Dogboys and Chocolate

[Pepsi Jedi]

Kinda silly title, but I was wondering about the various mutants of rifts earth, and if they are consider to be affected by the modern afflictions of both humans and the other species they are mutated from.

My personal take is that a human/dog hybrid creature (dogboy) is probably affected by both issues that are known to affect dogs and those known to affect humans.

What are your thoughts on this subject?
-Pax

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

But to answer your question, the Dog boys and other Lone Star mutants are genetically designed from the ground up (( Or bred from dog boys and girls that were)) They are not subject to 'doggie ailments'. Those that they MIGHT be still susceptible (( Why they'd leave them in there, I don't know)) They surely get shots for in infancy.

Free born might be susceptible to those, but again, they're genetically engineered life forms that Bradford has perfected. I don't see him leaving it to chance that Distemper might go through and kill 1,000s and 1,000s of dogboys.

They're built to be hearty animals and those prone to sickness are weeded out at the start. Again, Freeborn MIGHT be a bit different but they're still the offspring of "Genetically perfect creations".

[taalismn]

I'm not sure the women of the Coalition States want competition from beings who can sniff out a concealed candybar or bon-bon stash from a several hundred ft away. They'd petition for a built-in susceptibility.
On the other hand, they'd be just as many who'd want such a vulnerability lifted....after all, if you're friends with your candy-stalker, you share in the kill, right?

[Pepsi Jedi]

The better question might be.......

"Bradford is a renown bastard, his Dogboy are genetically built to be enhanced soldiers and attack 'animals'. That being said, Bradford is smart... wicked smart.... what "back up plan" has he built into the dog boys (( and everything else)) just in case things go bad for him?"

Does he have something genetically built in there? Some sort of inability for the dogboys and stuff to hurt him? That sort of thing would be very hard to do... but then they've raised dogs up to full human intelligence with massive psionic powers....

More realistically does he have something built into their genetic code that he can TRIGGER with minor effort. Say a capsule of chemical (Spray, whatever) he can burst in a room that clamps onto some hidden little thing in dogboy DNA, that just unravels their DNA in seconds. The dog boy attacking suddenly falls to his knees as that exquisitely engineered DNA unzips like a zipper and they collapse into piles of goo or bloody chunks. Ect. (( or more simply a designer poison that specifically attacks all Lone star creations with like outrageously high savings throw and quick quick quick acting effect. I.E. enormous damage straight to hit points))

Bradford, as written is a super genius. Eisenstein type genius, but with genetics and stuff... and bumb frak psycho. I've --got-- to think he has some safty features 'built into' -----everything---- that walks out of lone star. Just in case the feces hits the rotatory oscillator.

[taalismn]

Ouch...yeah, that would seriously suck for anybody who's experienced the 'Bradford Touch'.

"I created you. I can destroy you. That Makes Me God."

[Shawn Merrow]

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

That is not true as it can make dogs very sick and kill them.

Dogs and Chocolate: Get the Facts

Chocolate can sicken and even kill dogs, and it is one of the most common causes of canine poisoning, veterinarians tell WebMD.

[Pepsi Jedi]

And that's 100% His mindset too. That's the sort of thing he gets off on, and he's smart enough to do it. He might even have incorperated it into himself. Something that, if HIS blood hits air it releases that 'Doomsday chemical' to the genetic creations around him.

That's a bit extreme... it risks unleashing the plague to kill all the Lone star creations if he just gets shot once... but Bradfor is WAY evil. He might have that sort of thing.

(( Personally I'd see the genetically engineered susceptibility to a chemical that Bradford carries on himself 24/7 that does OUTRAGEOUS damage straight to the hit points of anything that walked out of his lab. Like 6d6X100 straight to hit points. Saving throw being a natural 20 and nothing else, type thing.))

[Pepsi Jedi]

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

That is not true as it can make dogs very sick and kill them.

Dogs and Chocolate: Get the Facts

Chocolate can sicken and even kill dogs, and it is one of the most common causes of canine poisoning, veterinarians tell WebMD.

It's not. It's largely a myth. Or to be more specific "Yes it's true, but only in outrageous circumstances"

Note your own link.

Someone fed an EIGHT POUND Dog, A POUND OF CHOCOLATE in one day. If you ate one eight of your body weight in chocolate in one day it wouldnt' be good for you either.

As I pointed out you'd have to eat outrageous amounts of it to make it dangerous. The theobromine that causes the problems is minute. Again your own article points it out. 1oz of chocolate per pound of dog can be dangerous. One entire candy bar has about 1.55 oz. So for your average yorkie, weighing 4 to 7 pounds, for it to be dangerous you'd have to feed the thing 3 to 5 entire chocolate bars for it to get dangerous. That's 3 to 5 ENTIRE chocolate bars. in a 4 lbs dog.

Average size dogs can take more.

It CAN make them sick, but the amounts you'd have to give them are pretty huge. If you have a little yippy dog, sure, 3 or 4 entire candy bars worth of chocolate might mess them up, but out side of that, they're just fine. My first job was at a Vet's office and I've worked for Zoos. EVERY Vet I've ever worked with has said the same. "Yeah it's not good for them but they have to eat outrageous amounts for it to be dangerous."

If you're retarded and feed an 8lbs dog 1lbs of chocolate in one day? Sure.... that'll mess um up. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR If you give your EIGHT POUND yippy dog, TEN AND A HALF CHOCOLATE BARS... yeah it'll mess um up.

Edit: Just using that as an example, for a dog boy weighing 180lbs, he'd need to eat 180oz to be in the danger catagory, or 120 candy bars, or eleven and a quarter pounds of chocolate at once.

Shy of that type of retardation. They're fine. They might get the squirts but it's largely overstated.

Don't give your yippy dog 10+ chocolate bars.

(( and yes, dark chocolate is worse. I even stated that in my first post. It's still not what people make it out to be. ))

[taalismn]

(( Personally I'd see the genetically engineered susceptibility to a chemical that Bradford carries on himself 24/7 that does OUTRAGEOUS damage straight to the hit points of anything that walked out of his lab. Like 6d6X100 straight to hit points. Saving throw being a natural 20 and nothing else, type thing.))

Yes, but imagine the expression on his face if Cujo MAKES his saving throw and keeps steamrolling at him.
"Did I remember to build in a 'Plan B'? No? 'Plan A' was good enough? Well ####."

[Pepsi Jedi]

(( Personally I'd see the genetically engineered susceptibility to a chemical that Bradford carries on himself 24/7 that does OUTRAGEOUS damage straight to the hit points of anything that walked out of his lab. Like 6d6X100 straight to hit points. Saving throw being a natural 20 and nothing else, type thing.))

Yes, but imagine the expression on his face if Cujo MAKES his saving throw and keeps steamrolling at him.
"Did I remember to build in a 'Plan B'? No? 'Plan A' was good enough? Well ####."

Oh I'm sure he'd be very surprise his science didn't work 100%.

That being said, he's got an IQ of 27. That equates to 270. He's got Plan A... B... C.... all the way to Z.... annd the A2.0 B2.0 C2.0. lol

He's not infallible, but as written he's got SUPER IQ. Higher than any of ours. DOUBLE of many peoples. And he's a schemer. He'll have plans with in plans with in plans with in plans.

If anyone has a 'Cloned body double' you can bet it'll be Bradford. If we can think of it. he HAS thought of it, and thought of how to do it better. lol

[Slight001]

But he's their GOD! surely if he so willed it they'd realize this and awaken to this truth and KNOW him for the GOD that he is.

IE genetic programing that ensures bradford has nothing to worry about from his creations, perhaps even the capacity to gain control of his creations. IIRC the best place to hide this sort of coding would be within the mRNA as I seem to recall that mRNA is transferred from the mother to her children and that it's rather stable.


Regarding chocolate as dog poison... As far as I know it is the caffeine in the chocolate that is the poison as it accelerates the dog's BPM to an unsustainable and likely lethal rate.

[Pepsi Jedi]

But he's their GOD! surely if he so willed it they'd realize this and awaken to this truth and KNOW him for the GOD that he is.

IE genetic programing that ensures bradford has nothing to worry about from his creations, perhaps even the capacity to gain control of his creations. IIRC the best place to hide this sort of coding would be within the mRNA as I seem to recall that mRNA is transferred from the mother to her children and that it's rather stable.


Regarding chocolate as dog poison... As far as I know it is the caffeine in the chocolate that is the poison as it accelerates the dog's BPM to an unsustainable and likely lethal rate.

Naa it's the theobromine. But as I showed above, unless you're feeding an 8 pound mini poodle ten and a half chocolate bars, you'll be ok. (( More likely it was just one of the Giant one pound bars, but the break down is 1 giant one pound bar=10 and a half normal bars))

Dog boys eat the same chow that the CS human troops eat. I'd expect that along with speech, brains, hands, bipedal stance, they also got humanish stomachs and are all good.

[taalismn]

(( Personally I'd see the genetically engineered susceptibility to a chemical that Bradford carries on himself 24/7 that does OUTRAGEOUS damage straight to the hit points of anything that walked out of his lab. Like 6d6X100 straight to hit points. Saving throw being a natural 20 and nothing else, type thing.))

Yes, but imagine the expression on his face if Cujo MAKES his saving throw and keeps steamrolling at him.
"Did I remember to build in a 'Plan B'? No? 'Plan A' was good enough? Well ####."

Oh I'm sure he'd be very surprise his science didn't work 100%.

That being said, he's got an IQ of 27. That equates to 270. He's got Plan A... B... C.... all the way to Z.... annd the A2.0 B2.0 C2.0. lol

He's not infallible, but as written he's got SUPER IQ. Higher than any of ours. DOUBLE of many peoples. And he's a schemer. He'll have plans with in plans with in plans with in plans.

If anyone has a 'Cloned body double' you can bet it'll be Bradford. If we can think of it. he HAS thought of it, and thought of how to do it better. lol

So. he's a one-man Thirty Xanatos Pile-Up waiting to happen. He just might trip himself up one of these days...
"Ah, good thing I have a Plan Z-14 just for this sort of thing! But wait, that doesn't take into account Plan G-22 coming to fruition, did it? Or was that Plan F-32? No, it was N-17! But that requires direct action by one of my clones, who....hates my guts...AND has suicidal tendencies, shading to an Oedipal loathing complex...Wow, I -am- so brilliant I outsmarted myself! I'm so proud of me! I'm still fatally screwed, but I'm proud!"

[Pepsi Jedi]

(( Personally I'd see the genetically engineered susceptibility to a chemical that Bradford carries on himself 24/7 that does OUTRAGEOUS damage straight to the hit points of anything that walked out of his lab. Like 6d6X100 straight to hit points. Saving throw being a natural 20 and nothing else, type thing.))

Yes, but imagine the expression on his face if Cujo MAKES his saving throw and keeps steamrolling at him.
"Did I remember to build in a 'Plan B'? No? 'Plan A' was good enough? Well ####."

Oh I'm sure he'd be very surprise his science didn't work 100%.

That being said, he's got an IQ of 27. That equates to 270. He's got Plan A... B... C.... all the way to Z.... annd the A2.0 B2.0 C2.0. lol

He's not infallible, but as written he's got SUPER IQ. Higher than any of ours. DOUBLE of many peoples. And he's a schemer. He'll have plans with in plans with in plans with in plans.

If anyone has a 'Cloned body double' you can bet it'll be Bradford. If we can think of it. he HAS thought of it, and thought of how to do it better. lol

So. he's a one-man Thirty Xanatos Pile-Up waiting to happen. He just might trip himself up one of these days...
"Ah, good thing I have a Plan Z-14 just for this sort of thing! But wait, that doesn't take into account Plan G-22 coming to fruition, did it? Or was that Plan F-32? No, it was N-17! But that requires direct action by one of my clones, who....hates my guts...AND has suicidal tendencies, shading to an Oedipal loathing complex...Wow, I -am- so brilliant I outsmarted myself! I'm so proud of me! I'm still fatally screwed, but I'm proud!"

lol Pretty much.

Sometimes very smart people do very stupid things. *G*

[Shawn Merrow]

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

That is not true as it can make dogs very sick and kill them.

Dogs and Chocolate: Get the Facts

Chocolate can sicken and even kill dogs, and it is one of the most common causes of canine poisoning, veterinarians tell WebMD.

It's not. It's largely a myth. Or to be more specific "Yes it's true, but only in outrageous circumstances"

Note your own link.

Someone fed an EIGHT POUND Dog, A POUND OF CHOCOLATE in one day. If you ate one eight of your body weight in chocolate in one day it wouldnt' be good for you either.

As I pointed out you'd have to eat outrageous amounts of it to make it dangerous. The theobromine that causes the problems is minute. Again your own article points it out. 1oz of chocolate per pound of dog can be dangerous. One entire candy bar has about 1.55 oz. So for your average yorkie, weighing 4 to 7 pounds, for it to be dangerous you'd have to feed the thing 3 to 5 entire chocolate bars for it to get dangerous. That's 3 to 5 ENTIRE chocolate bars. in a 4 lbs dog.

Average size dogs can take more.

It CAN make them sick, but the amounts you'd have to give them are pretty huge. If you have a little yippy dog, sure, 3 or 4 entire candy bars worth of chocolate might mess them up, but out side of that, they're just fine. My first job was at a Vet's office and I've worked for Zoos. EVERY Vet I've ever worked with has said the same. "Yeah it's not good for them but they have to eat outrageous amounts for it to be dangerous."

If you're retarded and feed an 8lbs dog 1lbs of chocolate in one day? Sure.... that'll mess um up. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR If you give your EIGHT POUND yippy dog, TEN AND A HALF CHOCOLATE BARS... yeah it'll mess um up.

Edit: Just using that as an example, for a dog boy weighing 180lbs, he'd need to eat 180oz to be in the danger catagory, or 120 candy bars, or eleven and a quarter pounds of chocolate at once.

Shy of that type of retardation. They're fine. They might get the squirts but it's largely overstated.

Don't give your yippy dog 10+ chocolate bars.

(( and yes, dark chocolate is worse. I even stated that in my first post. It's still not what people make it out to be. ))

Dogs can and do die from eating chocolate as the link points out and which you called a myth and its one of the leading causes of poisoning which you called a myth saying it has no real effect on them. If it was so rare it would not be a leading cause of poisoning. Still stand by that that your original post was wrong.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

That is not true as it can make dogs very sick and kill them.

Dogs and Chocolate: Get the Facts

Chocolate can sicken and even kill dogs, and it is one of the most common causes of canine poisoning, veterinarians tell WebMD.

It's not. It's largely a myth. Or to be more specific "Yes it's true, but only in outrageous circumstances"

Note your own link.

Someone fed an EIGHT POUND Dog, A POUND OF CHOCOLATE in one day. If you ate one eight of your body weight in chocolate in one day it wouldnt' be good for you either.

As I pointed out you'd have to eat outrageous amounts of it to make it dangerous. The theobromine that causes the problems is minute. Again your own article points it out. 1oz of chocolate per pound of dog can be dangerous. One entire candy bar has about 1.55 oz. So for your average yorkie, weighing 4 to 7 pounds, for it to be dangerous you'd have to feed the thing 3 to 5 entire chocolate bars for it to get dangerous. That's 3 to 5 ENTIRE chocolate bars. in a 4 lbs dog.

Average size dogs can take more.

It CAN make them sick, but the amounts you'd have to give them are pretty huge. If you have a little yippy dog, sure, 3 or 4 entire candy bars worth of chocolate might mess them up, but out side of that, they're just fine. My first job was at a Vet's office and I've worked for Zoos. EVERY Vet I've ever worked with has said the same. "Yeah it's not good for them but they have to eat outrageous amounts for it to be dangerous."

If you're retarded and feed an 8lbs dog 1lbs of chocolate in one day? Sure.... that'll mess um up. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR If you give your EIGHT POUND yippy dog, TEN AND A HALF CHOCOLATE BARS... yeah it'll mess um up.

Edit: Just using that as an example, for a dog boy weighing 180lbs, he'd need to eat 180oz to be in the danger catagory, or 120 candy bars, or eleven and a quarter pounds of chocolate at once.

Shy of that type of retardation. They're fine. They might get the squirts but it's largely overstated.

Don't give your yippy dog 10+ chocolate bars.

(( and yes, dark chocolate is worse. I even stated that in my first post. It's still not what people make it out to be. ))

Dogs can and do die from eating chocolate as the link points out and which you called a myth and its one of the leading causes of poisoning which you called a myth saying it has no real effect on them. If it was so rare it would not be a leading cause of poisoning. Still stand by that that your original post was wrong.

And some people can die from drinking too much and getting alcohol poisoning. But it's no reason to say alcohol is poisonous to humans. It can kill you if you drink astronomical amounts, sure, but it takes alot. Same thing here.

YES if you give an 8 pound dog over 10+ candy bars it might get sick, but to say CHOCOLATE IS HIGHLY POISONOUS TO DOGS!!! is a myth. As it's only bad for them in huge amounts. If you toss even that 8 pound dog, an entire candy bar, he'll be fine. As the article shows, 1oz to pound is when it starts getting dangerous. Clearly dog weighs vary, from teacup Chihuahua, to a Great Dane or mastiff. Assuming a middle ground dog, nothing too huge or too tiny to blow the average, you're looking at a 30 to 50 lbs animal.

That's 20 to 30 candy bars to get to the danger zone.

If you're so amazingly stupid that you feed your medium sized dog, 20 to 30 candy bars.. then yeah, it can be dangerous.... but if you're that stupid, you don't deserve the dog to start with.

[camk4evr]

Chocolate doesn't really affect dogs. If you let them eat like 5 lbs of 80+% dark coca or something it might, but then it's not going to be very good for you either. The "Dogs will die if you give them chocolate" Myth was popularized by mothers that didn't want their kids sharing their candy with their pets.

That is not true as it can make dogs very sick and kill them.

Dogs and Chocolate: Get the Facts

Chocolate can sicken and even kill dogs, and it is one of the most common causes of canine poisoning, veterinarians tell WebMD.

It's not. It's largely a myth. Or to be more specific "Yes it's true, but only in outrageous circumstances"

Note your own link.

Someone fed an EIGHT POUND Dog, A POUND OF CHOCOLATE in one day. If you ate one eight of your body weight in chocolate in one day it wouldnt' be good for you either.

As I pointed out you'd have to eat outrageous amounts of it to make it dangerous. The theobromine that causes the problems is minute. Again your own article points it out. 1oz of chocolate per pound of dog can be dangerous. One entire candy bar has about 1.55 oz. So for your average yorkie, weighing 4 to 7 pounds, for it to be dangerous you'd have to feed the thing 3 to 5 entire chocolate bars for it to get dangerous. That's 3 to 5 ENTIRE chocolate bars. in a 4 lbs dog.

Average size dogs can take more.

It CAN make them sick, but the amounts you'd have to give them are pretty huge. If you have a little yippy dog, sure, 3 or 4 entire candy bars worth of chocolate might mess them up, but out side of that, they're just fine. My first job was at a Vet's office and I've worked for Zoos. EVERY Vet I've ever worked with has said the same. "Yeah it's not good for them but they have to eat outrageous amounts for it to be dangerous."

If you're retarded and feed an 8lbs dog 1lbs of chocolate in one day? Sure.... that'll mess um up. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR If you give your EIGHT POUND yippy dog, TEN AND A HALF CHOCOLATE BARS... yeah it'll mess um up.

Edit: Just using that as an example, for a dog boy weighing 180lbs, he'd need to eat 180oz to be in the danger catagory, or 120 candy bars, or eleven and a quarter pounds of chocolate at once.

Shy of that type of retardation. They're fine. They might get the squirts but it's largely overstated.

Don't give your yippy dog 10+ chocolate bars.

(( and yes, dark chocolate is worse. I even stated that in my first post. It's still not what people make it out to be. ))

Dogs can and do die from eating chocolate as the link points out and which you called a myth and its one of the leading causes of poisoning which you called a myth saying it has no real effect on them. If it was so rare it would not be a leading cause of poisoning. Still stand by that that your original post was wrong.

And some people can die from drinking too much and getting alcohol poisoning. But it's no reason to say alcohol is poisonous to humans. It can kill you if you drink astronomical amounts, sure, but it takes alot. Same thing here.

YES if you give an 8 pound dog over 10+ candy bars it might get sick, but to say CHOCOLATE IS HIGHLY POISONOUS TO DOGS!!! is a myth. As it's only bad for them in huge amounts. If you toss even that 8 pound dog, an entire candy bar, he'll be fine. As the article shows, 1oz to pound is when it starts getting dangerous. Clearly dog weighs vary, from teacup Chihuahua, to a Great Dane or mastiff. Assuming a middle ground dog, nothing too huge or too tiny to blow the average, you're looking at a 30 to 50 lbs animal.

That's 20 to 30 candy bars to get to the danger zone.

If you're so amazingly stupid that you feed your medium sized dog, 20 to 30 candy bars.. then yeah, it can be dangerous.... but if you're that stupid, you don't deserve the dog to start with.

You might want to reread his link, Pepsi Jedi. The 8 lb dog eating 1 lb of chocalte was the worst case of chocolate poisoning that vet saw. the article also says that no amount of chocolate is good for a dog. Believe me, I know, as I had to clean up after a dog (my full grown german shepard/husky mix) that ate a small box (about 1/4 lb) of choclate that someone gave us for Christmas (we din't know it was chocolate and put it under the tree.

[Pepsi Jedi]

You might want to reread his link, Pepsi Jedi. The 8 lb dog eating 1 lb of chocalte was the worst case of chocolate poisoning that vet saw. the article also says that no amount of chocolate is good for a dog. Believe me, I know, as I had to clean up after a dog (my full grown german shepard/husky mix) that ate a small box (about 1/4 lb) of choclate that someone gave us for Christmas (we din't know it was chocolate and put it under the tree.

So your dog, ate wrapping paper, a box and probably plastic, and puked or got the runs? You're surprised? *shrugs* the article bears out what I've said 1oz to 1 pound is where it gets dangerous. With the average medium sized dog being 30 to 50 pounds, that's 20 to 30 candy bars for it to be dangerous.

If you have to eat pounds of something for it to be dangerous, it's not 'poisonous'. Can it make um puke or give them the runs? Sure, but it's hardly deadly unless they eat tons of it. And I point you back to the humans and alcohol. If you drink gallons of it you can die, but alcohol isn't 'Poisonous' to humans. ( Well most. there are clearly exceptions)

Think what you will, the science and having WORKED in vets offices and zoo's, I know different.

Is it good for them? no. Should you feed them dozens of candy bars worth of it? No... but it's hardly the little brown square of death if they get a piece, or even a candy bar.

[zaccheus]

IM A VETERINARIAN DO NOT LISTEN TO PEPSI ON THIS TOPIC!! Chocalate and caffeine are very toxic to dogs, more so when combined. Like any poison (including alcohol in people, it is poisonous btw) dose matters and size of the creature poisoned matters. Ie a bigger dog requires a lot more chocalate than a smaller dog. I thin what Pepsi is confusing is milk for dark chocolate. It takes a lot of milk chocalate to make a dog sick because it is so dilute; dark or bakes on the other hand requires much less to be ingested to make your dog sick or die, and it's not a pleasant death either they get super excited then hypothermic and finally seize to death. It's best to just avoid chocalate at all cost because it's not worth the risk, but I your dog is big and got milk chocalate probably okay, but if he's small or got into dark chocalate call your vet ASAP, time is very important

Anyways to address the origianal topic I'm sure that shortcoming of dogs would be corrected just like cats inability to take Advil without dying would also be corrected

[Wooly]

IM A VETERINARIAN DO NOT LISTEN TO PEPSI JEDI!!

Fixed

[Ravenwing]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

[Mercdog]

Chocolate in large quantities is bad for dogs, but not necessarily fatally so. At least not in the case of our dalmation puppy Max. He was still little more than hand sized when he ate the better part of a 1 lb. Hershey's kiss that my sister got for Christmas one year. He was not a happy puppy for a few days, but he lived to be a little over 13 years old. Still, always best to err on the side of caution and keep it out of their reach.

As far as dog boys? GMs call. Personally, if I did rule chocolate toxic to them, it would be the equivalent to a minor case of food poisoning. Disabliling, but not deadly.

[Pepsi Jedi]

IM A VETERINARIAN DO NOT LISTEN TO PEPSI ON THIS TOPIC!! Chocalate and caffeine are very toxic to dogs, more so when combined. Like any poison (including alcohol in people, it is poisonous btw) dose matters and size of the creature poisoned matters. Ie a bigger dog requires a lot more chocalate than a smaller dog. I thin what Pepsi is confusing is milk for dark chocolate. It takes a lot of milk chocalate to make a dog sick because it is so dilute; dark or bakes on the other hand requires much less to be ingested to make your dog sick or die, and it's not a pleasant death either they get super excited then hypothermic and finally seize to death. It's best to just avoid chocalate at all cost because it's not worth the risk, but I your dog is big and got milk chocalate probably okay, but if he's small or got into dark chocalate call your vet ASAP, time is very important

Anyways to address the original topic I'm sure that shortcoming of dogs would be corrected just like cats inability to take Advil without dying would also be corrected

1) I'm not mistaking anything. Read my posts. In the very first response on this I note that dark chocolate is different. Then again when I went more into it, I again stipulated dark chocolate is different. Other than your yelling and stuff, you've said nothing different than I did. You even said milk chocolate is probably ok. And that it would take a lot of it to make a dog sick.

2) I don't know you from Adam, but for someone that had to go through 8+ years of higher education, not being able to spell chocolate correctly is a bit strange. I question your claims of being a Vet. You spelled the word wrong 5 times. This isn't me being a spelling Nazi (( you all know I do NOT spell all that great and I actually HATE spelling Nazi's)) but when someone is claiming higher education in a specialized medical field and to be a vet... and misspells chocolate wrong 5 times.... I question their claims.


But yeah... you basically said the same thing I did. It takes a lot of chocolate to make your dog sick and if your dog gets a bit of chocolate it'll probably be ok.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

[Jedrious]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

PJ, quit taking everything to the extremes, poison does not in any way automatically equate to death.

[GenThunderfist]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

Yeah...its called alcohol poisoning. A lot of poisons can be taken in small doses and survived.Doesn't make it any better for you- like chocolate and dogs. Still poisonous, just its a small enough dose that it just makes their tummy sad.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

PJ, quit taking everything to the extremes, poison does not in any way automatically equate to death.

That's the thing, you can get technical but alcohol doesn't "POISON" You, it gets into your blood and goes to the brain. To quote "The slow reactions, slurred speech and memory loss of a drunk are probably caused by ethanol attaching to glutamate receptors in your brain’s neural circuitry."

It doesn't 'poison you' You don't take a shot and suddenly die or land in the hospital.

When talking in general about 'poison' yes, it's accepted that you're not just poisoning someone to make feel bad. That the use of poison is to kill.

When saying Chocolate is a poison to dogs, the person saying that is implying that it's deadly.

Yes I know that some deadly poisons when used correctly can do other things, but when speaking in general about dogs dieing from chocolate, that's not the conversation being had.

[zaccheus]

Yeah my spelling is bad in general add to that I'm Being lazy because I'm on vacation and using my iPhone (i hate touch screen) typos and misspellings are goin to be rampant. Sorry for that. Again on my phone do I may have misread but regardless, chocolate is toxic to dogs. Yeah it may take a lot depending, but don't say it's a myth, people will and have taken that the wrong way and pets die because of it. If your dog eats chocolate call your vet, it's best not to take chances or try doing the math on your own for what is a fatal dose, add on the fact it can take 24 hours to see symptoms, making people believe after an hour... Oh look he's fine...delaying potentially life saving therapy, it's best if people don't debunk do called "myths" on random messageboards when they are not professionals in terms of canine medicine or toxicosis. I am a vet. Don't care if you believe me (as an aside there wasn't a single spelling class in bet school, so ones ability to spell is completely unrelated to veterinary sciences) just don't give dietary advice regarding dogs that may get misinterpretted and lead to a potentially bad outcome for someone'stoet. Also you are completely wrong about your definition of poison. A poison does not necessarily kill, in fact most poisons don't. Ie look up plants poisonous to pets. Poinsettias are almost always listed, and they almost never cause death. I would cut and past but I'm on my phone

[Galroth]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

PJ, quit taking everything to the extremes, poison does not in any way automatically equate to death.

That's the thing, you can get technical but alcohol doesn't "POISON" You, it gets into your blood and goes to the brain. To quote "The slow reactions, slurred speech and memory loss of a drunk are probably caused by ethanol attaching to glutamate receptors in your brain’s neural circuitry."

It doesn't 'poison you' You don't take a shot and suddenly die or land in the hospital.

When talking in general about 'poison' yes, it's accepted that you're not just poisoning someone to make feel bad. That the use of poison is to kill.

When saying Chocolate is a poison to dogs, the person saying that is implying that it's deadly.

Yes I know that some deadly poisons when used correctly can do other things, but when speaking in general about dogs dieing from chocolate, that's not the conversation being had.

Dogs and Chocolate: How Much is Too Much?

The more theobromine a cocoa product contains, the more poisonous it is to your dog.

Unsweetened baker's chocolate contains about 390 milligrams of theobromine per ounce -- about 10 times more than milk chocolate and more than twice as much as semi-sweet chocolate. White chocolate contains very little theobromine.

According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, one ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight is potentially lethal.

But the real danger lies with dark chocolate. Merck warns that deaths have been reported with theobromine doses as low as 115 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight.

So 20 ounces of milk chocolate, 10 ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, and just 2.25 ounces of baking chocolate could potentially kill a 22-pound dog, Fitzgerald says.

Serious toxic reactions can occur with ingestion of about 100 to 150 milligrams of theobromine per kilogram of body weight.

Even small amounts of dark chocolate can be very dangerous to dogs. You seem to be trying to say because they can eat a lot of milk chocolate and just get some intestinal issues that all chocolate is fine and that it's a myth that chocolate is bad for dogs. 10 ounces is roughly the size of a large candy bar. And that's standard dark chocolate, I personally know a woman who eats the stuff that is almost bakers chocolate. Her husband wasn't watching their dog and it ate nearly an entire bar of the stuff and ended up at MSU's emergency vet clinic.

When things are a matter of degree, you probably shouldn't declare the entire thing a myth. If people believed you it could end very badly. Not everyone knows how much worse dark chocolate is for dogs than milk chocolate.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Yeah my spelling is bad in general add to that I'm Being lazy because I'm on vacation and using my iPhone (i hate touch screen) typos and misspellings are goin to be rampant. Sorry for that. Again on my phone do I may have misread but regardless, chocolate is toxic to dogs. Yeah it may take a lot depending, but don't say it's a myth, people will and have taken that the wrong way and pets die because of it. If your dog eats chocolate call your vet, it's best not to take chances or try doing the math on your own for what is a fatal dose, add on the fact it can take 24 hours to see symptoms, making people believe after an hour... Oh look he's fine...delaying potentially life saving therapy, it's best if people don't debunk do called "myths" on random messageboards when they are not professionals in terms of canine medicine or toxicosis. I am a vet. Don't care if you believe me (as an aside there wasn't a single spelling class in bet school, so ones ability to spell is completely unrelated to veterinary sciences) just don't give dietary advice regarding dogs that may get misinterpretted and lead to a potentially bad outcome for someone'stoet. Also you are completely wrong about your definition of poison. A poison does not necessarily kill, in fact most poisons don't. Ie look up plants poisonous to pets. Poinsettias are almost always listed, and they almost never cause death. I would cut and past but I'm on my phone

Alot of words there and such, but you still 100% back up what I've said. That a bite of chocolate isn't going to kill the dog. That it takes alot to do it. Which is exactly what I've said from the start. Again I reiterate if it takes 20 to 30 chocolate bars to be dangerous a medium sized dog, it's not what you'd call a big worry.

Can it make them sick? Puke, or get the runs.. Sure. So can most any "people food" if you give it to a dog. (( and yes it depends on the dog too)) it can do that to humans too if you eat outrageous amounts of it. Am I saying feed your dog chocolate all the time and nothing but chocolate? no. I'm not. I'm saying if your dog eats a candy bar.. unless it's a 1 or 2 pound dog. It'll probably be ok.

I've stated from the start that dark chocolate is different. The chemical in question is found in higher concentration in dark chocolate.

But again, I'm speaking in common terms. When people are speaking in general about 'Chocolate' they mean milk chocolate. not dark chocolate... as.. if they're speaking about dark chocolate, they tend to say 'Dark Chocolate'.

When I speak of 'Poisons' I mean things that will kill you dead if you get a little bit of it. Not something you have to consume a 16th of your own body weight before it becomes dangerous. I weigh 225. If I ate the equivalent weight in chocolate that it'd take to become dangerous to a dog, that'd be 225 oz. That's 150 Hersey candy bars. or fourteen pounds of chocolate.

If I have to consume FOURTEEN POUNDS of something before it harms me, I don't consider it a 'poison'. (( As a side note. If you eat 14 pounds of most anything, it's going to be dangerous))

Yes I'm aware that many things can be 'classed' as poisons, or toxic. Heck O2 is toxic. Just not in common speech. Commonly you don't go "You know, air is toxic". Nor do you consider something that you'd need to imbue 14lbs of to be dangerous, as poisonous.

In common parlance, "POISON" is something that you need to go to the hospital for RIGHT THEN, as you're in danger of getting REALLY sick, doing REAL damage to your self or even about to die. You know. Like drinking drain cleaner or battery acid, or neuro toxins, ect. Eating nightshade, or aconite, or foxglove. Ect. Those are poisons.

Something that takes 14 pounds to become dangerous? Isn't something I concider poison. Nor are such things in common talk.

[zaccheus]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

PJ, quit taking everything to the extremes, poison does not in any way automatically equate to death.

That's the thing, you can get technical but alcohol doesn't "POISON" You, it gets into your blood and goes to the brain. To quote "The slow reactions, slurred speech and memory loss of a drunk are probably caused by ethanol attaching to glutamate receptors in your brain’s neural circuitry."

It doesn't 'poison you' You don't take a shot and suddenly die or land in the hospital.

When talking in general about 'poison' yes, it's accepted that you're not just poisoning someone to make feel bad. That the use of poison is to kill.

When saying Chocolate is a poison to dogs, the person saying that is implying that it's deadly.

Yes I know that some deadly poisons when used correctly can do other things, but when speaking in general about dogs dieing from chocolate, that's not the conversation being had.

Dogs and Chocolate: How Much is Too Much?

The more theobromine a cocoa product contains, the more poisonous it is to your dog.

Unsweetened baker's chocolate contains about 390 milligrams of theobromine per ounce -- about 10 times more than milk chocolate and more than twice as much as semi-sweet chocolate. White chocolate contains very little theobromine.

According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, one ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight is potentially lethal.

But the real danger lies with dark chocolate. Merck warns that deaths have been reported with theobromine doses as low as 115 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight.

So 20 ounces of milk chocolate, 10 ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, and just 2.25 ounces of baking chocolate could potentially kill a 22-pound dog, Fitzgerald says.

Serious toxic reactions can occur with ingestion of about 100 to 150 milligrams of theobromine per kilogram of body weight.

Even small amounts of dark chocolate can be very dangerous to dogs. You seem to be trying to say because they can eat a lot of milk chocolate and just get some intestinal issues that all chocolate is fine and that it's a myth that chocolate is bad for dogs. 10 ounces is roughly the size of a large candy bar. And that's standard dark chocolate, I personally know a woman who eats the stuff that is almost bakers chocolate. Her husband wasn't watching their dog and it ate nearly an entire bar of the stuff and ended up at MSU's emergency vet clinic.

When things are a matter of degree, you probably shouldn't declare the entire thing a myth. If people believed you it could end very badly. Not everyone knows how much worse dark chocolate is for dogs than milk chocolate.

Bingo!

[Nightmask]

My father used to love giving chocolate to our dog before old age got her, and he simply refused to believe he was giving her something toxic and defended it with 'well she likes it'. Well duh he'd like anti-freeze too doesn't mean you give anyone anti-freeze either, just lucky enough he didn't give her enough to kill her.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Ummm PJ booze is poisonous to humans. That's what gets your drunk.

So you take a shot of booze and die? Really? I never knew that.. my mother who drinks like a fish must be a god or something. She's still alive.

PJ, quit taking everything to the extremes, poison does not in any way automatically equate to death.

That's the thing, you can get technical but alcohol doesn't "POISON" You, it gets into your blood and goes to the brain. To quote "The slow reactions, slurred speech and memory loss of a drunk are probably caused by ethanol attaching to glutamate receptors in your brain’s neural circuitry."

It doesn't 'poison you' You don't take a shot and suddenly die or land in the hospital.

When talking in general about 'poison' yes, it's accepted that you're not just poisoning someone to make feel bad. That the use of poison is to kill.

When saying Chocolate is a poison to dogs, the person saying that is implying that it's deadly.

Yes I know that some deadly poisons when used correctly can do other things, but when speaking in general about dogs dieing from chocolate, that's not the conversation being had.

Dogs and Chocolate: How Much is Too Much?

The more theobromine a cocoa product contains, the more poisonous it is to your dog.

Unsweetened baker's chocolate contains about 390 milligrams of theobromine per ounce -- about 10 times more than milk chocolate and more than twice as much as semi-sweet chocolate. White chocolate contains very little theobromine.

According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, one ounce of milk chocolate per pound of body weight is potentially lethal.

But the real danger lies with dark chocolate. Merck warns that deaths have been reported with theobromine doses as low as 115 milligrams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight.

So 20 ounces of milk chocolate, 10 ounces of semi-sweet chocolate, and just 2.25 ounces of baking chocolate could potentially kill a 22-pound dog, Fitzgerald says.

Serious toxic reactions can occur with ingestion of about 100 to 150 milligrams of theobromine per kilogram of body weight.

Even small amounts of dark chocolate can be very dangerous to dogs. You seem to be trying to say because they can eat a lot of milk chocolate and just get some intestinal issues that all chocolate is fine and that it's a myth that chocolate is bad for dogs. 10 ounces is roughly the size of a large candy bar. And that's standard dark chocolate, I personally know a woman who eats the stuff that is almost bakers chocolate. Her husband wasn't watching their dog and it ate nearly an entire bar of the stuff and ended up at MSU's emergency vet clinic.

When things are a matter of degree, you probably shouldn't declare the entire thing a myth. If people believed you it could end very badly. Not everyone knows how much worse dark chocolate is for dogs than milk chocolate.

No. I've been specific, from the start to point out ____DARK CHOCOLATE____ is different. I said that clearly. I've been talking about every day milk chocolate. You can tell. 1) because I've pointed out dark chocolate being different and straight up SAID dark chocolate is different. Thus clearly not been talking about it, and 2) because I didn't call it 'Dark chocolate'. As one does, when they're talking about Dark chocolate.

I looked it up. Hersey bars are 1.55.oz. I'm not sure where you're getting 10oz from. A pound is 16 oz. Yes, the bricks (( which are rectangular)) of baking chocolate can come in big ol bricks, but that's not a normal sized chocolate bar you pick up by the cash register at walmart. That's something you pick up.. well. For baking. lol.

In your example, the dog didn't eat 'one candy bar' it ate six and a half candy bars of dark chocolate. Which has already been stipulated to be worse than regular chocolate.

And to quote myself, I did clarify.

I stated after the first reply to my post. "It's not. It's largely a myth. Or to be more specific "Yes it's true, but only in outrageous circumstances" "

I did modify my original point to be more clear.

"YES IT'S TRUE, BUT ONLY IN OUTRAGEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES"

I.E. the dog is eating a very large amount of chocolate.

In that same exact post. At the bottom I have.

" and yes, dark chocolate is worse. I even stated that in my first post"


So clearly, I know Dark chocolate is worse, and that's NOT what I'm talking about in my own posts.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

As 'perfected' genetically modified and created creatures, I can't see them as having those vulnerabilities retained.

If they were just random mutants in the wild. ( I.E. built with After the bomb rules) You might get extra Bio-e points from taking the disadvantage. But for lone star mutants, I'd say no.

[taalismn]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

(Thows catnip bomb at Catboy..)
"Have fun, kitty!"
#PHOF!#
@SNEEZE!@
"That supposed to DO something to me, monkey-boy? Because all it's done is %%%%% me off!"
"... ..."

[Nightmask]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

(Thows catnip bomb at Catboy..)
"Have fun, kitty!"
#PHOF!#
@SNEEZE!@
"That supposed to DO something to me, monkey-boy? Because all it's done is %%%%% me off!"
"... ..."

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

[taalismn]

[

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

But you got human-like intelligence and education putting the brakes on instinct, so saving throws should apply.
Just Say 'No' to Catnip.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

(Thows catnip bomb at Catboy..)
"Have fun, kitty!"
#PHOF!#
@SNEEZE!@
"That supposed to DO something to me, monkey-boy? Because all it's done is %%%%% me off!"
"... ..."

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

For the same reason that throwing a bag of pot at a human isn't going to make them squeel, roll one up, smoke and get high. Or even throwing a bag of coke at someone isn't going to make them drop to the floor rolling in it and snorting like crazy.

They're thinking sapient beings now.

[Nightmask]

[

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

But you got human-like intelligence and education putting the brakes on instinct, so saving throws should apply.
Just Say 'No' to Catnip.

Where do you think human intelligence or education is going to have any say? Doesn't do anything for the humans who give in to temptation and such every day. You can't not respond to a drug just because you don't want to, give someone a shot of PCP and it's going to affect them period they aren't going to 'muscle through it' and a Battle Cat will end up responding to catnip no matter how much it might not want to because again it's a drug and you can't just will your body not to respond. Well okay, maybe if the character has a psionic power applicable to it they might be able to activate it and get by, but that's iffy.

[Nightmask]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

(Thows catnip bomb at Catboy..)
"Have fun, kitty!"
#PHOF!#
@SNEEZE!@
"That supposed to DO something to me, monkey-boy? Because all it's done is %%%%% me off!"
"... ..."

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

For the same reason that throwing a bag of pot at a human isn't going to make them squeel, roll one up, smoke and get high. Or even throwing a bag of coke at someone isn't going to make them drop to the floor rolling in it and snorting like crazy.

They're thinking sapient beings now.

Last I checked if you throw cocaine in someone's face where they inhale it they WILL respond to it, and unless you're in a sealed environment you're going to inhale the catnip scent which is the actual drug. So being sapient beings doesn't mean anything.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Point of this wasn't to debate if chocolate specifically affects dog boys, but more a question about hybrid/mutant animals retaining traits of the original creatures. Dog boy thing was an example (and 'cause it had a catchy title).

Another example would be one of the mutant cat options and catnip.

Question is not whether a specific item affects the mutant, but if the mutant retains vulnerabilities/resistances of the original species.
-Pax

(Thows catnip bomb at Catboy..)
"Have fun, kitty!"
#PHOF!#
@SNEEZE!@
"That supposed to DO something to me, monkey-boy? Because all it's done is %%%%% me off!"
"... ..."

There's no reason to think that wouldn't work, they're keeping many of the animal instincts and features so why wouldn't mutant cats be affected by catnip? Not like they've been adjusted to not become drunks or drug addicts, they've general vulnerabilities like the humans and animals that they're linked to. Removing those animal-specific limitations doesn't seem very likely or cost-effective (even Dog Boys and Battle Cats can and frequently do wear environmental body armor after all particularly those working for the CS).

For the same reason that throwing a bag of pot at a human isn't going to make them squeel, roll one up, smoke and get high. Or even throwing a bag of coke at someone isn't going to make them drop to the floor rolling in it and snorting like crazy.

They're thinking sapient beings now.

Last I checked if you throw cocaine in someone's face where they inhale it they WILL respond to it, and unless you're in a sealed environment you're going to inhale the catnip scent which is the actual drug. So being sapient beings doesn't mean anything.

Sure it does. You can REACT to the attack. Just because someone throws coke at you doesn't mean you instantly start giggling or dry humping something. Doesn't mean you throw your self to the floor to snort up everything that you didn't get. Doesn't mean you're instantly some jonsing addict that can't do anything but cram the drugs into their face. You can still finish out a fight and kill who ever did that. Your body might have autonomic reaction to drugs, increased heart beat and what not, but it's not an instant light switch sort of thing. If you're in a fight for your life and someone smacks you with a bag of coke, you surely aren't going to get high. Your body will have some reaction to the chemical but YES you can fight the effects. You will be affected, but it's not like you'll be runnin' to the 7-11 for munchies.

And catnip is NOT cocaine.

Nor does catnip affect all cats. I've got three cats. Itchy, Lumanara and Sylvannas. Itchy loves cat nip.. about once a month. Nara is affected maybe once every two or three and Sylvannas is never affected, and we've got 10 or 15 catnip toys out all the time (( or in a box))

I think you're highly overestimating Catnip as some sort of instant drop everything your doing sort of drug that cat's can't resist. My cat's come running 100 times faster for bacon or tuna.

[taalismn]

[
Last I checked if you throw cocaine in someone's face where they inhale it they WILL respond to it, and unless you're in a sealed environment you're going to inhale the catnip scent which is the actual drug. So being sapient beings doesn't mean anything.

Depends on the potency of the drug. Cocaine is a highly refined chemical that's been concentrated and maximized by the black market chemists for its effect on the human nervous system. Catnip and weed are natural plants...even with selective breeding to maximize the active ingredient content, you're still not going to get a zone-out effect by sniffing it. It's like throwing table pepper at somebody and hosing them in the eyes with concentrated pepper-spray. One's a sneezing fit and the other's a tear your eyeballs out experience.
On the other hand, if you took the active ingredients in catnip, concentrated them, then aerosolized them into the equivalent of vaporous cocaine, THEN got your feline victim to inhale the stuff, you might get a profound effect then.

[Nightmask]

Sure it does. You can REACT to the attack. Just because someone throws coke at you doesn't mean you instantly start giggling or dry humping something. Doesn't mean you throw your self to the floor to snort up everything that you didn't get. Doesn't mean you're instantly some jonsing addict that can't do anything but cram the drugs into their face. You can still finish out a fight and kill who ever did that. Your body might have autonomic reaction to drugs, increased heart beat and what not, but it's not an instant light switch sort of thing. If you're in a fight for your life and someone smacks you with a bag of coke, you surely aren't going to get high. Your body will have some reaction to the chemical but YES you can fight the effects. You will be affected, but it's not like you'll be runnin' to the 7-11 for munchies.

And catnip is NOT cocaine.

Nor does catnip affect all cats. I've got three cats. Itchy, Lumanara and Sylvannas. Itchy loves cat nip.. about once a month. Nara is affected maybe once every two or three and Sylvannas is never affected, and we've got 10 or 15 catnip toys out all the time (( or in a box))

I think you're highly overestimating Catnip as some sort of instant drop everything your doing sort of drug that cat's can't resist. My cat's come running 100 times faster for bacon or tuna.

Catnip is a narcotic, one delivered by inhalation, once inhaled it starts having an effect. You are the one that brought up the cocaine comparison but did so comparing it to tossing a sealed bag at someone (and given how many addicts are if they knew you threw cocaine at them or even thought it they'd be all over it ripping that bag open to get at it) which is inaccurate. The correct comparison would be tossing cocaine powder into someone's face resulting in inhalation which is the same as tossing catnip at a cat. At no point did I state or imply that it has some kind of instant overwhelming effect either, I simply noted once exposed you don't get to go 'Hey I'm intelligent I can just will myself to ignore its effects', because you can no more do that than you can snort cocaine and just ignore its impact. 'I'm human I can just will myself to ignore the effects' is frequently a claim by drunks as they get behind the wheel going 'alcohol doesn't affect me' and you end up with crashed cars and dead people because of it.

[Nightmask]

[
Last I checked if you throw cocaine in someone's face where they inhale it they WILL respond to it, and unless you're in a sealed environment you're going to inhale the catnip scent which is the actual drug. So being sapient beings doesn't mean anything.

Depends on the potency of the drug. Cocaine is a highly refined chemical that's been concentrated and maximized by the black market chemists for its effect on the human nervous system. Catnip and weed are natural plants...even with selective breeding to maximize the active ingredient content, you're still not going to get a zone-out effect by sniffing it. It's like throwing table pepper at somebody and hosing them in the eyes with concentrated pepper-spray. One's a sneezing fit and the other's a tear your eyeballs out experience.
On the other hand, if you took the active ingredients in catnip, concentrated them, then aerosolized them into the equivalent of vaporous cocaine, THEN got your feline victim to inhale the stuff, you might get a profound effect then.

I imagine if people were trying to exploit a possible catnip weakness on the part of feline anthros that they would indeed look into creating concentrated catnip grenades. Not that I see that as very likely given I doubt enough of them are going be running around in non-environmental armor to matter, plus most would be just settling on killing a target and using lasers and railguns and the like.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Sure it does. You can REACT to the attack. Just because someone throws coke at you doesn't mean you instantly start giggling or dry humping something. Doesn't mean you throw your self to the floor to snort up everything that you didn't get. Doesn't mean you're instantly some jonsing addict that can't do anything but cram the drugs into their face. You can still finish out a fight and kill who ever did that. Your body might have autonomic reaction to drugs, increased heart beat and what not, but it's not an instant light switch sort of thing. If you're in a fight for your life and someone smacks you with a bag of coke, you surely aren't going to get high. Your body will have some reaction to the chemical but YES you can fight the effects. You will be affected, but it's not like you'll be runnin' to the 7-11 for munchies.

And catnip is NOT cocaine.

Nor does catnip affect all cats. I've got three cats. Itchy, Lumanara and Sylvannas. Itchy loves cat nip.. about once a month. Nara is affected maybe once every two or three and Sylvannas is never affected, and we've got 10 or 15 catnip toys out all the time (( or in a box))

I think you're highly overestimating Catnip as some sort of instant drop everything your doing sort of drug that cat's can't resist. My cat's come running 100 times faster for bacon or tuna.

Catnip is a narcotic, one delivered by inhalation, once inhaled it starts having an effect. You are the one that brought up the cocaine comparison but did so comparing it to tossing a sealed bag at someone (and given how many addicts are if they knew you threw cocaine at them or even thought it they'd be all over it ripping that bag open to get at it) which is inaccurate. The correct comparison would be tossing cocaine powder into someone's face resulting in inhalation which is the same as tossing catnip at a cat. At no point did I state or imply that it has some kind of instant overwhelming effect either, I simply noted once exposed you don't get to go 'Hey I'm intelligent I can just will myself to ignore its effects', because you can no more do that than you can snort cocaine and just ignore its impact. 'I'm human I can just will myself to ignore the effects' is frequently a claim by drunks as they get behind the wheel going 'alcohol doesn't affect me' and you end up with crashed cars and dead people because of it.

Catnip is NOT Cocaine though, it'd be like blowing cigarette smoke in someone's face. It's a narcotic as well, but if some jerk blows smoke in your face, even if you breathe it, it's not like you're suddenly affected.

Catnip is NOT some type of thing that's going to affect them to the point where they do anything they don't want to do. You're acting like it's a huge dose of LSD or something. At best it's like tobacco or maybe pot. Even if you walk in a room where people have been smoking pot for hours, you're not instantly high and stumbling around.

Yes you can push aside such affects. "Catnip" isn't like shooting up with heroine or something.

If you try catnip on a mutated cat, they're either 1) Going to laugh at you, or 2) Kill you quickly. or 3) Just walk away from the idiot.

[taalismn]

[

I imagine if people were trying to exploit a possible catnip weakness on the part of feline anthros that they would indeed look into creating concentrated catnip grenades. Not that I see that as very likely given I doubt enough of them are going be running around in non-environmental armor to matter, plus most would be just settling on killing a target and using lasers and railguns and the like.

Then again, there's the black market entertainment market to consider...Super Catnip Bombs might not be viable weapons, what with EBA and filter masks, but if a Battle Cat or other mutant feline was TRYING to get his or her groove on, then as a recreational drug, 'Nip-Poppers' might be the thing...and somebody would be SURE to be developing it if there was any sort of profit to be made.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Thing is, Battle cats are not exactly common. They're not so uncommon that noone knows about them, but they're not so common that people are going to be designing chemical weapons specifically tailored to them.

Rifts has purposefully stayed away from 'chemical' weapons for the 'most part' (( not 100% but you don't see them often))

[Nightmask]

I imagine if people were trying to exploit a possible catnip weakness on the part of feline anthros that they would indeed look into creating concentrated catnip grenades. Not that I see that as very likely given I doubt enough of them are going be running around in non-environmental armor to matter, plus most would be just settling on killing a target and using lasers and railguns and the like.

Then again, there's the black market entertainment market to consider...Super Catnip Bombs might not be viable weapons, what with EBA and filter masks, but if a Battle Cat or other mutant feline was TRYING to get his or her groove on, then as a recreational drug, 'Nip-Poppers' might be the thing...and somebody would be SURE to be developing it if there was any sort of profit to be made.

Oh yes, as a part of the narcotics trade catnip would be as valid as cocaine and amphetamines. There are plenty of feline anthros around thanks to the CS all by itself to make it a viable market. I imagine those South American felines are big with the catnip traders as well, given an entire city filled with them.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I imagine if people were trying to exploit a possible catnip weakness on the part of feline anthros that they would indeed look into creating concentrated catnip grenades. Not that I see that as very likely given I doubt enough of them are going be running around in non-environmental armor to matter, plus most would be just settling on killing a target and using lasers and railguns and the like.

Then again, there's the black market entertainment market to consider...Super Catnip Bombs might not be viable weapons, what with EBA and filter masks, but if a Battle Cat or other mutant feline was TRYING to get his or her groove on, then as a recreational drug, 'Nip-Poppers' might be the thing...and somebody would be SURE to be developing it if there was any sort of profit to be made.

Oh yes, as a part of the narcotics trade catnip would be as valid as cocaine and amphetamines. There are plenty of feline anthros around thanks to the CS all by itself to make it a viable market. I imagine those South American felines are big with the catnip traders as well, given an entire city filled with them.

I'm curious, what is it, that you think, catnip DOES?

[Nightmask]

So is the conclusion that such traits would likely be weeded out of mutants? Or is it just an issue of it affects some more than others?

I think with both examples, it should be pretty easy for the mutants to avoid contact with the substances. I wouldn't consider either a weakness, rather a trait.

Me personally, I can't have cow milk anymore. On the flip side, by not having dairy products, I cut the majority of fat intake from my diet. Although annoying, I'd call it a trait rather than a weakness.
-Pax

There's no reason to think they'd be removing those traits from the products of their Dog Boys or Battle Cats, while skilled above everyone else on Rifts Earth with regards to genetics (outside the rare rifts victim from places like After the Bomb or the Gene-Splicers) they aren't such masters of it that they could remove something like the narcotic reaction of cats to Catnip or even see reason to.

[Pepsi Jedi]

So is the conclusion that such traits would likely be weeded out of mutants? Or is it just an issue of it affects some more than others?

I think with both examples, it should be pretty easy for the mutants to avoid contact with the substances. I wouldn't consider either a weakness, rather a trait.

Me personally, I can't have cow milk anymore. On the flip side, by not having dairy products, I cut the majority of fat intake from my diet. Although annoying, I'd call it a trait rather than a weakness.
-Pax

I think if you're taking an animal and elevating it to human level intellect, changing them to be able to speak, to walk bipedally, to have hands, and be able to not only do that, but make them VIABLE species, that can mate and reproduce, that it's a trivial thing to remove any such weakness from the species. If you're making a 'Dog soldier' you're not going to design it to require special food or such. You're going to build it to be able to eat the same things anyone else in your army can. If your army is human (( as the one in question is. The US army before the rifts)) then they're going to be able to eat the same things humans are.