Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Similar Deviations
So I got this e-mail from someone who linked me to a certain chick who posted a reply on my animal-rights stamp. The reply contained a work she made with the messages "as long as cruelty towards humans exist, we shouldn't defend animals because humans come first."

I'm not sure this person posted it to troll or because her IQ is either extremely low, but... the thing I don't understand about her reply is that she somehow claims that there'd be a certain order to help people and animals. I mean seriously... SAYS WHO? Why not defend both people and animals at the same time? Apparently this person is evolutionary incapable of understanding the following:

1. Helping multiple causes at once.
2. Caring about both people and animals.
3. Defending both people and animals against violence/exploitation/slavery/etc.

There is no reason why we cannot defend both humans ánd animals against abuse.


There is no order. You can help both at the same time. You can be against both murder and pet abuse. Against both slavery and animal exploitation. Why can't you donate to a goal that helps people after a natural disaster ánd to a goal that saves animals from extinction? Why can't you be against both animal exploitation ánd woman abuse? Why can't you be against both hanging gays ánd against fur farming?

So after reading the description of that chick (which was full of pro-animal-cruelty shit), I could only conclude that it contained the following message: "I'm using suffering humans as an excuse to hurt/exploit animals!" which isn't just an insult to the animals, but also an insult to the people she uses as an excuse for her animal-exploitation. If she'd really care about the human cruelty she listed, she wouldn't support treating non-human animals the same way. If she were against discrimination and racism like she claims, she wouldn't use the "they are different from me" excuse racists often use, to hurt both people and animals in real life (which she does). According to her argument we shouldn't do anything about murder because "terrorism is worse".

I'm against violence towards innocent people (slavery, woman-abuse, violence towards gays etc.).
But I'm also against violence towards animals (fur, hunting, factory farming and other forms of exploitation)
I can be against both without choosing an order. I can defend both without choosing an order. And I do, as you can see in my gallery (and in real life of course!)

:bulletgreen: I can defend victims against bullying (in real life) ánd adopt a homeless bunny from the shelter.
:bulletgreen: I can defend children against child molesters ánd defend animals killed for fur.
:bulletgreen: I can donate to WAR CHILD ánd to an animal rights organization.
:bulletgreen: I can be against serial killing ánd against (aerial-)hunting.
:bulletgreen: I can be against people raping people ánd against people raping animals.
:bulletgreen: I can be against genocide ánd against animal exploitation.

There is no order. You can defend both people and animals at the same time.



Oh, and before you go twisting the definition of animal rights by saying "but animulz can't drive cars", let me tell you this:

It's called animal rights instead of human rights for a reason.



Human rights =/= animal rights
Voting, going to school, driving a car etc. are HUMAN rights. Not animal rights. Of course no one wants animals to go to school or vote! Have you ever seen an animal rights supporter who said "I want animals to get married, go to school, drive a car and vote!!" ? No? There you have it. Animals aren't capable of doing things like that nor is it useful to them. Their lifestyles are different from ours and they speak in a very different type of language. Giving animals animal rights is not the same as giving them human rights. There's a difference.

Animal rights = protection against the hand of humanity; the rights to their own bodies.
Human rights = protection against the hand of fellow humans + carrying responsibility.



I made a stamp similar to this a while back (a badly-made one, though!) I think you're very right here - why shouldn't we support both human and animal rights? The humans versus animals is a false dichotomy argument - compassion towards animals doesn't stop us from showing compassion towards humans too. I think logically, if we preach nonviolence, then nonviolence should extend to all forms of life. One of my favourite quotes by Tolstoy is 'as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be battlefields.' He was right. Besides, what stops us from supporting animal rights and going vegan, while at the same time donating to children's charities or campaigning against wars?

~Klacier


::

Veganism and vegetariam saves people
The chick I just mentioned is a vegan-hater and has hated me since we met because I don't want to eat meat. I'm vegan because I am against both the human- and animal suffering the meat industry causes. People like that chick act like veganism is all about saving just animals, but that is an extremely ignorant thing to think.

Eating and consuming less meat is probably the best way to reduce world hunger. Most people don’t realize how much water and other resources are wasted just to raise an animal until it’s ready to be slaughtered for meat. By taking the resources used to raise animals for meat consumption, we could grow more foods and feed more people. Currently, it takes a large amount of water and food to produce one pound of meat.

The meat industry it the main cause of world hunger, modern slavery and even murder of people who are shot dead by the meat industry when they refuse to leave their homes to make space for the production of meat. And then I'm not even talking about the water pollution caused by the meat industry, the fact that the meat industry is the main cause of global warming, the fish industry who takes away the main source of protein from starving people in developing countries and the dying people as a result. So the question shouldn't be: "What are vegans/animal lovers doing to help people?" but rather "What are vegans and animal lovers doing not to hurt people?" They're not taking their land. They're not forcing them into slave labour. Get your priorities right. If you care about people, you wouldn't be against things that saves them more than anything, such as veganism and animal rights. That chick is nothing but a hypocrite. Unlike her I'm reducing human- and animal suffering as much as I can, so... she should just shut up and educate herself before spewing hate, destruction and death into compassionate peoples' faces.



Yes, I will keep defending animals, gays, women, children etc.
And yes, I will defend them all at the same time.
Because I can.
And there is no order.


:icongalaxu: Stamp
:iconmirz123: Template
Show
Comments disabled by owner.
"The belief that rational and quantifiable disciplines such as science can be used to perfect human society is no less absurd than a belief in magic, angels, and divine intervention. Scientific methods, part of the process of changing the material world, are nearly useless in the nebulous world of politics, ideas, values, and ethics. But the belief in collective moral progress is a seductive one. It is what has doomed populations in the past who have chased after impossible dreams, and it threatens to doom us again. It is, at its core, the enticing delusion that we can be more than human, that we can become gods.

We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God; we have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin. The concept of sin is a check on the utopian dreams of a perfect world. It prevents us from believing in our own perfectibility of the illusion that the material advances of science and technology equal an intrinsic moral improvement in our species. To turn away from God is harmless. Saints have been trying to do it for centuries. To turn away from sin is catastrophic. Religious fundamentalists, who believe they know and can carry out the will of God, disregard their severe human limitations. They act as if they are free from sin. The secular utopians of the twenty-first century have also forgotten they are human. These two groups peddle absolutes. Those who do not see as they see, speak as they speak and act as they act are worthy only of conversion or eradication."

"It is this naive belief in our goodness and decency--this inability to face the dark reality of human nature, our capacity for evil and the morally neutral universe we inhabit--that is the most disturbing aspect of all these belief systems. There is nothing in human nature or human history to support the idea we are morally advancing as a species or that we will overcome the flaws of human nature. We progress technologically and scientifically, but not morally. We use the newest instruments of technological and scientific progress to create more efficient forms of killing, repression, economic exploitation, and to accelerate environmental degradation. There is a good and bad side to human progress. We are not advancing toward a glorious utopia."

"Scientific and moral progress are not the same. One advances. The other does not."


- Chris Hedges, When Atheism Becomes Religion.
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

It's so easy for me as a stampmaker to focus on Christianity, especially since I come from a fairly Christian background. However, I realized I have little to no stamps focused on Islam. So, I'll try to focus on that a little more.

And please, don't try that "but Islam badabadabada this blablabla multiculturalism bla bla bla YOUSARACIST!" stuff on me. It won't work. Also because religions =/= race.

Sharia Law - Wiki

In Indonesia, Sharia police in Aceh caned a homeless "punk" couple nine times on Friday after they were caught having premarital sex in public and for dressing like punks.

In December, more than 60 young punk fans were detained at a concert and forced to undergo a 10-day "moral rehabilitation" camp run by police. They had their hair cut/shaved, were forced to bathe in a lake, wear conservative clothes, and pray.

Only Muslims can be charged under Sharia Law, though the non-Muslim community is expected to follow some of the rules out of respect.

If you have some links to share on this topic, please feel free to post them and I will add them to this description.


One Law for All UK No Sharia law campaign.


BG: [link]
Temp: [link]


:pointr:Click here for ALL of my Stamps
:pointr:Click here for Religious Stamps
:pointr:Click here for Political Stamps
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

I'm sure this won't be a popular stamp, but there again, I don't really care. I am proud to be an American, I'm proud of the values our country was founded on, founded on, not keeps. I am ashamed of our government, I'm ashamed of the state our country is in. I'm ashamed of our foreign policy, I'm ashamed of our policies towards our own people, I think our government is a sham that couldn't give less of a shit about the American people, it's soldiers, or our brothers and sisters in other countries. If I could, I would apologize to Russia for the idiotic ' punishing parent' our politicians have had towards them, I would apologize to the people over seas who's family members we've killed and who's lives we've destroyed. I support the troops, I pray that God brings them home safely, I thank their families for their sacrifice but seriously, someone needs to slap some of those fucking idiots in Washington.
If you want to use this, just use it.
Show
Comments disabled by owner.
I absolutely HATE this double standard. Both gender circumcisions are wrong.

You know those feminazis who say "omg FEMAL CIRCUMCISUN IS CROOL N WRONG!1!!1"
But then they're like "MALE CIRCUMCISUN IS OK THO. THOS STOPID MEN!111!"
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

My first [finished] meme!

I chose John Adams but some other people do make appearances. >.>

Original meme: [link]

Tag :iconvulpine623:
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

:star: Re-uploading this ol' stamp. Please re-fave if you support animal rights. I lost all of the faves, darn! >_<

:iconreadplz:

STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS AND WELFARE!

This is a stamp for all people who support the right to live for animals! For all people who are against the horrible habit of treating animals like objects! For people who don't deny the fact that animals are living beings with their own value and nót products with a prize label. For all people who are one step ahead of other people!

:iconwingsplz::iconeeveeplz:

Animal rights means: Give every animal, human or not, the right to be free, without being property to someone else (so that also means that adopting pets would be like adopting orphans after a test or someone is suit to take care of them), the right to live and not be slaughtered simply for pleasure or luxury, not be dealt with like an object whose only value is the monetary gain a self-centered human will get from it.

Animal welfare means: only treating animals good when it's convenient for humanity. The animal-killing/mass-producing/treating animals like products itself will not dissapear with that.

:iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz:

Animal-cruelty supporters go around misguiding people about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. They shove into peoples' throats that they have to support animal welfare instead of animal rights and lie to them that animal welfare means that animal-cruelty will stop and that the animals will get a good life.

Liars.

Animal welfare means that when people kill or abuse animals, they should do it "humane". And with "humane" they mean that the animals should get better food, clean space and maybe anesteshia before they are ripped open, poisoned, burned, skinned, being made blind, got their limbs cut off and are killed for human goals!

Yes, that's right. Animal welfare still means people can legally kill animals for their own selfish goals as long as they give them good food/space etc. Animal welfare means that the life of an animal is "less worth" than someone's fur coat or fur-collection. Animal welfare means that people can still treat animals like objects or mass-produce them like products for their own goals, completely ignoring what the animals themselves want to do with their lives, hopes and dreams. Animal welfare still means that animals should be killed in the name of money. Animal welfare means that female animals will still be tied up and forced into pregnancy to produce an unnatural amount of animals for human goals.

Animal welfare means that animals will still be treated like products with a prize

In other words: animal welfare does NOT look at the animals' feelings, but at the people's money/greed/vanity.

Animal welfare is only treating animals good when it's convenient for humanity
And that is the part the misguiding animal welfare supporters "accidently" leave out.
When it comes to the REAL protection of animals, animal RIGHTS comes in. Not welfare.

:iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz:

Same rights as human? That's NOT what Animal Rights is about.


It's about allowing animals to not be the property of humans, allowing them to decide what they want to do in their lives, them not being subject to torture and murder out of convenience or luxury.

But we, as humans, are out of balance. Because it's beneficial to us, we hide behind the "inferior" argument. We argue they are less intelligent. We argue they don't have "society" as we have. We argue they have no "culture". And that suddenly makes it "okay". Makes it "okay" that we cage thousands, no millions of animals into a space where an individual can hardly move. Makes it okay that we force pregnancy. Makes it okay that we practically rape them, mutilate their bodies, often without painkillers (not that it'd make much of a difference). Makes it somehow acceptable to take away their kids as soon as they're born, makes it "humane" to shove them, "guiding" them to the place where they'll be slaughtered. Makes it just a simple "nuisance" when they try to escape, makes us think: "Come on, just follow the orders, it'd be much simpler, you wouldn't feel anything…" We think we have a right to "domesticate" those animals, denying them their own, chosen lifestyle, maybe a partner, a few kids. We think they're "cute" when we force them into little sweaters and think they like it when we force them in front of crowds where we show off "our pets".

Wake up: We ARE already forcing them into a human mindset. Or none at all – we deny them every right. Only those who are "cute" or "useful" or "beautiful" deserve to be, but then, too, it can only be to our rules, playing OUR game. Just because they don't break free, doesn't mean they are happy. Every now and then it does happen – humans get killed – and we are all shocked and angered at those "monsters"… And yet we don't realise that WE are the true monsters who just fail to see how what we are doing affects millions of lives.

A few things for the end: Animal, for me, includes humans. I am as much against human exploitation as against the exploitation of other animals. Also, I realise that a perfect world will never exist. Murder happens, even though it's generally accepted to be a crime. But there can be a state in which there is a balance. And that is where I'm getting at.
There will always be a certain rivalry. We must protect ourselves, that's for sure. But we don't have to make them our slaves – it's disgusting, perverted and sick. Not to mention that to them, it's their everything that's lost. They never had it. Food is not everything. Many captured individuals in zoos go mad. Animals need freedom. Movement is one of their key needs, as is a life in their natural environment.

"Animal Welfare" is a fake word. It only makes ourselves feel better.

:no:

*Wasserbienchen


:iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz::iconnaturedivider2plz:

It's called animal rights instead of human rights for a reason.


Human rights =/= animal rights
Voting, going to school, driving a car etc. are HUMAN rights. Not animal rights. Of course no one wants animals to go to school or vote! Have you ever seen an animal rights supporter who said "I want animals to get married, go to school, drive a car and vote!!" ? No? There you have it. Animals aren't capable of doing things like that nor is it useful to them. Their lifestyles are different from ours and they speak in a very different type of language. Giving animals animal rights is not the same as giving them human rights. There's a difference.

Animal rights = protection against the hand of humanity; the rights to their own bodies.
Human rights = protection against the hand of fellow humans + carrying responsibility.

Being able to carry responsibility is no required component to deserve rights


Babies for example have rights, but no responsibilities. They don't have to. Same for animals. The only ones who should carry responsibility are adult humans (and teens sometimes). Animals and babies/children shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve any rights at all.
Stop pretending animals should play our game and understand our ways of life in order to deserve to be protected from our cruelty! Stop pretending that people killing animals is the same as animals hunting other animals, because every retard knows there is a huge difference, since first; we are extremely overpopulated [link], second; There is nothing natural about fur farms where animals are pushed inside tiny cages, only to be skinned and killed in the name of fashion. There is nothing natural about the mass-production of animals in a factory, stuffing them with countless amounts of antibiotics and growth hormones to make them so fat that they can't even stand on their legs anymore so you can get an unnatural overconsumption of steak. There's nothing natural about mass-hunting animals on an unnatural great scale with unnatural fireweapons and planes and consider them products that should be "managed" (which is very hypocritical because the most hypocritical species can be found in the mirror). There's nothing natural about locking millions of animals up in cages and inject deadly diseases in their body they normally wouldn't get and force them into other painful tests. And there is also nothing humane about everything I just wrote. If you want to ask yourself or something is humane, imagine putting your own species (like your family) into the animals' place and ask yourself or it would still be humane when the very same things were done to them as to the animals. If the answer is no, it's not humane. Not for people, not for animals. Just because animals are different from us doesn't mean that oppressing them instead of our own species is suddenly "humane". Humane slaughter doesn't exist. We only tell ourselves it does to make ourselves feel better. And third; our ways to treat animals cause global warming and other damage to the planet, unlike the ways of other animals. [link]

By giving animals rights, some luxury is taken away from us. But what is having to give up some luxury we can easily live without, compared to animals who lose their entire lives and existence for our luxury?

It are usually the selfish people among us who oppose the idea of animal rights. Whenever they hear the word, they go "What? But animal rights means that I can't wear fur anymore! And my fur coat is so much more important than the life, hopes and dreams of animals! I support animal welfare instead. Let those nasty animals die for me and my luxury I could easily live without! Let them all die for human goals to make life easier for humans!"
Pretty selfish indeed. People like that disgust me. They remind me of Nazis. And I hate people who think like Nazis... they only focus on what's convenient for themselves, no matter how many others have to suffer for it. They go around and spread bullshitty ignorant lies like that the economy and envoirment would be" fucked without modern hunting", denying the fact that there are enough alternatives to blood spilling. They try to convince people that without animal testing "we all will die" etc. while denying the fact that animal testing is the most misguiding type of testing ever and slows down the process of testing medicines. They compare factory farming, the worst thing you can do to the envoirment and animals, to animals hunting with their bare hands and claws in the wild, claiming it "natural" where we get our meat from. No. There is nothing natural about that. Nothing. And comparing factory farming to people who live like animals in small tribes and hunt with their bare hands and spears because there are no alternatives to food around is outright an insult to those tribes.

Pet abolishment is not an animal right
Pet abolishment is NOT an animal right! Because pet abolishment means that we have to kill all pets, so it can't possibly be considered an animal right, since it's in fact animal cruelty. Sure, bad pet owners who keep their bunny all alone in a small cage or horse owners who use their animals as cars to pull their stuff will have to change their ways... but technically pet abolishment is animal-cruelty and cannot be considered an animal right. A happy Chihuahua does not suffer. A happy bunny, running around in your garden also isn't.

I have seen some animal-activists who want all pets to go extinct by loosing them into the wild, claiming this as an "animal-right". Well then explain to me how releasing domestic animals into the wild where they're chanceless to survive and will most likely starve, be attacked by wild predators or die of diseases is in any way an animal right while it's the animal who has to suffer. I find the activists who support pet abolishment hypocrites who should really look up what "rights" actually means. Releasing a dog into the wild for example also means that the dog will die of a trauma because dogs are capable of missing their owner who raised them with love. If the dog won't cry because of this loss until he dies, he'd probably attacks a small human child passing by to survive, only to be killed by other people who don't understand him in the end. So how, fake animal-activists, is that an animal right? How?

I talked to some animal-welfare supporters before and all they could talk about was what's convenient for themselves. Not even once they considered the animals' feelings or what the animals would want.

Just because we can't avoid all animal-cruelty in the world, doesn't mean that we shouldn't even try at all.

I support animal rights.
People who consider those who are different from themselves to be of "lower value"... are the people Í shall look down upon.

:peace:

:star: [link] <--- More stamps you might like.

The Meaning of Animal Rights For MeMany have said that the term and idea of 'rights' should, and can only apply to humans as a species. Many claim that animals will 'never' be equal to humans no matter how much animal advocates try to bring about the change. A lot of people misunderstand the concept of animal rights and this is why many do not wish to support it. They believe that giving animals rights would allow them and force them into human rules and a human mindset, that is, giving non-human animals the right to vote, use public transport, use computers, purchase houses, and pay bills. Many also believe that animal rights would mean that carnivorous animals would not be a
Show
Comments disabled by owner.
FINALLY. Yes, this is the super Smash bros meme, filled out by Me, TanTanTanuki. Put a lot of time and effort into this one, hope it shows. I did this all with gimp, and it took me a ruddy long time.

Blank meme:[link]

Panel 1: Yes, I am TanTanTanuki, I do not have brawl 9 I have Melee) and play as Fox and Falco, I seriously couldn't decide which to choose ^^;

Panel 2: I play as them because they are furries. Who fly around in spaceships. Can anyone think of a cooler combination? (They're also fast and stuff, and the dash attack is awesome)

Panel 3: I friggin' CANNOT play as Mario. He's slow, makes stupid noises and I just don't like him. He doesn't even look cool. I can play as LUIGI better than him (I actually kinda rock at luigi, beat up my friend with him)

Panel 4: I love lbp, so if Sony and Nintendo peacefully lived together in harmony, I would add cute little sackboy. I'd add Krystal, the awesome blue vixen for a couple reasons; Brawl needs more girls, Brawl needs more star fox, Brawl needs less cloned characters. And last but DEFINITELY not least, SLY COOPER! He's my favourite character of all time, He would have awesome moves and he'd be cool to play as.

Panel 5: yeah... I really like pokemon, Jiggleypuff included but... In brawl, melee AND the original, Jiggleypuff has STUPID moves, like, one of its moves is falling asleep! How stupid is that?! I'd rather have mewtwo reappear in the next smash bros game, not Jiggleypuff.

Panel 6: I don't support Fox-x-peach, but they make such a cute couple! When Peach gives fox tea in SSE, and he wags his tail.. naawwww.....

Panel 7: Wellll.... yeah, I've been watching Gurren lagaan. I realised I'd given Falco Kamina glasses, so I decided to throw in a recurring quote ^^;

Panel 8: This was rather hard to do. Fox is wearing Krystal's clothes and Falco is wearing Katt Monroe's.

END OF MEME! So yeah, you can do it if ya want , but you don't need to.

Fox, Falco, Krystal, Mario, Peach and Jiggleypuff are all property of Nintendo.

Sackboy is property of Media Molecule

Sly cooper is property of Sucker Punch Productios

AND I'M PROPERTY OF ME!
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.

Hey, who isn't?

Elections matter.

I support the 2012 delection.
Show
Add a Comment:
 
No comments have been added yet.