

About Cats:

1. First of all, cats dont carry as much diseases as other animals. That said, if you care for your cat, then taking it to the vet for some vaccinations is never a bad thing. Besides, I have had more than 50 cats in my 22 years of life. I never ever contracted any diseases from my cats. My mother once told me, that I would pet the cat we owned, at the age of 3, and all cats we had when I was a kid/baby we had them taken to the vet for vaccines regularly, because my parents didnt want their baby to contract any diseases. If you let your kid play with any pets like cats and dogs, and you dont have them taken to the vet, then you are really asking for it. Finally, both cats and dogs can carry diseases, and judging from the fact that dogs are generally bigger (depending on the dog's race of course), I'd say that dogs may carry more diseases than cats, although honestly, I'd put them on same ground here. To answer directly to your argument, just take your cat to the vet, and/or have it live inside your house.

2. I dont see what your argument has to do with what I said, but:

a. The chances of finding a stray cat, that could have some kind of disease and take it as your pet, are no more and no less than the chances of finding a stray dog that could have some kind of disease.

b. This isnt really an argument. Most animals similar to cats/dogs can carry diseases that can be contracted by humans. Finding a stray animal and taking it as your pet, and then finding out that it carries some sort of disease, is always a possibility. If you want to be "safe", then buy a cat/ dog from a store, or just take your ex-wild cat/dog to the vet for vaccines. Its really your choice.

c. Wild cats are aggressive? Thats why I love them! Because it takes effort to tame a wild cat, to make it trust you and eventually let you pet it. And for the last time, this IS NOT an argument Whiskey If you dont like wild animals, which are 99% more aggressive than animals sold at pet shops, then dont freaking get a wild one. FYI, try messing with a big wild dog, and try messing with a wild cat. The wild cat will give you some mild scratches at best (they mostly run with fear from humans, but ok, whatever), while the wild dog will give you some nice bites, or even send you straight to the hospital, if its a really aggressive and badass kind of dog.

3. Not really, dogs are either retarded looking animals with their tongue sticking out, being all like: "Woof, woof, I love you, plz play with meh! Look, I drool all over your couch!! ISNT THAT CUTE?!?"  OR they are aggressive savage beasts, that will bark and bite anything passing anywhere near them, being all like: "I AM GONNA KILL YOU NAO!! RAWRRRR"

4. Uh, EXCUSE ME? Do you have a a litter box for your dog? No? I didnt think so, because if the dog poops in a huge litter box inside your house, your are probably gonna die from the stench, while the cat is more discrete and doesnt poop so much. If that is your argument, then let me tell you that you take your dog outside to take a dump, and it craps anywhere it wants, usually, leaving a pile of sh!t somewhere, while the cat WILL burry their feces on soil 99% of the time. Which is better?

If you dont want your pet crapping inside your house, then just take it outside to do it. You dont need to be so smart to figure it out. The thing is, that with cats, at least you have the option of having a litter box for it, and it can do whatever it needs to do in there. While with dogs, having a litter box for it.......is not really an option....

Come on Whiskey, you're smart. Dont act stupid on me now.

5. Thats the lamest, most ridiculous, most idiotic argument I have ever heard on a dogs vs cats debate. Honestly, did you seriously say that as an argument? Really?

ROFLMAO!

6. The usual eternal argument of dog lovers. "Dogs are good guardians. They will protect you." Let me say something. If you want protection, then get a freaking gun. Having your pet as a bodyguard, and say, "look, if you kick me, he will bite you, he's so loyal and protective. I love this dog!", is just plain stupid. Let me tell you something else. Dogs are stupid. Some ill behaved dogs will attack a friend or relative visiting, and random people walking on the street. Some dogs have real trouble recognizing what people are part of the pack, and which arent. In short, they cant really distinguish when there's a threat and they should attack, and when there's nothing wrong. Moreover, if you get mugged on the street, from a guy pointing a gun at you, having your dog with you wont help you. AT ALL. I dont think a serious criminal pointing a gun at a human, will have trouble shooting your dog on sight, if they consider your dog to be a threat to their mugging you, so basically, you better NOT have your dog with you, unless you want a high chance of it being murdered by a criminal. Besides, even if you have your dog with you while someone attempts to mug you, do you REALLY think that the dog will understand there's some kind of danger, and attack? The mugger probably wont YELL "GIVE ME ALL YOUR CASH OR I AM GONNA KILL YOU!", yeah that wont bring the cops around. The mugger will probably be smart about this, (unless they suck, in which case a cop might appear, if you're lucky), and be intimidating, and discrete at the same time. Lastly, if your dog is like PRO bodyguard and senses danger from miles away (trained as a police dog), then you REALLY dont want it to attack the mugger. I know I wouldnt want my dog to die protecting my wallet, and I certainly dont want to die because of it.

Taking the mugging scenario aside, on a life/death situation, where you have no other means of protecting yourself, and you think "I am so freaking dead. I better pray now", then yes a dog might actually save your life, even if it dies for it. But these situations are extremely rare and even so, I would STILL prefer a gun from a dog any time of the day. The dog might try to protect me in this extreme situation, it doesnt mean it can succeed though. The chances of your dog actually saving your life are nearly 0, while if you were dumb enough to go into trouble, and find yourself having a bounty on your head, then you suck, LOL.

If someone wants to rob my house, and I have no means of protecting myself (no guns, no dial-police-button hidden in the wall or something), which is just dumb btw, you should always have a means of protecting yourself, your family and your home, anyway, if there is no other way, then I wouldnt want my dog attacking the armed robber, because if it does, then it might die for it, or even worse I might die for it. In that case, which I have no means of protecting my property, then I will let the robber(s) take anything they want. I dont think its worth risking my life when I have less than 10% chances of driving away armed robbers, because I was dumb enough not to have a gun or something.

Lastly, if I wanted to break into a house, and rob it, I would first consider every possible scenario, like the one that I get attacked by a big nasty "OMGWTF I am gonna kill you" kind of dog, and equip myself with a nice poisoned but tasty steak. Your guardian-dog IS going to love that steak, before it drops dead to the ground. If someone is dumb enough to go rob a house, ignoring the big dog, then they suck, LOL.

In short, these situations are really rare, and you have to protect yourself 99% of the time (or just being protected by a close relative or friend, or something), the dog may save your life only on some very rare situations, where lots of luck is involved.

7. Not just that, there are tons of good qualities that cats possess, and very few flaws, while the opposite applies for dogs. I admit that dogs can have a few qualities though, even though their flaws overlap these qualities.

Dont bring the "guardian" argument over and over again. We get it. You trust your dog with your life. Foolish, but its your choice.

To summarize, cats are a lot more discrete, quiet, calm animals, while dogs are usually a lot more aggressive, noisy, dirty and naughty. Cats dont require as much affection and caring as dogs do, they wont complain intensely if you dont feed them and can feed on their own, in opposite to dogs who cant really feed on their own if needed be.

I have had more than 50+ cats in my 22 years of life, and 17 dogs (I know the number of dogs is much smaller, but not too much), and I can honestly say, that I prefer having a cat than having a dog as a pet, by far. (The list also includes many other animals, from fish and turtles, to spiders and snakes, but thats another story)

My last argument, (which isnt really an argument), I think cats are extremely kewt, while dogs are not as much. Cats rule, dogs suck.

"My Pokemans. Let me show you them"

I had a really nice dog experience so for me it goes dog>cat>hamster

why hamster? i had other pets, but I literally had a hamster that went insane.

I don't think emotions is the right word either. But i mean along the simple lines of things like happy or sad. Cause we know animals can get happy, sad, mad or bored

hamsters are not a caribbean pet. The climate isnt good for them

I personally prefer dogs, but this is probably influenced by the fact that a) I know more dogs than cats, and b ) we have a whole bunch of birds and field-mice which frequent our garden, or even live in it, and a cat is somewhat less than compatible with both of these groups of animals. A cat which lives nearby keeps getting into a fight with the wood pigeons (not to be confused with feral pigeons, which are the annoying scruffy things you get in most cities) and it somehow manages to lose every time.

Well, the thing is:

A dog isn't protection; it's more like a speed bump.

If a dog is intended for protection, then (at least IMO), the dog is intended to delay/slow down the attacker/intruder long enough for the owner to retrieve some kind of weapon (improvised or otherwise) with which they can deal with the assailant.

So it's not that the dog is protection, it's more or less a light deterrent and delaying tactic.

Plus a large black dog in the dark is actually fairly scary. Or so I've been told. That, and a cat WILL NOT WAKE YOU UP FOR INTRUDERS.

A dog will.

But anyways, which would win:

The Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40,000, or the Federation from Star Trek (post-Dominion Wars Federation TB precise)?

You have chosen correctly. I will outline why:

1. Imperial technological superiority. Trekkies might tout how the Federation could easily reverse engineer anything, but you can't reverse engineer what you don't even understand, let alone lack the tech level to apply.

Case in point: in Star Trek:Voyager, the epynonomous Voyager, a Federation exploration ship, tries to install some Borg (ST aliens that are kinda like Tyranids+Necrons but FAILtastic) transwarp doohickies (I don't know the particular technobabble), but fails to use it.

Furthermore, Imperial warships last for thousands of years before even needing to be replaced (assuming they aren't destroyed in combat/lost to the warp of course). Federation ships are typically replaced by an entirely new class every 50 years or so.

Adding to that (still point #1 in case you aren't keeping track), Imperial destroyers, the smallest warships the Imperium deploys, range between 750-1500 meters in length. Compared to 700 meters in length for the largest Fed ships, period.

And Imperial battleships range as high as 8 kilometers in length, with crews as large as 3,000,000 men. The largest crew of a Federation ship is 1000 men.

2. Imperial industrial superiority. The Imperium has entire worlds dedicated to the production of the materials of war. The Imperium constructs LARGE NUMBERS of aforementioned 8km-long battleships. The Federation will not be able to match the Imperium industrially. Period.

3. Imperial resource superiority. This isn't a "the IoM is more inventive than the Federation" (which it almost certainly isn't, but then again it doesn't need to be), so much as the Imperium has literally got thousands of times the amount of resources at its disposal than the Federation can comprehend.

The Federation has been stated as consisting of 150 planets. Being generous, I'll say that that's 150 planets with large (5 billion+ people) populations, and doesn't include any small outposts or what have you. The Imperium is commonly stated as consisting of "...a million worlds...", however, considering the galaxy-spanning size of the Imperium, it is more logical to assume that the Imperium of Man consists of not less than 100 million worlds. Which is ~670,000 times the resources and populationa available to the Federation.

4. This is more or less a minor point, but the Imperium has a major range advantage in space combat. Star Trek warfare period is depicted as occuring at ranges of less than 100 kilometers, typically closing to within 0.5-5 kilometers distance. While ST ships are reputed to be able to engage at distances of up to 300,000 kilometers, this is likely against stationary/slow moving targets. Imperium fleets typically slug it out at distances of several million to several billion kilometers. Ranges of less than 1000 kilometers are more or less a rarity, occuring mostly during low orbit combat, boarding assaults, or ramming.

5. Also a minor point, but the Federation has no ground armies. The Imperium could probably get away with deploying only transports and escorts, and completely curb stomp the Federation, by virture of being able to land, conquer, and fortify significantly a planet's surface.

So, to put it all in perspective and summarize: billions of Guardsmen die every day, and are mere footnotes on Administratum reports. The Imperium is accustomed to 10,000 years of unending warfare, and uses massive cathedral-like warships that duel at ranges on the order of millions to billions of kilometers away. Said ships use the Warp for interstellar travel, the equivalent of flying through hell itself to save a world under attack.

The Federation is screwed. Even if every single power that the Federation routinely interacts with (Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, all the other minor alien species in the local area (which is called the "Alpha Quadrant")) were to ally together, they'd STILL be curbstomped.

Of course, it doesn't stop people from writing ST/40K crossovers, and having massive curbstomps. Personally though, I'd rather read a 40K/ST crossover that explores the repercussions of a (small by Imperial standards, enormous by Federation standards) fleet of the Imperium ending up in some neutral/demilitarized area and then being contacted by the local powers.

I think it would offer an interesting socio-political/idealogical study, and it would also provide plenty of grounds for intrigue/Inquisition-oriented stuff.

Because hot female Inquisitors=WIN.

1. Well, I like to be very thorough. Hence my rather detailed&in-depth analysis. It's nothing compared to StarDestroyer.net, which is a Star Wars vs. Star Trek site.

2. Of course I realize none of it is real.

But yes, 40K=WIN. Trek is interesting, and also provides an excellent socio-political/ideaological commentary setting (especially in reference to crossovers).

Oh god, someone actually found it interesting and didnt get bored to death

Whatever.

I see. Well, you seem like an expert on that kind of stuff, so I've nothing to add really

I mean....I knew all that....

"My Pokemans. Let me show you them"

There's one problem with Time Warp:

Actually several:

1. The Imperium of Mankind has people who are "Psykers". These guys can LITERALLY tell the laws of physics to fuck off......and have it happen. They toss battle tanks in the air (and at the enemy), shoot lightning from their eyes, and generally speaking do all sorts of stuff that the Federation would simply look at and then piss themselves with.

2. Imperial warships carry weapons that unleash at least teratons of energy. Significantly more than a Federation ship's megaton-range damage output. And because Imperial vessels are built to withstand the types of weapons they themselves carry, the largest fleet of Federation warships would probably not do squat against an Imperial, 8-km long battleship.

3. Because the Federation is rather squeamish, they'd probably fall to the Imperium. The IoM doesn't screw around, they prosecute warfare with a genocidal, "throw more men at it" approach. The Imperium's sheer quantity of resources allows it to simply outmatch the Federation in every way, shape, and form.

4. Even if the Federation tried to go back to the formation of the Imperium, they'd fail anyways. Not because they wouldn't make it (actually getting 10,000 years in the past is highly doubtful IMO), but because of DA EMPRAH. The God-Emperor of Mankind is pretty much a demigod. Literally.

5. Federation weapons technology (primarily Phasers) has been shown to have trouble against very dense armor. Very dense armor is the prime passive defense system of an Imperial warship.

6. Transporters=FAIL because extremely dense armor (or rock or metal or sensor interference or any of 10+ other things) interfere with Transporter's functioning. And the Imperial analog of the transporter (the Teleportarium) works pretty much the same way Imperial FTL works: cast object through the daemon-infested miasma of the Warp.

The Federation is pretty much screwed against a civilization that routinely travels through hell itself to conduct warfare. The Feds are also screwed because the Imperium is literally a galaxy spanning civilization. There's also the slight problem that a major Federation offensive through Imperial territory would take centuries to complete; while an Imperial crusade is typically on the order of several decades to several centuries to complete, there's also the side note that the Imperium is facing opponents of similar, slightly less, slightly more, or significantly more advanced technology than they have.

The Imperium would win, because they have Gabriel Angelos. He could single-handedly kill everything, but that's beneath him.

Also, he has a hugely impractical cape in DoW2 and still beats the crap out of everything in his path during the final mission.

And he's the Lost Primarch. Just kidding!

Apparently he once beat Chuck Norris in an arm wrestle. Again, just kidding! But seriously, he lasted almost a minute. That's second only to Mr T's record of a century.

And that is why the Imperium would win.

I believe that, at this point, Morph would consider it appropiate to say: "That would be all."