#I am not advocating animal cruelty

[vegance]

I do agree that as vegans we need to be compassionate in our activism, that aggression and rudeness rarely work in convincing people to change a deeply ingrained cultural habit. People deserve kindness, we are all complex creatures. And I mostly abide by that. But sometimes I really wish that vegan friendly Omnis would extend that same compassion to us vegans and just try to imagine what it is like for a second.

Vegan activism does not only take place in specific contexts, in specific planned situations. You always have to be „on“. Every time you have a meal with someone new, everytime someone asks why you don’t want a hot dog, why you won’t join your colleagues on the zoo trip.

Every time someone asks you why you are vegan, you have to jump to activism mode. Be kind. Be factual. Don’t push, but don’t be a pushover. And I manage that, mostly! But when Omnis compliment vegans for being so kind and calm, I do wonder if they know that those vegans only manage because they have pushed their emotions into a box and nailed it shut. These emotions still exist!! I am actively pushing them down to be a functioning member of society and an effective advocate for the animals.

But sometimes they do come to the surface. I think most vegans had the experience of learning about a specific aspect of animal exploitation that surprised them. For me, it was the deliberate cruelty that takes place on farms and slaughter houses every day. Not cruelty for the sake of profit. Or cruelty out of indifference. Cruelty for the sake of being cruel to animals.

There is a specific video that I saw and I cannot forget. It’s not even that graphic. Some calves were being herded into another pen. But a few of them didn’t understand what was happening, where confused and frightened. This frustrated the man who was doing the job. Finally, he got the last calf to go through the gate. But this was not enough for him, because he was angry and frustrated. So he pulled that calf back into the gate, and slammed his body against the door a few times, crushing the calf in the gate.

I don’t think he even severely injured the calf. But I just can’t stop imagining what that must be like. To be a baby animal, confused and frightened. And this large creature pulls you back and hurts you. You don’t understand why this is happening. How terrifying it must be. How painful. To be so utterly under that persons dominion. The thought of someone doing that to their pet would turn most people’s stomachs.

And then I am talking to some kind, left wing person. Who donates to charity. And voted against sexiest politicians. And they say they will never be vegan, because they don’t want to.

And I just imagine myself saying to the little calf:“I’m sorry. You and your kind will have to keep going through that. Because Tim here just doesn’t want to give up this specific kind of burger.“ Sorry to the pigs screaming in the gas chambers. Sorry to the chickens dying agonizing deaths in ventilation shutdown. Sorry to all the marine animals dying of divers sickness as they are pulled out of the water way to fast. „You will have to keep enduring this. Because, you see, Tim cares more about having a specific type of pizza topping. So the unfathomable suffering you are all going through? That’s just too bad“.

And I know it’s not effective!! It’s not helpful!! But sometimes that little calf squeezes it’s way out of the bix in the back of my mind. And it’s really hard to put it back in.

[hydropyro]

Just read chapter 19 of Palmarosa by @not-poignant

Thinking about Raphael’s character, both in general, as the lore suggests, and as the author describes — and I think they write it well.

Consider devils are very animalistic. Intelligent, yes, but still very much animals.

If we consider

1. How devils eat (through the release of ‘life spark’ via torture/torment/pain) this better explains his sadistic nature beyond twisted satisfaction in the way humans experience it.

2. How devils reproduce : they don’t. They can, but they don’t have to, thus they don’t have an instinctual drive to. Thus, outside of incubi/succubi who eat sexual pleasure, devils are unlikely to actually feel a desire for sex that goes beyond their desire for any other pleasurable pastime. For example — it may be as pleasurable and fun for them as playing lanceboard (Yahtzee came to mind first, you should know). It is also great for manipulation as mortals need it on some basal, instinctual level.

3. Possessiveness allows survival. Do devils indulge? Yes. But souls are the currency of their life, and sadism is their food. Now I am no peta advocate and I grew up on a farm. To a devil like Raphael, his House of Hope is no different than a farm he manages. Seeking souls is as much a sport as it is necessary for his own survival, no differently than hunting is for mortals.

4. Egotistical and narcissistic. I do believe devils tend to fall in these categories, and I am not discounting Raphael from them. However, the scope is not as extreme as our POV makes it. If we consider the way he behaves as far as is necessary for his survival, everything beyond that is what becomes excessive — and there doesn’t appear to be much. Look at his hobbies — poetry, which he himself is happy to admit he’s not wonderful at — he is not as egotistical and narcissistic as a devil ought to be.

Now, he does have a ‘superiority complex’, but it is not undeserved. Devils like him (higher echelon like bone devils and pit fiends) make mortals look like livestock. Now I believe livestock should be treated well and respectfully — but consider that the opposite is what Raphael needs to survive. Not great, still, not forgivable, but understandable?

Maybe I’m psychoanalysing too much, but devils cannot be measured in the same way as mortals.

Yes, by mortal standards (which as a mortal is what I and we gauge morality by, so I’m not excusing any of Raphael’s behavior, merely satisfying my need to overanalyse and psychoanalyse) Raphael is possessive, sadistic, egotistical, and self-centered.

But when we break these traits down and consider why he behaves this way — he’s not different from Astarion. And he seems to be doing his best.

In Palmarosa Raphael is resource guarding, and the writing of such is well done. (Author has a puppy. Maybe it’s intentionally done, maybe it’s ’instinctive’).

I’ve tried to get friends to read Palmarosa but they’ve expressed that it gives them the ick at the thought of someone being as capable and driven toward cruelty as Cazador getting their hands on Astarion — and I get it

But Raphael isn’t like that in this fic. It’s not a ‘healthy’ arrangement, but given how devils must function, it’s as healthy as is possible. In fact, ((until the plot twist dun dun dun)) Raphael is actually giving to Astarion, in what way he can.

Can’t overthink a reason for it just yet.

Anyway, TL;DR, bravo @not-poignant

[horsesource]

I’m getting obsessed with the arguments between Positive Reinforcement (R+) vs Balanced (uses “aversives”) animal training. So many of the R+ advocates seem incapable of realizing that solely rewarding behavior can absolutely be cruel--the idea seems to be that if treats and sweet voices replace aversive training tools, the possibility of cruelty vanishes: only unconditional love and dogs' "desire to please" remains.

I haven't trained a dog. In fact, if I look back at the family dogs I've shared my life with, they desperately lacked training. I have, however, worked at a place that intended to train autistic children. This place was full-on R+. We were not allowed to use "limit-setting language" (this includes the word "no"); we were to rely upon "errorless learning", prizes and praises for good behavior; we were required to "ignore and redirect" bad behavior. Guess what? This was completely ineffective. I watched so many children's behavioral issues worsen over time. I watched children quite deliberately fuck with teachers, who the children knew were powerless to administer meaningful consequences. I watched children ignore and even seem angered by effusive "gooooooood job!"s.

Now I want to follow the path behaviorism took in its application to humans (mostly humans called autistic)...

As many know, Ivar Lovaas, the man who did much work to establish Applied Behavior Analysis as the "gold standard" of autism intervention, utilized aversive punishment. Take this 1974 interview excerpt:

"When we first started to treat autistic kids we began with only one child. I would pick up Beth at her parents’ house at 9:00 in the morning and I would drop her off at three, so we had her for about six hours a day, five days a week. You spend that much time with someone and you get to know them pretty well. In fact, I saw more of her than I did of my own children. Well, what happened was that she ceased to be a patient for me—she was simply a child, just like one of my own children.

Beth did very well in some ways; she learned very quickly. But she was also very self-destructive. One day I was talking with her teacher and Beth began hitting her head against the edge of a steel cabinet. She would only hit steel cabinets and she would only hit them on the edge because, you see, she wanted to draw blood. Well, I think because I knew her so well, I just reacted automatically, the way I would have with one of my own children. I just reached over and cracked her one right on the rear. She was a big fat girl so I had an easy target. And I remember her reaction: She turned around and looked at me as if to say, 'What the hell is going on? Is this a psychiatric clinic or isn’t it?' And she stopped hitting herself for about 30 seconds and then, you see, she sized up the situation, laid out her strategy and then she hit herself once more. But in those 30 seconds while she was laying out her strategy, Professor Lovaas was laying out his. At first I thought, 'God, what have I done,' but then I noticed that she had stopped hitting herself. I felt guilty, but I felt great. Then she hit herself again and I really laid it on her. You see, by then I knew that she could inhibit it, and that she would inhibit it if she knew I would hit her. So I let her know that there was no question in my mind that I was going to kill her if she hit herself once more, and that was pretty much it. She hit herself a few times after that, but we had the problem licked. One of the things that this taught me was that if you treat these kids like patients, you are finished. The best thing you can do is treat them like people."

To contemporary readers, *to contemporary ABA practitioners*, this is horrifying! This is abuse! And I am not a fan of Lovaas. But you know, today when I read this, I do hold a peculiar kind of respect for his relationship with Beth, and that is what I want to focus on, not Lovaas’s legacy. What stands out to me in the relationship between Lovaas and Beth, as Lovaas tells it, are two things lacking from contemporary ABA manuals. Firstly, there is an emphasis on the particular relationship between two particular people, Lovaas and Beth--"You spend that much time with someone and you get to know them pretty well. In fact, I saw more of her than I did of my own children. Well, what happened was that she ceased to be a patient for me", "Well, I think because I knew her so well, I just reacted automatically, the way I would have with one of my own children"--Lovaas is claiming Beth as "his", as "one of his own children". And Beth, too, clearly has a hold on Lovaas. Lovaas feels guilt, he questions whether he has made the right disciplinary decision (note that this consideration cannot enter the mind of a behaviorist who considers themselves incapable of discipline). Lovaas does not "ignore and redirect" her. Lovaas demonstrates to Beth a committed seriousness to the eradication of her violent behavior. He does not repeatedly read a social story about "Why I Need to Be Safe Around Countertops" in a syrupy sweet voice, nor give her a cookie when she stops hitting her head. In fact, he engages in violent discipline against her behavior! But I do think there might be a coherence to this discipline that is not there in strictly praise-laden practices. I think part of this has to do with Lovaas's second important deviance from contemporary ABA: the attribution of intention to Beth's actions. Good contemporary behaviorists would never ascribe the sort of devious intention Lovaas ascribes to Beth. It's extremely common to hear things such as "well, he/she can't help [behavior]", "he/she doesn't know any better". This attitude is generally considered kindness, whether applied to children or dogs. I disagree. I have seen the training/teaching rhetoric of "they don't know", "all they know is love" cause real damage to relationships. I believe that this strictly positive behaviorism harms humans and our animals, despite its very popularity depending upon a fantasy of "harmless" training/teaching. I am not saying that every human or animal will benefit from verbal and physical discipline. I am sure there are some who will not. We ought to lend more commitment to the specificity of a relationship than to a method. My point is that many of us seem to think that if we eliminate certain tools or words, the potential for cruelty will vanish from our relations. On the contrary: I have seen horrific cruelty in the "kindest" of practices, and I have seen cases where the clarity of disciplinary action would lend a coherence "kinder" than ignorance, a cookie, or a "GOOOOOD JOB!".

[scotianostra]

On July 9th 1947 Glasgow Zoo opened.

Established by the Zoological Society of Glasgow and West of Scotland, the zoo was located on the old Calderpark Estate in Baillieston.

During its peak, the zoo housed more than 600 animals and attracted around 140,000 visitors per year, but in the end, however, the organisation found itself running out of money, with its facilities falling into disrepair and the safety of its animals being called into question.

Bellahouston Park (to the south west of Glasgow city centre) was the first proposed site for the new Glasgow Zoo in 1938, but this was rejected by project funders.No suitable site within the city centre was found, and by 1939 the Zoological Society had purchased Calderpark Estate, around 10 miles from Glasgow.

Lions were a big draw for visitors to the zoo in the early days.

Because of World War Two, the zoo did not open until 1947, and many of its enclosures were built from war materials, such as concrete roadblocks and former air raid shelters.

Many of Glasgow Zoo's original animal residents were donated from other zoos and sanctuaries, including Soay sheep from St Kilda, and lions from Dublin and London.

Some visitors even brought along their own exotic pets to add to the zoo's collection, such as parrots and monkeys.

Interestingly, Glasgow Zoo was spread over 99 acres of land, compared to the longer lasting Edinburgh Zoo's 82 acres. In this space, the Glasgow wildlife park housed a range of mammals, birds, reptiles and farm animals. African lions, golden eagles, white rhinoceri, basking sharks, Indian peacocks, Capuchin monkeys, Asian black bears, several snakes and a polar bear were just some of the exotic animals that brought in many visitors over the years.

By the late 1990s, money had begun to dry up as visitor numbers dwindled and public funding tailed off.

To combat this, the zoo unsuccessfully attempted to sell off its unused land, as well as hiring out some of its animals - a move which was criticised by animal welfare campaigners. Animal rights groups became more interested in Glasgow Zoo, and a report from Advocates for Animals (now OneKind) made claims of animal cruelty and reported substantial annual losses.

At the time, Samantha Scott (an animal behaviourist at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies in Edinburgh), said that the zoo's white rhino showed "signs of possible stereotypic behaviour (circling), which is normally associated with difficulties in coping with captive life, or frustrated territorial patrolling."

Several break-ins saw the theft of two non-poisonous snakes and a parrot in 2002. Ultimately, Glasgow Zoo closed in August 2003 - earlier than planned, largely due to the organisation's large debts.

The zoo's animals were relocated, and claims from the Zoological Society that the space may re-open never came to fruition.

The old zoo site remained untouched for many years, and its enclosures and buildings were vandalised and burned, until the land was cleared to make way for new homes.

Today, there are very few reminders of Glasgow Zoo left, despite the large number of animals it once exhibited and high volume of visitors it once had.

Looking at the pictures I am not sure what to make of them, the conditions didn’t look appealing for the animals, nor visitors, but it is hard to get a handle on it.

[trash-egg-in-devildom]

Hi. I'm just another MC.

i'm Aubrey. however, you might know me as Aubrey Auzirose, the artistic phantom thief on Youtube that advocates against animal cruelty... although, in this blog, that won't be my identity at all.

i am currently fixating over the Japanese otome game "Obey Me: Shall we Date". as this game is very self-indulgent and encourages you to insert yourself in the story, i, of course, made an entirely separate blog where i can just rant, ramble and make art of my Experiences™ as the human exchange student of RAD. because i can, and because if i don't, my brain won't let it go.

some things!

🐏 i am an artist, a storyteller and am amateur singer-songwriter.

🐏 this blog will contain sketches (or, occasionally, art), personal headcannons for the characters, reblogs, and mostly self-indulgent fics. yes, a lot of those will include me as the MC.

🐏 i am a gyaru! agejo-rokku-old school, to be exact. i also mix in steampunk elements in both my work and daily life. although, i've only barely applied some agejo elements in this blog...

🐏 i am an adult. i may reblog some stuff that is sexual in content. unlike in my main blog, i don't want minors interacting at all.

🐏 i am a content creator on Youtube in my spare time lol. however, i don't post about obey me at all.

my MC!

here's a simple ref of my MC. i am not kidding when i say he's literally me, just slightly modified to fit the narrative.

🐏 i may look (and act) feminine, but i am, long story short, a guy. he/they/skull pronouns, please.

🐏 i am a solid mammon and asmodeus kisser through and through. although, i am a satan copinglink (kin for fun) as well. (yes, you can be concerned.)

🐏 i am Filipino, so some Filipino influences may seep in through whatever content i post here.

🐏 you think the HOL is a safer and much more controlled place when i'm around? nope! i contribute to the already-existing chaos. sorry, lucifer. i'd pay for your therapy, but mammon took all my money. (more on that on future posts.)

🐏 believe it or not, i am in the aroace spectrum... so expect way less spicy scenes and more vulnerable and emotional writing between me and the characters.

thank you for reading through this!

🐏 here's my main blog, where you can find more non-obey me-related stuff.

[ms-hells-bells]

why should humans be morally obligated to radically restructure their lives in order to promote animal welfare when we don't even require that for human welfare? do you ensure that *literally* everything you buy is slavery-free, or do you only care about exploitation if it's not of a human being?

fallacy. 'if you can't perfectly do something, you may as well not try at all and be as morally abhorrent as you want'. by that logic, because i can never live my life completely cruelty free, why not actively buy slave labour? why not engage in products from trafficking? why not go to the saudi fifa cup? why not buy blood diamonds? it would be easiest to do whatever i like and not care about anything else, right? and i'm sure it's much more expensive and troublesome for corporations to adhere to morals, how much have they paid to legally stay with the changed labour and safety and ethics laws implemented since the industrial revolution. child labour was way easier, you barely had to pay them!

not to mention radical feminism, not wearing makeup, not shaving, not dating horrible men, not using the word bitch, engaging in female separatism? WAY too hard, and way too much change, why should we have moral obligation to change our behaviours to benefit others? it's almost like this is a completely shit argument called moral psychopathy, and is so intellectually lazy and dishonest, that the second you apply it to any hypotheticals, it falls apart.

but if it for some reason matters to you, i only buy clothes and most other stuff second hand, i buy new zealand brand, ethically made house and care products (soaps, shampoos, moisturisers, sunscreen, toilet cleaner, room spray, dish soap, etc.), i don't buy unnecessary excess, i use devices until they break and fall apart (i still use a second hand ipad i was given back in 2015 for stuff, my laptop is second hand and falling apart, my phone was bought for me by my mother because i had no phone, and i will use nothing but it until it completely breaks in however many years), i don't drive, so i don't buy petrol and engage in oil issues, and i constantly advocate for others to do the same, and give people advice on how to do it. i vote, and petition for policies that help humans, i am anti climate change, which very much affects humans (and the number one cause is animal agriculture).

how much of that do you do? i'm guessing little to none of it, because you don't actually care about slaves and human rights, you just want to not feel bad about sitting on your ass and not putting your money where your mouth is.

[acti-veg]

Hi!

I'm a young vegan and I want to be a veterinarian one day. Is it wrong?

At least here, part of those studies is working in a slaughterhouse for a year, and I'm afraid of that, but I want to do something good for a living once I grow up. Is veterinary medicine not good?

I've also thought that maybe, just maybe, I could have an impact of some kind if I were a vet, so maybe we could reduce animal suffering. Am I just naive?

Thanks.

It is of course not wrong to want to do good by being a vet, the thing for you to decide is how much you're willing to do to get there. Most veterariny programs, at least ones for large mammals, involve some sort of farm work, and it's not just passive studying. This would be easier to justify if you'd then go into a field where you're directly saving animals from animal agriculture, but with veterinary work, unless you're working in animal liberation or in a sanctuary that just won't be the case.

The problem is that the entire profession is very much livestock-adjacent, most training programs have strong industry links, commercial ones too. Many involve farms, testing labs, slaughterhouses etc. and as you to physically take part in animal exploitation, often in real acts of cruelty.

That said, you could become something like a wildlife vet and help in conservation, take on a research role, become a vet who also advocates for animals etc. It's just not a profession that inherently involves reducing animal suffering or doing good for animals, and the paid roles that do involve that are few and far between.

I don't want to put you off with this, but I do want you to go into it with your eyes open and with realistic expectations. Ultimately it's up to you to weigh all of this, nobody can decide for you. It's a role you could genuinely do a lot of good in, but the way there is extremely difficult, financially, academically and morally - so you should think hard on that before you lock down your university choices.

Perhaps spend some time shadowing a current vet or volunteering in their practice? See if there are any summer programs available where you are? Speak to existing students at the university you'd look to apply to? Just do your research is what I'm saying, it's definitely not a decision to be taken lightly. I know I have a couple of followers with veterinary backgrounds, anyone want to volunteer as someone anon could message about this?

[abimee]

btw whenever i begin talking about hermes' characterization wrt animals and get on my own bit about them just know i am not vegan and i am not a person calling for the end of consuming meat/killing animals, the consumption of meat and other animals is intrinsic into our world, our diet and our ecosystem and the capitalistic standards on the meat industry are horrible and inhumane but purely the consumption of other animals by humans is not, and people hunting animals for any reason is not inherently inhumane. when i talk about respecting animals that includes the act of consuming them and caring for their population and the land they live on BY hunting and consuming them and i would never advocate for the end of hunting animals, especially not if it be for meat or pelt or for population control, just the end of animal cruelty in money-hungry slaughterhouses, the animal trade (especially exotic bird trade), mills, and in the disrespect and demonization of bugs and insects. when i talk about respecting animals it still includes the fact that we will hunt and consume many of them, but there is a difference between hunting a deer to eat it and killing a bees hive just because they decided to make your front yard their home instead of somewhere you cant see them

[shinobirain24]

Young Justice Mini Series - Episode 8 - Protest

Robin, Kid Flash and Superboy are protesting in front of LexCorp cause of the fact, not because he's a super villain behind his charisma and devilish mask, but because of the illegal experiments on animals he had held captive. Which also included Wolf, the Team's current mascot.

Lois Lane is reporting in front of the scene.

"This is Lois Lane reporting live from Daily Planet. We're getting anonymous tips of the suspected "animal cruelty" of the uses of venom on animals. And we are now seeing Robin, Kid Flash, and the third suspected to be called Superboy we're protesting against LexCorp with the demands to be shut down for good. And now for the close up."

The camera zooms with Robin holding the megaphone as part of the protest. "Hey-hey! Ho-ho! LexCorp has got to go! Hey-hey! Ho-ho! LexCorp has got to go!"

"LexCorp has been using animals as test subjects and hurt them badly! Don't you guys care for the lives in the wild?! Take Biology!" Kid Flash adds as he also speaks through the megaphone and Superboy silently holds the sign that says, "Serves you right, Luthor!!"

More protestors joined in on the cause against corrupted politicians. "Dude! The crowd loves us!" Kid Flash said.

"I don't care if we're grounded or not." Robin adds. "This is actually great!"

"Okay, as much as I hated Lex. I am getting the feeling this is wrong." Superboy interjects.

"Oh, come on! You do realized he was one of the few conspirators to had Wolf injected with venom." Robin replied. As the crowd, some that are animal rights advocates kept shouting.

Lex and his sister/assistant, Lena were watching from the window, displeased for what was happening. "I cannot believe those children were going to pull off this palooza nonsense."

"If this keeps up, brother, it's on you." Lena abruptly gives her clipboard to Lex and leaves in disgust, leaving her brother deadpan.

[infiniterichesinalittleroom]

Governments are concerned with animals only economically, and we have people such as Princess Anne advocating eating horses and gassing badgers. Why doesn’t she gas herself? That would provide a bit of extra space in the countryside. PETA and Sea Shepherd in particular are changing and saving the world. There’s so much stupidity to fight against, and I despair of societies that produce people who are willing to work in abattoirs. How are these people made? No CBEs or OBEs for animal protectionists, of course, but many for fox-hunters such as Bryan Ferry and PJ Harvey. I am absolutely sick to death of animal cruelty, and I won’t shut up about it. Tt would be a great help if Princess Anne gassed Jamie Oliver. He’s killed more animals than McDonald’s.

MORRISSEY

[agoddamnedrayofsunshine]

Might delete this later because I'm just getting this off my chest but.

DISCLAIMER: I am not telling anyone to go vegan here. I'm not anybody's boss, these are my personal thoughts and mine alone. If you don't wanna go vegan, don't.

I've got no beef (pun intended) with any non-vegan so please don't come at me with your pitchforks and torches, I ain't gonna throw fake blood on grandma's fur coat.

I'm also not saying that any vegan clothing is inherently cruelty free just because no animal was involved. Human suffering in the clothing industry is a massive problem that I hate.

I know Tumblr has this huge irrational hate boner for vegans, but these posts about "vegans need to advocate for wool/honey/whatever non vegan thing" need to stop. Like seriously, you aren't giving us some sort of gotcha we haven't heard before.

Like no. There are options for clothing other than wool or leather that are not microplastics. The vegans that abstain from wool don't just coat themselves in it.

So no. Vegans are not going to suddenly advocate for not-vegan food or clothing materials just because some of the alternatives are plastic. You can HAVE both non-plastic and non-animal clothes. Many vegans (myself included) also have no issue with heirloom or secondhand animal product clothing because it's not like it's new material. It's already here. Use it up.

I won't pretend I have all the answers either, and I'm honestly not looking to debate anyone because the choice of using animal products or not is yours. But FFS, it is insulting to say vegans need to advocate for something that explicitly goes against our beliefs just because you think we should.

/steps off soapbox

Kthxbye

[cowboymeemaw]

Your post in the vegan tag showed up in my feed, and I did want to respond to what you wrote. I do mean to write this in good-faith, and I am not trying to make you feel judged, because I know that this is a complex subject.

It’s clear that you care deeply about the animals you raise and that you believe in providing them with a good life. However, it’s important to recognize that the central motivation for animal farming, like any form of animal commodification, is profit and or to benefit the farmer. This places the interests of animals second to financial considerations or personal advantage, leading to situations where animals are bred, used, and ultimately killed; not for any benefit to them, but to benefit humans. These actions highlight a fundamental conflict between the welfare of the animals and the demands of animal agriculture. Animals are sentient individuals who are capable of suffering, and to deliberately cause harm to others or to take someone's life is not a considerate way of treating them.

There are many people who have worked in animal agriculture who have experienced a change of heart upon truly giving consideration to the realities of the practices to animals they are witnessing. The practices standard in the industry cause significant distress and suffering to the animals involved, which challenges the notion of a completely "happy" or "stress-free" life for farm animals. I would recommend looking up Susana Romatz who has written about going from working on a dairy goat farm to becoming vegan and advocating for plant-based alternatives. People like Susana illustrate a growing awareness and rejection of the cognitive dissonance inherent in raising animals for consumption.

This is the definition of veganism by The Vegan Society :

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Taking the time to learn about and understand veganism and the reasons behind it requires grappling with the difficult truths about animal agriculture. It's not just about personal choice or diet; it's deeply tied to ethical concerns about animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and questioning societal norms around using animals. Engaging with these perspectives might not change your view overnight, but it can broaden the conversation around human-animal relationships, ethics, and the impact of our choices on the world around us.

Thank you for such a respectful response.

I do not ultimately believe I will change my viewpoint on what I do, but I am definitely willing to explore other viewpoints any information on these things. I wasn't going to respond to this at first, thinking of just taking in what you said and leaving it at that.

But I decided to in the chance someone else would like to learn about this information.

As of now in my life, as a farmer who raises these animals. I fail to make a profit off of it. Over the years I've spent thousands on my animals welfare. Feed medication, physical therapy, hoof trimming, vet appointments. I never really intended on making a profit if I'm gonna be honest. My true goal in all of this, other than keeping my family tradition alive and being in love with Agricultural, is to create a farm that can raise healthy and happy animals before slaughter.

You probably don't understand the slaughter aspect, and I understand you don't. I can hold respect for you for coming into my page and holding a conversation that didn't start as angry and argumentative. I will say my response may not be as detailed as one wanted, and I'm truly open to any more questions and comments as anyone nah want.

[kaosuqi]

treat animals like other humans.

the lack of empathy people have toward other animals is absolutely disgusting. they have feelings just like us. fear helps them survive, relaxation lets them enjoy moments of safety. they are smart when in their element, this is why they're still around. THEY FEEL PAIN for god's sake. how is that not enough for people to care?

as living beings we organisms are all programmed to not want to be hurt. to not want to die. but sure, let the only species capable of having empathy for every other life form be the one that does the most harm. scientific and medicinal progress from animal testing was not worth the torture and death that these creatures, who experience their surroundings just like us, went through. quality of life shouldn't come at the cost of life.

and the thing is most people don't care. i can go on about animal cruelty to dogs, cats, monkeys, mice, and people will agree with me. but what about when i start talking about the spider in your house? what about wasps who made a nest near a park, fish stabbed in their mouths for our fun, a mosquito whizzing around your head, roaches infesting your house? they are no different in the ways i described than mammals are. to us, they're stupid or pests or both. but how can you blame them? we are the ones that can empathize with them, they don't know better. you wouldn't kill a baby because it annoys you. you wouldn't poison hundreds of hungry children for bothering you and eating your food. what makes these animals any different? they're SMALL?

i compare animals to infants because at least an adult human could know not to bother someone or defend themselves in an attack. most animals we harm don't do either.

they're not like us. they're different, unfamiliar, disgusting, LESSER. if that sounds like the mindset behind racism, xenophobia, ableism, or queerphobia, it's because it is. it's just pushed to a point far enough away that it's socially acceptable. they come from the same thing.

animals can be a threat, there's no arguing that. i am not advocating for harm to stop befalling animals, i am advocating that people treat non-humans with the same levels of empathy that they would another human, IF NOT MORE. we are able to, we know better, and we they are just like us.

for anyone making the argument that we're more advanced and, thus better, that has no logical basis. humans weren't always as technologically advanced as we are today, and many still aren't. besides, we care about plenty of mammals who are far less advanced and intelligent than ants or termites.

if you are okay with animals so different from us being hurt and killed for reasons that lightly or heavily benefit us, you're a bigot.

[harmonyhealinghub]

Keeping Up with My New Year's Resolutions: Donating to Inspire Change

Shaina Tranquilino

February 11, 2024

As the new year unfolds, many of us embark on a journey of self-improvement and personal growth through our New Year's resolutions. In 2024, one resolution stands out on my list, aiming to make a difference by donating to a different organization every month. With February already in full swing, I am thrilled to share my experience of fulfilling my second monthly donation goal by contributing to the Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). Time is slipping away quickly, but so far, this resolution has been an incredibly rewarding endeavour.

Why Donate?

Donating to charitable organizations can have a profound impact on both the recipients and ourselves. It allows us to extend our compassion beyond our immediate circle and contribute to causes that resonate with our values. By supporting these organizations financially, we help them continue their crucial work, address pressing issues, and create positive change within society.

Choosing the Saskatchewan SPCA:

For February's donation, I decided to support the Saskatchewan SPCA—a remarkable organization dedicated to preventing cruelty towards animals across the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The SSPCA's mission resonated deeply with me as they strive to protect vulnerable animals from abuse, neglect, and abandonment while promoting responsible pet ownership and fostering animal welfare awareness within local communities.

The Donation Process:

Making a contribution was hassle-free thanks to SSPCA's user-friendly website or through Facebook. They provided various options for giving donations online securely. After conducting thorough research about their initiatives and ensuring transparency in their operations, I proceeded with making my donation.

The Experience:

Beyond the satisfaction that comes from helping an important cause, donating provides an opportunity for personal growth and education. The process allowed me to dive deeper into understanding animal rights issues prevalent in today's world – raising awareness not only within myself but also among friends and family.

Moreover, engaging with the SSPCA's social media platforms and newsletters has been a delightful experience. Their updates provide insights into their ongoing projects, success stories, and heartwarming tales of animals finding forever homes. This continuous connection with the organization helps me stay connected to the cause, reminding me of the importance of my monthly resolution.

The Impact:

Though it may seem like a small contribution amidst numerous other generous donations received by organizations such as the SSPCA, every dollar counts. By encouraging others to join in this effort, we create a collective force for good, amplifying our impact beyond what any individual could achieve alone.

As February is already here, I am grateful to have successfully completed my second donation goal for the year. The Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is an incredible organization that tirelessly advocates for animal welfare across Saskatchewan. Through my monthly resolutions to donate to various causes throughout 2024, I aim to inspire positive change not only within myself but also within society.

Remember, it's never too late to make a difference. Whether through financial contributions or volunteering your time and skills, there are countless ways to support organizations working towards creating a better world. So let's keep up the momentum together and continue striving towards making a lasting impact on the causes we hold dear.

[trialbystory]

Alright so in the latest SoC we see a couple charities get named dropped. Now the ASPCA (or RSPCA in-universe) is probably at least somewhat known of by most people; it advocates for animals and generallytries to prevent animal abuse & cruelty. But Child's Play might be a bit more niche so I wanted to give it a quick shout-out over here. Child's Play is an organization that provides toys, games, books, and recreational technology to children's hospitals and domestic abuse shelters. The goal is to make life at least a bit brighter for kids that are in, put frankly, shitty situations. They don't deal in treatment or research or the like--there are other more qualified organizations working on that--they provide escapism.

Which sounds kind of lesser in comparison, but it absolutely is important. In the video below someone who lived through being a child stuck in a medical facility tells her story. And I highly recommend watching the whole thing but the core moment is this: When she she was stuck not being to go out or have fun or be normal, she was given the chance to play video games in her hospital room. And for those moments, she actually got to be a kid again.

I don't have a personal stake or sob story about why Child's Play is important to me. But I am, and have always been, a firm believer in the power and importance of escapism. And frankly the people who need it most are the people Child's Play are trying to help, which is why they are my personal go-to non-profit.

None of that is really necessary to read the current arc in my dumb little fanfic, but I wanted to take the chance to spread the word.

[oklahomapartisan]

Sen. Frank Shurden Revealed To Be Gamecock In Disguise!

From the archives of Oklahoma’s great political satire writers of decades past, we bring you this classic reprint of a spoof that caused more than a little irritation to the political class on Lincoln Blvd.

“Holy cockboxing!” scream surprised lawmakers 

“Bow before your chicken overlords!” warns longtime gamefowl advocate

 By Robert Williams, Partisan Staff Writer 

  In a shocking twist on the Senate Floor, Sen. Frank Shurden, D-Henryetta, tore off his mask to reveal he was really an Oklahoma gamecock in disguise. “And so the invasion begins!” shrieked Shurden. Shurden has been a vocal opponent of a recent state law banning cockfighting. Approved overwhelmingly in a statewide election, the vote pitted urban opponents of animal cruelty against rural economic development. Following the ban, Shurden lobbied in favor of lowering the penalties and reducing the crime to a misdemeanor. Following the failure of that legislation, he crusaded to legalize “cockboxing,” where the animals would fight using tiny boxing gloves. That legislation died in a Senate committee when members realized that chickens don’t have hands.

   Some have wondered why the senator would work so hard on behalf of the industry, but the pieces began to follow into place when it was discovered that “Sen. Frank Shurden” is actually an unemployed gamecock named Rooster McGee. The outing of Shurden/McGee disrupted normal Senate operations and pandering, and several entourages were left unescorted to the floor.

 Frank Shurden, D-Henrietta

“The gentleman from Henryetta is recognized to be a chicken,” 

said Senate Floor Leader Jay Paul Gumm.

 “I am the cockfight king!” 

screamed McGee. 

  Sen. Angela Monson, D-Oklahoma City, was briefly endangered when McGee lashed out with his feet, each talon equipped with razor-sharp knives. The fowl lawmaker was wrestled to the ground through the bipartisan cooperation of Sen. Johnnie Crutchfield, D-Ardmore, and Senate Republican Leader Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City.

   In the days since the dramatic unveiling, Partisan researchers have begun to uncover the strange history of Francis Shurden Rooster McGee. McGee was born in 1971, the Sooner-born offspring of a South Carolina gamecock. A rising force in the local circuit, McGee’s star was just beginning to rise as the animal rights movement began to pick up speed. 

  Following a nearly fatal injury in the ring that ended a promising career, McGee retired and set his sights on the political stage. Teaching himself to speak English, he worked briefly as a lobbyist before deciding to take matters into his own wings. “Frank Shurden” was first elected to the state House in 1978, disguised as a human in order to run. (State campaign laws do not recognize poultry or third parties). 

  In a press conference following the session, McGee announced that the gamecock revolution was nigh, and soon hordes of angry chickens would surround the Capitol. State Attorney General Drew Edmondson announced he would sue McGee for illegal deposits of chicken litter, but the Oklahoma Farm Bureau is lobbying for him to dismiss the suit.