What dog doors are the most secure?

I just got a puppy, and my house came with a small dog door when I bought it. He fits through it now, but in 4-5 months, I will likely have to replace it with a larger dog door. A lot of what I'm looking at seem pretty flimsy, and the covers are often plastic. I remember when I was little, I could fit through the dog door at my parents' house for a while when I was 10-12 years old, and worry about skinny burglars in my neighborhood doing the same. What's a good anti-burglar dog door in the medium/large size range?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about doggy doors gets derailed

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do dogs actually throw up? i mean i guess it depends on what they eat but my cat does it sometimes unfortunately
      sorry to derail again but ask again later op i gave you a tip at least

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why can't you ask this in the dog general thread?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No. Dogs cant vomit.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most secure dogs are small shit dogs. Small dogs which will bark to anything they see, specially people. Miniature pinscher for example. Small dogs are worst for thieves because they are tiny and noisy. Enough to wake you up.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you just know he's getting bummed during this shot

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you are worried about burglars you should also be worried about people stealing or poisoning your dog for fun. Those psychotic reddit dog haters are not a joke. Last month someone chucked rat poison wrapped in lunch meat into every yard with a fence. No reason, they just hated dogs and did not care if a particular dog was good or bad or neutral. It’s the same kind of person that commits mass shootings. Hateful, fearful, low IQ.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      maybe they were trying to kill rats

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They were trying to kill dogs most likely to prep one specific house for a robbery. But it could have been a rage killing because one, literally ONE house had three noisy dogs. So everyone elses dogs had to suffer I guess. Because el criminal isnt smart enough for more targeted crime.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fortunately, I live in a semi-rural area that is >98% white, so the most likely unfortunate outcome for the dog would be someone stealing him. I'm not super concerned about crime here, definitely not random psychotic acts like you describe, but I have a security system on my house (mostly for smoke detector monitoring when I'm not there and the dog is there), and for the sake of not just completely negating the $55/mo. I'm paying for that, I feel like maybe I shouldn't have a giant opening to my home with a flimsy plastic cover.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >did not care if a particular dog was good or bad or neutral
      How can an animal be good, bad or neutral?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >good dog
        Doesn't bark unless someone is right up to the back fence (already over your property line or fucking around in the alley), does not make harsh barking noises in public or jump on people, "talks" with other noises and reserves barking for when they are genuinely alarmed, does not attack people or other dogs. Avoids turds and walks around puddles. Prefers to do their business on grass or dirt.
        >neutral dog
        Makes some barks when not wanted or needed, like if someone is across the street. Not the best manners, might bite you if you're not wary. Might roll in shit or get muddy sometimes. Most likely only makes three sounds, BARK, whine, and grrr. Has no problem taking a piss or shit in the middle of the road, parking lot, or petshart.
        >bad dog
        Barks all the fucking time, jumps on everything, steals food from your mouth, mauls children and other dogs. Shits and pisses everywhere if they're in a mood or aren't let out exactly on time. Only has two noises, barking and growling.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >huskies, collies, sighthounds, shiba inu, dobermans
          >golden retrievers, labs, rottweilers, german shepherds
          >chihuahuas with or without steroids

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >huskies, collies, sighthounds, shiba inu, dobermans
          >golden retrievers, labs, rottweilers, german shepherds
          >chihuahuas with or without steroids

          You don't get it. Animals can not comprehend morality, so it's impossible for them to be good or evil. Using D&D alignments like "neutral" or trying to tone down your concept of evil by instead saying "bad" is also nonsense. You are talking about one thing, but all dogs are amoral--acting with no regard for morality, like all animals. Almost all dogs are trainable, though. Therefore, a dog that's acting "badly" is doing so because its owner is a piece of shit that didn't bother to train it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Animals can comprehend morality in the same way you comprehend morality. They're afraid of consequences for doing "bad" things. Your entire idea of good and bad is based on consequences so you are just an animal and a "bad" animal that you blame the owner for making bad is like a "bad" human who is just part of another culture, ie: an iranian that believes in child brides.

            Why would that iranian personally change and start being "good" just because you were taught that child brides were bad? Even his god says he's doing fine. You're just two dogs that were trained differently. Animals are as good and bad as people and when you pass judgement you are basically making threats by informing people that their behavior will have unwanted consequences if bad.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >They're afraid of consequences for doing "bad" things.
              This isn't morality. It's fear of reprisal.

              >Your entire idea of good and bad is based on consequences so you are just an animal and a "bad" animal that you blame the owner for making bad is like a "bad" human who is just part of another culture, ie: an iranian that believes in child brides.
              Tell me you have never cracked a book on moral philosophy without telling me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every moral philosopher with a half decent argument ultimately appealed to god directly or indirectly, or an inarguable human purpose. Moral philosophy is abstracted religion. There is no material reason for morals to be based on anything but fear and desire.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Every moral philosopher with a half decent argument ultimately appealed to god directly or indirectly, or an inarguable human purpose.
                See:

                >They're afraid of consequences for doing "bad" things.
                This isn't morality. It's fear of reprisal.

                >Your entire idea of good and bad is based on consequences so you are just an animal and a "bad" animal that you blame the owner for making bad is like a "bad" human who is just part of another culture, ie: an iranian that believes in child brides.
                Tell me you have never cracked a book on moral philosophy without telling me.

                >Tell me you have never cracked a book on moral philosophy without telling me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There is NO material basis for actual morality. Good and evil are not objective and nothing has a purpose or obligation to anything else. There is no logical reason for such things as obligation to exist without fear of consequences for not following them.

                All there exists is avoiding fear and chasing new highs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, this one is rich.

                >There is NO material basis for actual morality
                >Good and evil are not objective
                Both statements are self-contradictory. If you're trying to tell me that objective moral truth doesn't exist, as you assert, then in order to be internally consistent in your own philosophy, you are not allowed to make objective moral statements such as these. Like I said, "tell me you've never cracked a book on moral philosophy without telling me."

                Please fuck off out of my thread. I'm trying to talk about dog doors, you idiot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are no objective moral truths. Nothing is right, wrong, good, or bad. It just is. You’re too moralbrained to understand it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There are no objective moral truths
                You are invoking objective truth to make this statement, which cancels out the stupid claim you're trying to make.

                internal consistency is a false god. its only glorified to make rules easy to imitate and people easier to predict.

                arbitrary is as correct as anything else. you can be entirely arbitrary, it does-not matter. moral right and wrong are what you say they are that minute.

                Blah blah blah. Go run your mouth with this garbage to the person over your bathroom sink. This is a thread for talking about dog doors.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not a moral truth. An amoral truth. It is an objective fact that there is no objective basis for anything being right or wrong.

                That means because you bought a dog door I am going to steal your dog and be satisfied with it because you’re kind of a gay and deserved it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Objective truth either exists all the time, or it doesn’t. No such thing as objective truth that is only sometimes objective.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >objective truth that morals are objectively fake and gay
                sounds based to me

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                internal consistency is a false god. its only glorified to make rules easy to imitate and people easier to predict.

                arbitrary is as correct as anything else. you can be entirely arbitrary, it does-not matter. moral right and wrong are what you say they are that minute.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >define right and wrong
                >idk whatever.
                >surely you have a consistent system for determining moral action?
                >no.
                >why not?
                >i don’t care *ignores your dog door and breaks your windows, then leaves*

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                moral philosophy is about acting as moral as possible and being good without fault

                for there is no real reason to act consistently, even, except so other people can see you as moral and copy your actions more easily. they say something about dignity and being higher than an animal and feel good about themselves. that is also an indirect threat.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i mean yeah but the dog has sentience, it knows what it's doin
            if you want something more specific how about dogs that act like dickheads, dogs that don't, and dogs that are nice
            you can assume there's a reason they're that way obviously

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >i mean yeah but the dog has sentience, it knows what it's doin
              You're still not getting it. When a lion kills a zebra, is it murder? When a dog takes a toy from another dog, is it theft? When a dog humps another dog, is it rape?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When soldiers kill each other, is it murder, or is it not because their owners permitted it?

                Those are legal terms for forbidden acts. If they were not beholden to those laws by a more powerful entity like lion society they were just those acts, not crimes. If you teach a dog that it is wrong to take food from the table, the dog can then be good or bad, because now it knows, and you have made right and wrong as it’s superior. The dog absolutely had thoughts and can show expectation of punishment. It isn’t a conditioning based robot any more than humans are.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >can't count ips
                i'm the 6th ip
                or 5th
                okay i left the thread so cut me some slack
                it's not immoral necessarily but it is a bit strange, especially that latter one if they don't know each other

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i'm the 6th ip
                >or 5th
                I literally don't care. Talk about dog doors or get the fuck out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                okay well here's a tip buy a gun and maybe a camera
                the reason i said that is because you implied i was the guy you were arguing with
                i don't really care about morality anyway, i mean i try to be nice to people i guess but that's just common sense

Your email address will not be published.