Now Playing Tracks

Anonymous

Anonymous asked:

You're getting pretty edgy lately with police. Sorry that happened to you, but they're humans too - imagine out of the anger you're experiencing, you ruin someone's day. It's a repeating cycle, heh. Kill all cops? Wat I normally love your blog, but come on, get it together! FOR YOUR FOLLOWERS

etched-in-stone-xvx:

logicsomething:

sictransitgloriia:

hellnoradfems:

I’ve never had a single pleasant encounter with a law enforcement officer and I honestly think that most of them are corrupt assholes, so while yes, they are people with families and such, I really don’t care if they are killed or not. I’m not backtracking on this issue. Fuck the police.

wow. I’m sorry but police are putting their lives on the line for you every fucking day and that’s disrespectful. if you wouldn’t care if my dad or my brother died in the line of duty I’ve lost some respect for you. not to mention that most cops I’ve met are veterans.

jesus christ hellnoradfems.

i’m not a fan of the police as an institution (due to their corruption, racism and brutality) but on an individual level not every single officer is a “corrupt asshole”, and saying you don’t care if they die is absolutely disgusting.

you tag things pertaining to the police with “kill all cops”, meaning you actually go above and beyond apathy for a fellow human being and manage to hit the plane of existence where you actively wish for them to die - while scolding others for wanting people to be killed!

yes, the police force as a whole is rife with shitty cops and this is unacceptable. their behaviour toward you is also unacceptable and they should be punished. it’s tragic that the institution’s corruption means they probably never will be. but your disrespect toward the other officers, the people who want nothing more than to protect you - even if they lose their lives doing so - is horrible.

i know you’re angry with the police, but death wishes aren’t going to help anything; they just make you look like a petty, hateful individual whose concerns shouldn’t be taken into account.

The “good” cops are the ones who ticket people for vagrancy, who they know can’t pay the tickets, and will certainly be arrested.
The “good” cops are the ones who lock up people for having harmless marijuana on them, effectively ruining their lives.
"Good" cops target PoC during stop-and-frisk encounters.
These are the people who follow their orders. These are not the ones who are corrupt, just doing what they’re told.
The whole goddamn system is fucked up, and anyone who chooses to be a part of it, is a piece of shit. Racism, classism, and subjugation for societal control.
Fuck them.
ALL COPS ARE BASTARDS

The police protect the interests of the state, not the interests of the people.  Rarely do the two coincide.

As individuals they could be decent people (by conventional standards).  But a winning personality doesn’t excuse the abuse of power that comes with the uniform.

I’ve had so many people close to me be either failed or abused by cops that I have a hard time with the whole “they’re not all like that” thing. 

Cop Tries to Shoot Dog, Shoots Himself Instead

vegan-faggot:

moralanarchism:

thedamsel:

laliberty:

Someone should hire this guy to teach marksmanship to police departments across the country… there’d be a lot fewer dead dogs and homeless people, for starters.

! posted this article through rawstory yesterday, but reblogging again because its awesome

Finally a heart warming story about the police and dogs. 

:)

Anonymous

Anonymous asked:

a speciesist feminist is still a rape apologist - do you agree? if not, why?

wigglebun:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

wigglebun:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

I think anyone who compares human beings to cows and sheep is a fucking misogynist. And that “speciesm” is just another way of saying “You care too much about human rights. I don’t give a fuck about people, but look at these cute animals! They are FAR more important than your silly desires for equality.”

Pro-life politicians compare people with uteri to brood mares and cows in an attempt to justify their own anti-choice and rape apologists stances. Until that stops happening, you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that feminists who prioritize humans are “rape apologists”.

- Jane

ABSOLUTELY disagree. Vegans are not comparing humans to cows (which is not and should not be an insult, as these beings are absolutely wonderful). “Speciesism” is a ways of saying “you prioritize the human rights movement and your own desires over the lives of other beings, while we should be focusing on the rights of ALL living beings, humans and non-human animals combined.”

The majority of pro-life politicians and advocates are not vegan, and are using these silly arguments to back up their ridiculous stance, which has nothing to do with the rights of humans or non-human animals. 

Most vegans are also feminist and pro-choice, and actually give a shit about the rights and well-being of ALL living creatures. 

As you most likely know, the milk that cows produce are meant for their calves. In order for humans to drink this milk, we deny the calves the right to consume their mother’s milk and take it for ourselves. If the calf is male, he is useless, and will be sent to slaughter in order to produce veal. If the calf is female, she will likely be placed in the same situation as her mother, until she is "spent" after years of giving birth and producing milk and finally killed. Keep in mind that these cows are artificially impregnated in order to keep giving birth, which is sexual assault

Hi, as someone who’s been raped, id’s as a feminist, and physically cannot be vegan please do yourself a favour and shut the fuck up. Right now.

Not being vegan is in no way comparable to making excuses for rapists and it’s disgusting of you to make that comparison.

I’m all for animal rights, however most animals do not pass needed measures of sentient behaviour and we need to focus on the sentient species first, including humans, and frankly yes, I would like to prioritize the members of my own species(including myself) over other species.

Calling feminists who aren’t vegan (for whatever reason, maybe they can’t AFFORD a vegan lifestyle? Maybe, like me, being Vegan was actually detrimental to their physical health? Did you bother asking or just assume?) ‘rape apologists’ for eating beef or pork or dog or any meat is disgusting.

You can call people out on not fighting for animal rights all you like, but how dare you make that comparison. It is exactly the same as pro lifers comparing abortion to various tragedies in order to win support.

It’s emotional manipulation, it’s disgusting behaviour, it’s a form of propaganda, it’s sexist, homophobic, racist and transphobic by its very nature and it needs to stop.

-Lemon

— Hi, as someone who has also been raped and identifies as a feminist, I continue to stand behind my previous argument that consuming animal products does involve sexual assault/rape and is as important of an issue as human rights. 

First of all, don’t say that you are all for animal rights if you consume them. That’s fucked up. 

Second, whether an animal passes “needed measures of sentient behaviour” (whatever those may be in your mind) does not determine whether or not they deserve to die for human use. It is irrelevant whether you are able to function in society among human beings or are not even aware of your surroundings; this is NO reason to be objectified, exploited, and consumed for a simple pleasure palette. I would love to know how veganism is “detrimental” to your health, as I am genuinely interested. There are many ways that people can be vegan with extremely low income. Whole foods such as rice, beans, lentils, and vegetables are all you need to stay healthy as a vegan, and both food stamps and dumpster diving can provide these items. Animal flesh and the “whole, healthy” dairy products are typically much more expensive than plant-based whole foods. 

Comparing animal rights to human rights, specifically women’s rights, is nothing like the pro-life argument. These animals are alive, sentient, and do not deserve to die simply because you prefer to focus on another fucking cause. BOTH causes are extremely important and fight for the same fucking thing: equality, justice, basic right to life (for the living), non-violence, and a life without being fucking abused.

I recommend reading The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams. It’s educational (Oh my!) and focuses on the intersectionality between consuming and exploiting sentient beings (both human and non-human animals). You likely won’t, as you seem to be pretty ignorant, but I absolutely recommend educating yourself on this matter, as you’re “all for animal rights”. 

tommy-shahrazard asked:

so by your logic taking my ex racer greyhounds for a run on a leash is also exploitation, because i enjoy it, however strangely enough they enjoy it too. I'm taking as consent when the stand there for me when i put the saddle on without being tied when before they would run for the hills or try and kill me. and bits...holy cow please explain to me what experience you have in training horses or the use of bits and then start judging me for using them. (part one)

horse are huge flight animals if they didn’t want me to be near on them i assure you they would not let me. I know this because this is how they find themselves here, because they run or attack their original owners. I really invite you to please come watch me train one of my horses and tell me what methods of mine cause Stockholm syndrome. did you even research the trainers i told you about? (part two)

(part three) doesn’t benefit them, right so antisocial horses, who are outcast from herds, attack any other horse or animal and mentally ill at the sight of a car or gate, don’t benefit from being shown trust? nor does it keep them alive considering i can’t keep them all no matter how much money i have. by training them to be safe horses and giving them to good families which i check up on and provide free lessons to. without this training they would be culled.

(part four) when you have shown me the experience you have with horses and their training i will take your opinion seriously. but since you haven’t admitted to have even met a horse i honestly don’t understand how you think you can have such a rigid opinion on their lives no matter what you’ve read or heard about. please explain to me how my horses in a 32 acre paddock see me and run towards me rather than away. since they’re are flight animals and they obviously hate me so much.

Sigh.

You’re not forcing greyhounds to carry your lazy arse around.  They’re getting to exercise and play.  You’re not using them for anything.  No one is being exploited there.  The two aren’t even comparable.
I looked into the Monty Roberts method and found this article.  I dunno, doesn’t sound so hot to me, what with the use of fear to get them to do what you want.  The natural horsemanship nonsense merely romanticise the rather unnatural training of horses via negative reinforcement.  Makes sense to me, because why would another animal want to carry a big lump around on their back for extended periods of time if they weren’t already broken in first.

Horses will accept bits into their mouths and “allow” you to ride them because they have already been trained to do so.  They may have the physical capability to resist and attack, but if they have been convinced by their previous training that there are consequences in doing so, then of course they’re going to be complicit in their forced servitude.

Are you seriously trying to convince me that in order to develop a trusting relationship with a horse, you have to get on their backs and ride them around for a while?  Are you saying that for a horse to feel accepted, you have to mount them and be like “nah, it’s cool, they’re with me”?  What are you even saying at this point.  And it’s nice to know that their very survival is contingent upon them being of use to a human master.  You truly are a saint.  (Look, I get that money is a shitty concept, but don’t think that coming in with the cost angle excuses what you’re doing.  Off the top of my head, giving them to a sanctuary that can look after them or setting up an adoption program would be miles better.)

Finally, you do know that it requires zero training experience to realise that horse riding = animal exploitation  not vegan.  But if you really want to argue your point, I’ll redirect you to someone with the experience you seek.

tommy-shahrazard asked:

I'm a vegan and i ride horses. I was raised training rescue horses that were abused in the racing industries (both trotters and thoroughbreds). I just read your post attacking a fellow equestrian, i don't know her but, what struck me was you just seem to know a lot about the training of horses without having any experience with them. so maybe if you could open your mind for a second and watch these videos you might understand how it is possible to be both vegan and an equestrian (part one)

(Part two) When i take in new rescue horses they are scared for their lives, they are flight animals as you would know. So in essence anything they don’t like they will run from, attack is their final defence, i have rehabilitated horses who have been pushed so far that their only reaction is to attack, this breaks my heart. I use the methods of both Monty Roberts and Claus Ferdinand Hempfing, please search Monty Roberts and Shyboy on youtube and anything of claus’s with an open mind

(part three) i know the Shyboy videos are old and corny but they are part of an old documentary haha. also i’m over people telling me my horses don’t like work or to be ridden that they don’t line up to be ridden, well the fact is mine do, run up to the fence and try and stick their noses in the collars, my mare takes the bit out of my hand, sure wild horses wouldn’t but no one is taking about wild horses we are talking about horses raised in captivity.

You’re still exploiting an animal because it’s something you like to do.  I mean, are you really suggesting that those horses are giving consent when you claim they take the bit from your hand (also you’re using a bit, how shitty can you get).  You are using what is effectively Stockholm syndrome and learned behaviours as an excuse to continue your hobby; a hobby that does not benefit horses at all.

Now, if you could just take in horses, love them, rehabilitate them using methods that weren’t crap and expected nothing from them in return, I could support that and could call you vegan without using quotation marks.

anogoodrabblerouser:

rawr0609:

avianawareness:

descentintotyranny:

Meat inspector: “We are no longer in charge of safety”

"Chunks" of feces are making it through the USDA’s flawed meat inspection program

Sept. 9 2013

A pilot program meant to identify contamination at meat plants has been failing to do so for the past 15 years. The USDA plans to roll it out nationwide, anyway. From the Washington Post:

The program allows meat producers to increase the speed of processing lines by as much as 20 percent and cuts the number of USDA safety inspectors at each plant in half, replacing them with private inspectors employed by meat companies. The approach has been used for more than a decade by five American hog plants under a pilot program.

But three of these plants were among the 10 worst offenders in the country for health and safety violations, with serious lapses that included failing to remove fecal matter from meat, according to a report this spring by the USDA inspector general. The plant with the worst record by far was one of the five in the pilot program.

This specific fecal matter didn’t make it to the mouths of consumers, because government officials caught it at the last minute. But these and other international incidents documented by the Post, including some that weren’t caught in time, demonstrate that the program has serious flaws.

In New Zealand, a representative of the inspectors union describes how “tremendous amounts of fecal matter remain on the carcasses,” adding, “Not small bits, but chunks.” The Post points out, parenthetically, that “both fecal matter and partly digested food may contain concentrated and complex strains of bacterium such as E. coli and listeria, which can be deadly.”

The USDA wants to finalize and then expand the program by next spring, and is considering the same for a similar program that covers poultry plants. First initiated in the late 1990s, it’s meant to reduce government inspection costs and ultimately lower the price of meat. But the USDA doesn’t seem to have done enough to evaluate the program’s safety, and, according to the Post, may be engaged in something of a coverup:



In interviews, six USDA inspectors working in the pilot plants raised health concerns. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed their jobs would be in jeopardy otherwise.

Several said company and government workers are yelled at, threatened and shunned if they try to slow down or stop the accelerated processing lines or complain too aggressively about inadequate safety checks. They also warned that the reduction in the ranks of government inspectors in the plants has compromised the safety of the meat.

“We are no longer in charge of safety,” said an inspector with more than 15 years of experience. “That’s what the public needs to know.”

Maybe, just maybe, the focus on price and efficiency is a bit shortsighted.

Enjoy your feces. I cuddle chickens instead of eat them.

yal realize the USDA literally considers feces in food a “cosmetic blemish” now instead of an actually dangerous thing that nobody should ever want to consume

I am so goddamn glad I jumped that ship

vegan-because-fuck-you:

See, most people are really, really good at being super passionate about animal rights issues that take literally zero effort to stand for.

Boycott Seaworld? Done. Easy. I’ll go to the aquarium instead!

Killing whales to eat them???? rabblerabblerabble how barbaric! Even though I live in a part of the world that I basically have no way in which to access whale meat, do you know what? I’m going to vow NEVER to eat whale! 

Fur? Ew!!!! I can’t believe someone would wear a dead animal, I’m never going to buy fur. Oh look a leather jacket, cool.

Shark cull?!?!?! That’s ridiculous and I wont stand for it. I’m going to, um, not… support… that by… saying I don’t support it!

Copenhagen Zoo killed a Giraffe? well I’m not going there anymore (not that I ever was going to lol). 

But,

As soon as you suggest something that takes some actual real life effort, like I don’t know, actively avoiding all animal products, no longer purchasing products tested on animals and seeking cruelty free alternatives, boycotting all establishments and events that use animals for entertainment (circuses, aquariums, rodeos, horse racing)

All of a sudden its like woah hey now don’t you think you’re being a bit extreme? I mean isn’t there something easier I can do like all those other things that requires no effort at all?? 

landbase-vegan:

When people say that they don’t like vegan-food, what they’re really saying is that they don’t have the maturity to accept the prospect that some food doesn’t include the flesh or products of tortured animals and that it could taste good. And of course, most of these twits eat so-called vegan-food all the time, in mostly the same ways vegans do, the only difference being someone else is on the plate with it. So if you don’t like the food that vegans eat simply because you feel it’s incomplete without meat or cheese, then you have the emotional maturity of a toddler.

Dear vegans,

vegan-diezo:

If your arguments allow the possibility of attaining a solution by reducing harm, your argument is probably an animal welfare argument.

Using numbers means that there HAS to be a “good” number and a “bad” number. It implies that there is an amount of deaths that we will tolerate as long as the number of deaths is somewhat, or significantly lower than the “bad” number. It encourages better, and not best. 

For example, if you tell a speciesist that x amount of animals are being exploited, they will probably agree with you that x amount is a high amount and is a “bad” number.

Vegans who use stats intend to express an equation like this:

x - x = 0 = the best outcome

Non-vegan logic can interpret that equation in many different ways such as:

x - 1 = better than x

x - 100 = better than x

x - 10000000 = better than x

Please please please remodel your advocacy to include anti-speciesism, as it is what causes animal oppression and exploitation. 

Anonymous

Anonymous asked:

Giving kids and yourself broccoli increases the risk of death by suffocation. Please don't do it.

The trick is to take smaller bites.

This:
image

Not this:
image

If you want me to tell you how to tie your shoes sometime, I’ll be happy to help.  Dweeb.

People that think “forcing” your kids to be vegan is abusive

feministsarah:

Actually the opposite is true. Little kids read books about friendly cows and pigs and chickens. They root for the animals to evade the hunters or escape the farms in TV shows and movies. Yet they have no idea that they’re being fed the corpses of their favorite protagonists. It’s sickening and sad.

Never mind that feeding your kids animal products increases the risk of them developing chronic illnesses.

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union