animals in human situations

genesisdoes  asked:

@ the bi animals post, in reply to "why animals don’t have gender and cannot be trans and why it’s inaccurate to attempt to apply those concepts to non-humans." - I agree animals couldn't truly be trans, but outside of situations involving the animal's anatomy I don't think that say, deciding your cat was "trans" and referring to it with "he" pronouns when it's a female is really more harmful than gendering it as if it were a cis girl. just the other side of the no concept of gender coin, right?

From a social perspective, yeah, I guess. Since we don’t know if animals have any concept of gender, then you’re right, it would be about as equally inaccurate to call your cat ‘he’ instead of ‘she’. 

However, the animal science world uses gendered pronouns to denote physical sex in an animal, because that is how efficient and accurate communication about the animal is ensured. This means that at the vet’s, it would be harmful to insist on different pronouns for the animal because they would confuse the staff and potentially lead to your animal to being diagnosed or treated slower as the staff tries to accomodate you. Don’t do that. Being a vet is stressful enough without having to switch out of a scientific lexicon that you’ve been trained in for a decade. 

At which point, what you’d need to do to make it not harmful to your cat is to make sure that your vet knows that your animals is still an owner of a uterus and associated other organs. It’s also important to accept that the animal would be labeled with the pronouns associated with those parts in the veterinary record, and the vet would probably refer to the cat by those pronouns. 

anonymous asked:

Listen, i'm fat myself and the exaggeration of the panda village is because they're pandas? Thats who and what they are they're lazy and fat and eat a lot and its not being fatphobic to accentuate that characterization when its relevant to the plot also jack black (po) is fat himself? And his character usually makes the fatphobic jokes in a self deprecating manner? Sometimes yall reach tooo much

Originally posted by yourreactiongifs

Really?

So by your same logic the pig characters on Sing have nothing to do with fatness?
They are a characterization. Pandas or pigs, they are animals with human features meant to describe human things and situations. A symbolism of fatness.

Yes, Jack Black or Gabriel Iglesias being fat can reclaim fatness on their comedy. That is not mutually exclusive with perpetuating fat stereotypes. Which they do. 

Kung Fu Panda has no underlying positive message for fat people. Po is a walking fat stereotype. He suddenly becomes amazing in a deus ex machina plot twist

He didn’t work for it, he never had it before. He just suddenly started having a super power that is solely based on his weight, using his fatness as attacks and techniques (another old fat trope of fat characters in media and video games that we talked about before)
Could this be meant as a symbolism of coming to terms with being fat so no one can hurt you for it? If that was the intention, it wasn’t clear, nor it is mentioned. 
There is no positive message. Just “if you are fat you are all these stereotypes, you are a walking joke, and maybe one day you’ll wake up being a super Kung Fu master, but if that doesn’t happen… well, sucks to be you.”

The Panda village is not a depiction of pandas. It is a symbolism of fat humans through the behavior of pandas that are equated to those of fat humans. And obviously their main theme and common feature is fatness. 

Before accusing us of outreaching just because we dared to speak up against something you like, I would recommend you to start analyzing the things you ship a little better. Because you are clearly under reaching. 

We are not here to cater to any show or any fandom. We are here to call out fatphobia wherever it is. 

- mod Guillermo

“actually cheek meats are generally considered to be some of the most tender and scrumptious parts of many animals” - @edgeprole


yah but on humans though? huh. i mean hell, if the situation presents itself i’m a pretty open-minded girl, but i’m not gonna go out of my way to do it or anything

I think it’s pretty ignorant to say that sharks or tigers or wolves or (insert vicious species here) are the most dangerous animals on earth. The reality of the situation is we, human beings, are the world’s most dangerous animals. Humans are capable of unflinching murder simply because of dissimilarities like race, beliefs, or nationality. That scares me.

sarahblogsaboutstuff  asked:

For me, my feminist beliefs are inherently linked to my veganism. For example, I'm pro-choice. I don't believe a woman should be forced to be pregnant against her will. Therefore, I abstain from dairy because I don't believe cows should be forced to be pregnant against their will.

dont anthropomorphize animals. dont oversimplify the situation. gender relationships and interactions in the human world are far different from those of the animal world.

Dear Non-vegans

I’ll try to explain to you the “extreme” views of a vegan, in words you can understand or relate to.

You know the way you feel about a dog being abused? We feel this about all animals. (replace dog with cat, dolphin or any other non-human animal you are morally outraged at seeing harmed)
You will say dog abusers “deserve a bullet”, that people in Asian countries are “monsters” for eating dogs, then you’ll sit down to eat your ham sandwich. You’ll yell at a vegan for not respecting your opinions when we point out it’s wrong to harm other non-human animals. But do you respect the dog abusers “personal choice”? 
You’ll scream personal choice, while the victims in this situation (the non-human animals you eat/pay to have exploited) are the ones who never get one.
You say that “they taste good” as if that is an acceptable reason to murder someone? I’m sure a cannibal thinks you taste good, and hey look you are free range too! 

You’ll “politely” ask us if it’s alright to order a dead animal at a meal, as if your tastebuds are more important than an animals life and my fucking comfort. You may see a meat patty, I see a tortured baby who had their lives stolen because you refuse to eat something else? 
Here’s the thing: how can i give you permission to do that? you know I can’t, but I look like the asshole for saying no. 
My idea of fun is not watching a group of humans devour dead bodies (what is this a zombie party) making jokes at MY expense (like i’m the weirdo for not liking rotting flesh) and getting stuck eating a fucking salad because you twats are unable to think up any other meal that doesn’t involve murdered non-human animals.

If a vegans views ever seem “extreme”, remember this little tip: replace the victim animal with your cat or dog, who’s the extreme one now?
Is it really that “extreme” to think animals deserve to live without harm, or is it extreme to think my tastebuds outweigh their life? 
If you have some empathy for the animals, really try to put yourself in their place, who is the extreme one? because i can guarantee it is not the vegan. 

culturedprawn77  asked:

How does eating meat creat violence if we are biologically programmed to be able to chew, eat, and digest meat. It's natural, honestly if people want to be vegan go ahead. But that's not the only way to have a safe and free world. Also you claimed it would be stable. Are you joking? Cutting out meat would destroy the only food source for millions. If you are ok with there death fine, but most people are not.

Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” and therefore morally neutral because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with ample access to plant-based foods choose to consume animals anyway because they can, or because they like the taste they are not killing from necessity, as animals (and some humans in crisis or subsistence situations) do. Whether we’re talking about a lion taking down a water buffalo, or a human in some remote or impoverished location with no alternative to eating animals: these are acts of survival, and do not equate to, nor justify, the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals for profit and pleasure.

Farmed animals are individuals with distinct personalities and emotions, just like our own cats and dogs. They feel affection, they form deep friendships, they long to be safe and happy, and to be free from fear and pain. Most of all, they share in common with us the desire to go on living. When we have access to plant-based foods, and understand that we have no need to consume animal products, then the question of eating animals really comes down to this basic question: when able to freely choose, would you rather help an animal, or harm one? If you believe it is better to help than to harm, then veganism is the only consistent expression of your values.

We can just ask ourselves why do we call us “carnivores” if we don’t eat meat uncooked and unseasoned or let’s say in it’s natural way, the way how real carnivores eat meat. There is nothing natural in breeding animals so we can pay others to slit their throats, many people will refuse to eat meat if they would have to kill the animals themselves, to take out all the entrails which btw carnivores actually eat them. Also, our entire body is closest to a herbivore rather than to a carnivore. 

We have been eating meat for years, but that doesn’t make it right, just as racism has existed for a long long time, but it doesn’t make it right, or sexism, or any other kind of oppression.

“Also you claimed it would be stable. Are you joking? Cutting out meat would destroy the only food source for millions. If you are ok with there death fine, but most people are not.”  

Leading government and public health organizations worldwide now acknowledge that a plant-based (vegan) diet is not only a viable option for people of any age, but that eating plant foods instead of animal-based foods can confer significant health benefits, including reduction in incidence of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, and some types of cancer.

American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the U.S.’s oldest, largest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition, also recognized that humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animals products: “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” 

A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said.

For more information, see the full article, Catching Up With Science: Burying the “Humans Need Meat” Argument.

moebiusbackbone  asked:

Hi! I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the movie Blackfish and the captive whale debacle in general?

Blackfish gives me an uncomfortable feeling… not because of the subject matter, but because it is a “documentary.” While they may have a point, many films in this vein rely on sensationalizing the truth for *dum dum dummmm* DRAMA. They often have a very specific message in mind and have no problem using outdated footage / material, cutting interviews, and ignoring opposing viewpoints in order to show that their view is the correct view. 

I would much rather prefer to watch a dry, fully sourced, scientific documentary that shows BOTH SIDES about a topic (especially in regards to animal welfare), and allows the audience to come to their own conclusion…  but that doesn’t really get general audiences interested.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I saw the question you answered about how humans are actually closer to herbivores than carnivores.... You cited our intestines and the way we sweat but did you happen to notice your own fuckin teeth, our teeth can't be disputed they're made for meat

  • Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You A Meat-Eater: 

Not only do most mammals, including herbivores, have canine teeth; but the largest canine teeth of any land mammal belong to a true herbivore: the hippopotamus. Hippos are extremely territorial and aggressive; their sword-like canines, which can reach a terrifying sixteen inches in length, are used for combat and play no role in feeding. The hippo’s diet consists of grass, on which it grazes at dusk. 

Gorillas are almost exclusively herbivorous. Mountain gorillas prefer a diet of foliage — leaves, stems, pith, and shoots — and a small amount of fruit. Lowland gorillas also eat leaves and pith, but they eat more fruits, and, occasionally, tiny ants or termites. Gorillas’ giant canines have nothing to do with eating meat. 

  • Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You A Meat-Eater: Comparative Anatomy

In her new book, Mind If I Order The Cheeseburger?, Sherry F. Colb discusses the comparative anatomy of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores. “[M]ammalian carnivores and omnivores share a number of physical attributes that make them well suited for killing and tearing apart their prey. They have a wide mouth opening, relative to head size; a simple jaw joint that operates as a stable hinge for effective slicing but which is ill-suited to side-to-side motion; and dagger-like teeth spaced apart to avoid trapping stringy debris. They also have sharp claws. (2) The mammalian carnivores and omnivores additionally have huge stomachs that enable gorging, an important capacity in animals who tend to average only about one kill per week. (3) These animals also have a very low gastric pH (which means their stomachs are very acidic), enabling the breakdown of highly concentrated protein as well as the killing of dangerous bacteria that typically colonize decaying flesh. (4)

…Each of these traits enables the lion or bear to use her body to kill prey. Herbivorous animals, by contrast, have fleshy lips, a small mouth opening, a thick and muscular tongue, and a far less stable, mobile jaw joint that facilitates chewing, crushing, and grinding. Herbivores also generally lack sharp claws. (14) These qualities are well-adapted to the eating of plants, which provide nutrients when their cell walls are broken, a process that requires crushing food with side-to-side motion rather than simply swallowing it in large chunks the way that a carnivore or omnivore swallows flesh.

  • Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You A Meat-Eater: Science Confirms Humans Have No Biological Requirement For Animal Products 

Leading government and public health organizations worldwide now acknowledge that a vegan diet is not only a viable option for people of any age, but that eating plant foods instead of animal-based foods can confer significant health benefits, including reduction in incidence of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart attack, stroke, and some types of cancer.

American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the U.S.’s oldest, largest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition, also recognized that humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animals products: “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” For more information, see the full article, Catching Up With Science: Burying the “Humans Need Meat” Argument.

  • Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You A Meat-Eater: You Have a Choice

Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” — and therefore morally neutral — because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with ample access to plant-based foods choose to consume animals anyway — because they can, or because they like the taste — they are not killing from necessity, as animals (and some humans in crisis or subsistence situations) do. Whether we’re talking about a lion taking down a water buffalo, or a human in some remote or impoverished location with no alternative to eating animals: these are acts of survival, and do not equate to, nor justify, the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals for profit and pleasure.

Farmed animals are individuals with distinct personalities and emotions, just like our own cats and dogs. They feel affection, they form deep friendships, they long to be safe and happy, and to be free from fear and pain. Most of all, they share in common with us the desire to go on living. When we have access to plant-based foods, and understand that we have no need to consume animal products, then the question of eating animals really comes down to this basic question: when able to freely choose, would you rather help an animal, or harm one? If you believe it is better to help than to harm, then veganism is the only consistent expression of your values.

Source: Free of Harm

the worst thing zoology (primatology specifically) has ever given the world is this fake-scientific way of talking about human relationships and gender dynamics the same way you might talk about herons or gorillas. bars described as “male rivals” engaging in “competition” over “females.” socially-constructed gender role differences neatly wrapped up as the result of “mate choice” and “mating strategies” (dudes want to fuck and women want stuff amirite???). this way of thinking, of using simpler animals to dissect squirrely human cultural situations that don’t at all lend themselves to that kind of reasoning, is frankly the same general approach that led to eugenics being a mainstream idea in the west for the whole first half of the 20th century. looking at the world this way always supports the social status quo, and it is never supported by actual scientific findings if you dig deeply enough

In some regards, animals are both like and unlike the working class in a Marxian analysis of labor and commodities. On the one hand, as Jason Hribal argues, animals do perform unwaged labor, and have served a key role in the development of industrial capitalism. Animals produce commodity, as in the case of meat products; and they are often used as unwilling experiemtnal subjects. In the case of mordern, industrialized agriculture, human labor has been replaced by massive investments in capital, with animals almost fully integrated with the machinery of agricultural production technology. Considering the role of animals in this massive productive machinery, there is a compelling case of thinking of animals —literally, the “living stock"of others— in an analysis of the working class. As unwaged laborers, animals not only become commodities themselves, but they also provide energy, food, and clothing that supports the development of industrial capital. Though the labor of these animals is unwaged, there is a history of "expropriating, exploitation and resitance,” and the designation of animals as “living stock” comes from the perspective of humans. Considering the situation from the point of view of the sheep, cow, horse, or pig, leads to a different history, one where animals are not “living commodities, or the ‘means of production.’” Comparing the state of animals to human slaves, child labors, home workers, and sex-workers, Hribal argues that this kind of unwaged labor is part and parcel of the process of accumulation, and should not be ignored.

From a productinve angle, Hribal’s approach makes sense. But thinking more critically about what Marx saw as the revolutionary potential of the working class, it seems that using “working class,” to describe non-human laboreres can obscure some key differences between humans and animals and the form of exploitation each experience.

While Hribal argues that animals do indeed struggle against capital, their struggle is necessarily qulitatively different than the global proletarian revolution that Marx hoped for in his understanding of the working class. Animals cannot untie and break the chains that compel them to labor; their resistance to capital is necessarily more limited, if only by singular and absolute power that humans wield over animals.
Animals are somewhat more like human slaves throughout history, but in this regard they are also different: humans slaves can resist, plan, revolt, and even struggle for their own freedom in some cases; non-humans cannot meaningfully do any of these things. They are exploited and suffer voicelessly, and we rarely hear their cries. Thus while animals have traditionally occupied a historical role in the development and maintenance of the industrial and argicultural capital that looks a bit like outright slavery and a bit like wage slavery, it may be useful to be a bit more specific about how we conceptualize the role of animals within capital, rather than relying on working class designation or the simple designation of slavery. As neither exactly like human slaves or exactly like human wage laborers, animals occupy a different position within capitalism: they are superexploited living commodities. animals never see a seperation between “home” and “work,” and find themselves within the grasp of productive capital all the times.

—  Making a killing - Bob Torres