animal act

Everyone has a dragon that they are paired with, a spirit animal, almost. They act as one, think and live together, are the best of friends… Except you. You hate yours, hate all dragons. And nobody understands why.

tea asks
  • black: how much personal space do you like?
  • chamomile: describe your sleep schedule
  • dandelion: when you make wishes who are they for?
  • elderflower: do you get sick often?
  • fennel: how do you feel right now?
  • ginger: what animal do you act like?
  • ginseng: post a photo of somewhere you feel calm
  • green: list your top 3 motivators
  • hibiscus: do you like when people try to start a conversation with you?
  • kava: post your favorite color scheme
  • lavender: does physical activity help you relax?
  • lemon: how differently do you behave when you're by yourself versus when you're with others?
  • matcha: do you prefer sunrises or sunsets?
  • mint: what song gives you energy?
  • nettle: is there anything you do when you feel guilty?
  • oolong: where do you see yourself in five years?
  • peppermint: are you self righteous?
  • rooibos: if a conversation bothers you, will you speak up about it?
  • white: do you think family is important?
Important things in Moana:
  • Moana is an awesome princess and one of the few characters that I got attached to at the start
  • The breathtaking scenery
  • Dwayne Johnson voices Maui
  • Heihei, who provided animal comedy relief without acting like a dog
  • Mini Maui, who was also a very funny character
  • Pua, who should’ve came with Moana on her journey
  • Grandma Tala
  • The way the ocean is personified
  • The scene that’s basically a huge Mad Max: Fury Road reference
  • The sadistic glam crab from hell that references David Bowie
  • The plot twist with the Lava Monster
  • The fact that Maui and Moana don’t become a couple
  • The soundtrack which is a million times better than Frozen’s
  • Moana is and always will be a much better movie than Frozen IMO
  • Basically nearly everything
  • I would gladly pay to see this movie again

anonymous asked:

Hi Dr. Ferox. I have a question in regard to the ethics of the procedures declawing/ear cropping. A veterinarian I worked with explained to me that she will declaw a cat because she fears that if she does not do it herself, the owner will find a way to have it done, and that way may not be through a licensed veterinarian. Do you think denying people such a "service" may lead to the animal being harmed by unlicensed people attempting to do it themselves? What can be done about this? Thank you.

I seriously hope there isn’t some layperson going around chopping off the last bone of a cat’s toes because a veterinarian declined to do it. If that is happening, both the owner seeking the procedure and the non-veterinarian should be heavily prosecuted for animal cruelty and performing acts of veterinary medicine without a license.

Originally posted by softly-satanic

Some vets will reluctantly agree to perform declawing of cats as a last resort because they feel that they understand just how much pain the cat will be in and use a higher quality analgesia protocol than another vet might. They feel that if it’s going to be done somewhere, it might as well be done by them with practiced surgical technique and the best quality pain relief available.

They may also believe that the cat will be rehomed, abandoned or euthanised due to not being declawed, and that therefore performing the procedure effectively saves the cat’s life. I think this belief is false, as the procedure is illegal here in Australia with no difference in the oversupply of cats. If someone is going to surrender their cat, they will do so. If they don’t have the surgical declawing option, which they perceive as an ‘easy’ solution, they are more likely to pursue a better compromise like soft paws or regular nail trimming.

Ear cropping is a little different in that it is a 100% cosmetic procedure with zero medical benefit for the dog. It’s only done for human aesthetics because somewhere along the line dog breeders decided that surgically altering a dog’s ears to the desired shape was easier than breeding them that way. It should be banned and universally condemned. If you want a breed with straight ears, then breed them to have straight ears. No breed should require surgery to ‘look right’.

Cat declawing, dog ear cropping and dog tail cropping are banned in Australia without a specific medical intervention, as it should be. Dog breeds that were traditionally docked and cropped have had no downturn in popularity, no increase in injury, and more and more breed clubs have banned surgically altered dogs from being shown. These are steps in the right direction.

If somebody attempts to dock tails or crop ears at home, they can be prosecuted for animal cruelty and I have had no hesitation in reporting them in the past. When I graduated the ban had only just come into effect, and many old school ‘breed enthusiasts’ were moaning about it. They complained that 'young vets these days didn’t really understand dogs’ and similar such nonsense. They’ve had to get over it, and dogs get to keep their natural ears and tails as a result. Interestingly, Rottweilers in general seem much more confident with tails.

As veterinarians we are supposed to promote good animal welfare. That’s what started us on this path, right? Most (all?) professional veterinary associations condemn declawing, ear cropping and tail docking.

If we don’t decline to do unnecessary cosmetic surgery, then public opinion will never change, and the demand will never lessen. We owe it to the countless future dogs and cats yet to be born to speak out against these practices. This it why even if they were legal down here, I would personally refuse to do them.

(As a side note, desexing is entirely different. Desexing has a proven medical and social benefit, and is only soft tissue surgery compared to a partial amputation or cutting away cartilage. Far less pain, far more benefits.)

Elephants in Thailand are abused to make paintings

I was looking through Youtube and saw one of those painting elephant videos. Pretty amazing right? The ability to depict an abstract yet recognizable form is something only humans have been able to do. Seeing this for the first time makes people think wow! elephants are so smart and creative, they’re just like people etc etc. It’s feel-good fun for the whole family, there’s no way this can be malicious, it’s not like people abuse animals for their own entertainment or anything….

But, people do abuse animals for profit and it’s no different here. The people who run these shows can sell the paintings for hundreds of dollars each. This kind of shit goes on all the time in developing countries. Scamming rich fucks out of their money is fine and Good but absolutely not at the cost of the abuse of these extremely intelligent incredible animals.

The elephants don’t know what they’re painting. They’re broken, abused, and directed by their trainers during their performance to move the brush in a memorized pattern. In the video I linked you can see the trainer hiding themselves behind the elephants legs. When they’re not giving them a fresh brush, the trainer pulls on Suda’s ear to indicate what kinds of strokes they should use. Making an elephant obedient like this is a horrific process. 

This is the shit they do to circus elephants to make them complacent. They did this to the painter elephants as well. (TW: animal abuse)

I just wanted to inform people of this because I couldn’t really find any easily find-able information like this in the related videos column to these. There are quite a few articles about this easily accessible from a google search but if someone just browsing through youtube might not think to find it.

  • Cinder: So, Kai is the man I've been seeing recently.
  • Kai: ...Why are they looking at me like I'm a zoo animal?
  • Thorne: Well, Cinder acts as sort of the dad of the group, so emotionally, this is kind of like being told that you're our new mom.
  • Kai: But you know it's nothing like that, right?
  • Thorne: Absolutely. Do you cook macaroni?
  • Rhysand: So, Feyre is the woman I've been seeing recently.
  • Feyre: ...Why are they looking at me like I'm a zoo animal?
  • Mor: Well, Rhysand acts as sort of the dad of the group, so emotionally, this is kind of like being told that you're our new mom.
  • Feyre: But you know it's nothing like that, right?
  • Mor: Absolutely. Do you cook macaroni?
MBTI Writers

ISTJ: Writes clearly and directly. Has a surprising amount of imagination and creativity but never takes leave of logic.

ISFJ: Love stories. With cute, happy endings and at least one adorable animal. (Probably considers briefly acting out their psychopathic tendencies on their characters but then decides against it for the sake of their readers.)

ESTJ: Writes the rule book. Plain and simple and easy to understand and indisputable. Or maybe a self biography on how they became a millionaire at twenty-two years of age and a multi billionaire at thirty.

ESFJ: They write a charming cook book. Or a charming guide to home decor. Or a charming book about entertaining guests. 

ISTP: Avoids writing, if at all possible. “Why sit there and write about doing something when I can just go out there and do it in half the time?” They might write a manual on fixing something or other. But probably not. 

ISFP: Keeps a plant journal in which they sketch odd plants they find and describe what they are like, where they can find them, and why they are nice. Has a similar journal for birds. And for clouds. Or something. All worn leather bound.

ESTP: Don’t let this one fool you. They keep a diary. And they write in it every. Single. Day.

ESFP: They don’t write. Not for very long, at least. They might try their hand at a short story, on a whim, but it is abandoned as quickly as it was picked up. 

INFP: ALL THE FANTASY. With lovely prose and a dreamy, imaginative style. Their books are well received. If and when they ever finish them. 

INFJ: Writes best sellers. They perfectly capture matters of the heart and mind and create something absolutely breathtaking. But they are their own worst critic. And it takes its toll.

ENFP: They write dramatic and suspenseful first chapters. And then they forget all about it, never to be continued. 

ENFJ: Self-help books mostly. Or something with the purpose of making a change in society. To make the world a better place. 

INTP: They might also write fantasy. Maybe. But maybe they write tech books with language that only another INTP can understand and everyone else is left scratching their heads at the textbook. 

INTJ: Some of them write how-to books on conquering the world or analyses of influential leaders in history. But then there the INTJs who write poetic-like pieces that are at once to-the-point and elegant in style. 

ENTP: Trolls the readers. Probably psychological thrillers. These are the ones that run from their publishers. 

ENTJ: When they are not too busy ruling the universe, they write about their plans to further the scope of their power. 

  • Gansey: So, Blue is the woman I've been seeing recently.
  • Blue: ...Why are they looking at me like I'm a zoo animal?
  • Noah: Well, Gansey acts as sort of the dad of the group, so emotionally, this is kind of like being told that you're our new mom.
  • Blue: But you know it's nothing like that, right?
  • Noah: Absolutely. Do you cook macaroni?

This famous image of what many think is the Lake Worth Monster was snapped in 1969 by Allen Plaster. Goatman sightings during the summer of 1969 were rampant in the area, some locals saying that the creature was scratching cars and even jumping onto the roof of one vehicle. Looking back at the photos now, Plaster believes what he captured on film was merely teenage hi-jinks. 

He was quoted as saying “Whatever it was, it wanted to be seen. That was a prank. That was somebody out there waiting for people to drive by. I don’t think an animal would have acted that way.”

“In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a bill conceived of and advanced by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-sponsored conservative think tank and lobbying group that champions pro-"free market” legislation. The new law criminalizes actions aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise,” including First Amendment activity such as pickets and boycotts. The legislation was crafted explicitly to empower law enforcement to squelch hitherto legal, above-ground animal rights advocacy, after a group of activists called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty nearly shut down an infamous multinational animal testing corporation through purely legal means. Activists charge SHAC’s target, Huntingdon Life Sciences, with killing hundreds of animals a day through their toxicity testing business, which involves practices such as injecting puppies with pesticides. Undercover footage has shown Huntingdon technicians punching beagle puppies in the face and dissecting a live, conscious monkey. Under the AETA’s predecessor, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, six SHAC activists were convicted as terrorists for posting publicly available information on a website. They were sentenced to a combined 23 years in prison. The new law was created because the animal enterprise lobbies felt that those penalties did not go far enough.

This year, laws were passed in Iowa and Utah that make it a crime to take a job at a factory farm for the purpose of shooting clandestine video footage of animal abuse. As with the AETA, these laws were a direct response to the success of an animal advocacy group using legal means to expose industrial cruelty – in this case an undercover video by Mercy For Animals. The FBI has already recommended prosecuting undercover investigators under the AETA as terrorists.“

Just in case you still believe these people have nothing to hide.