GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 25, 2012Student Digital Artist
Here you go [link] This is what animal rights/welfare means.
If women rights doesn't mean that men allowed to have a woman, then animal rights also doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to keep pets at all. Finishing off all pets = animal cruelty. Not rights.
GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 27, 2012Student Digital Artist
PETA doesn't support animal rights. The founder of PETA puts down like 80% of the animals they save. That's animal cruelty! Animal rights makes more sense than animal welfare in my opinion, because then the suffering will actually go away. Animal welfare is a fake word. It only makes ourselves feel better.
Yours-"PETA doesn't support animal rights" ummm what planet are you living on??? PETA abolishes all animal testing laboratories to "free" the animals there because they believe animals should be treated as people not possessions. thats actually the main tenant of the animal RIGHTS philosophy, whether you want to accept it or not. and sorry pancake, but not everyone has to agree with your subjective moral view of "killing animals automatically equals animal cruelty". in my opinion, i would rather be killed than tortured. you dont seem to grasp the concept that we wouldnt have cows, chicken, horses, sheep, goats, pigs or any other domesticated livestock animal if it wasnt for human intervention to KEEP THEM and BREED THEM for OUR USE for our own purposes such as FOOD and DAIRY PRODUCTS [or in the case of sheep, clothing].
Yours-"Animal welfare is a fake word" says the person who wants a HUMAN CONCEPT applied to every other species when they themselves do not value each others lives. hahahaha you really are neurologically impaired.
GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 28, 2012Student Digital Artist
PETA does not decide the true definition of animal rights. Killing all pets is animal cruelty because it hurts the animals. Fact. PETA is not the only animal organization that supports animal rights out there. PETA pretends to want to save animals, but at the same time they put down 80% of the animals they save. That's animal cruelty. They can claim they love animals all they want, but if they really did, they wouldn't have killed them. And that's why I made that stamp; animal rights is not what PETA makes it out to be. Rights are supposed to protect. Not hurt or kill.
Killing animals or treating animals like products does not equal loving animals; it's animal-cruelty. Fact. Denying this fact is just lying to yourself and misplacing the word love. I love my parents, so I wouldn't treat them like how people like you treat animals, because I love them. If you love animals you don't wish death upon them, no matter what. Just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore. You can call it a subjective moral view, but it's not. It's the definition of animal cruelty just like how killing people is the definition of murder. If you can't deny that killing fellow humans is murder, then you also can't deny that killing fellow humans is animal cruelty. Period.
As for your animal welfare response, I can only say this: by saying such things about me you only proof that you don't know me at all and don't know what you're talking about. Comparing animals hunting animals to people mass-producing animals like products on an unnatural way for unnatural human goals only proofs that you're nothing but an idiot. Sorry.
Also, why are you using an empty-alt-plz account to approach me? Are you too afraid to make a fool out of yourself by using your real account?
Yours-"PETA does not decide the true definition of animal rights." that wasnt what was stated. the ANIMAL RIGHTS philosophy is that animals are to be treated as people and not possessions. for someone such as yourself who claims to be vehemently for animal rights and not welfare, you should know this. PETA is for animal rights, and to be for animal rights, liberating animals from human is just one small step. the reason they are killing pets is because it is their own warped view that domesticated animals should have never existed, because it is for HUMANS OWN USE [as i have posted above, which you conveniently ignored]. why do you think people call PETA hypocrites for killing pets but then owning some??
Yours-"Killing all pets is animal cruelty" "Fact." once again this isnt fact, you really should learn the difference between objective and subjective. subjective is "animal cruelty is death!" and objective is "humans are mammals". this also coorelates to your next statement claiming that treating animals as a product automatically means you dont love animals. thats your own subjective opinion, not the ultimate objective law of the world.
Yours-"I love my parents, so I wouldn't treat them like how people like you treat animals, because I love them" this just sounds like you are admitting humans are better. trust me, i wouldnt want to kill a human either, because i love all humans. domesticated animals are only kept alive today FOR OUR OWN USE. you can still love an animal that gives you warmth [sheep] and provides you with food every day [milk, meat]. im not really following your skewed logic, but try to proceed...
Yours-"Just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore." your definition of animal cruelty is once again subjective... not sure how many times it has to be repeated.
Yours-"You can call it a subjective moral view, but it's not." "It's the definition of animal cruelty just like how killing people is the definition of murder." yes, actually it is. you're comparing the captive bolt pistol [aka cow knocker..] it destroys the brain and they dont even see it coming. you have to have a stanchion for the knocker, and the rod goes into their brain. private owners actually shoot their cows in the head which is not cruelty in my eyes either. the slaughterhouses use the knocker. you might see both as cruelty but others wont. this is the very definition of subjective. why cant you see that? if everyone agreed it was cruelty [just like everyone agrees humans are mammals, because it can be scientifically proven] then it would be considered objective. please learn the difference between the two. the reason i dont consider these practices cruelty is because it makes them braindead and therefore they arent aware of themselves at that point. youre comparing a cow knocker to an actual word for killing humans which is "murder". comparing apples to a damn buick at that point.
Yours-"by saying such things about me you only proof that you don't know me at all.." oh my sweet little chinchilla, you think people dont know your views on animal rights by now? you have been shouting them from the rooftops for over 6 years now. even your stamps scream them out. you want this human concept of "rights" applied to all animals when you fail to even comprehend that other animals do not value their own species' rights or the rights of other animals. you cannot even admit you dont understand the concept of "rights" in the first place. you are kidding yourself into thinking you know this philosophy, yet you are changing its meaning by saying "rights means protect animals from humans and make them happy dadadadada". that is not animal rights. please read more into the philosophy. it means treating animals as people and not possessions. if this world view were to be accepted by everyone, no one would be allowed pets, because they are, by law, POSSESSIONS.
Yours-"Are you too afraid to make a fool out of yourself by using your real account?" this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, so i see no reason why you bother bringing it up. why are you grasping at straws?? i could just as easily bring up the fact that you went through several accounts because you are scared of a certain someone here on DA, but it is irrelevant. so why dont you stick to the topic at hand.
GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 28, 2012Student Digital Artist
In case you're denying you're RyanXRage: [link] (left corner), the word RAGE in your alt-username and the folder name that contains my art (well not anymore because I blocked you now but...). Hey, before talking about "art that sucks" look at yourself, ok hun?
GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 28, 2012Student Digital Artist
that wasnt what was stated. the ANIMAL RIGHTS philosophy is that animals are to be treated as people and not possessions.
No. Animal rights means that animals should be treated like living beings with their own value. Not as people. It's called animal rights instead of human rights for a reason. Treating them like people means allowing them to get married, get a job and go to school and that's impossible. No animal-rights supporter wants animals to vote/get married/get a car. I've never heard anyone say that before. If voting/marrying/school etc. would be applied to animals, then we'd give animals human rights. Not animal rights. That's different.
they are killing pets is because it is their own warped view that domesticated animals should have never existed
Wait, is that the reason why PETA kills animals? I thought it was a lack of money or because they spend too much money on silly things like making anti-Pokemon games? If you have evidence that they kill animals because they hate the idea of pets, I would like to see it. I understand PETA thinks that about the concept of pets, but the point is; pets DO exist and no one, not even PETA, should blame them for existing. Killing them for existing is in fact animal cruelty, wether PETA denies this or not.
once again this isnt fact, you really should learn the difference between objective and subjective
Then explain to me how killing pets isn't animal cruelty. They are being hurt/killed just because they exist, so how isn't that animal cruelty?
your next statement claiming that treating animals as a product automatically means you dont love animals. thats your own subjective opinion, not the ultimate objective law of the world.
No, my friend. No. I think you should really learn the definition of animal-cruelty. Like I've said before; just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore. You hurt an animal on purpose and treat it like an object instead of what it really is; a living being with feelings and emotions. It's your own choice wether you want to treat animals like shit, but then don't deny that it's animal cruelty just because hurting animals works in your (or your wallets) favour. If no one can deny that killing fellow humans is murder, then no one can deny that killing animals or treating them like products is animal cruelty. And that isn't my opinion, that's the definition of the word. Animal cruelty does not just apply to hurting/killing pets. There's illegal animal-cruelty, but there's also legal animal cruelty.
your definition of animal cruelty is once again subjective... not sure how many times it has to be repeated. you cannot even admit you dont understand the concept of "rights" in the first place. you are kidding yourself into thinking you know this philosophy, yet you are changing its meaning by saying "rights means protect animals from humans and make them happy dadadadada". that is not animal rights.
No, friend. No. I think you're the one who has the definition mixed up. Murder = people killing people unless it's self defence/accident. Animal cruelty = people killing animals unless it's self defence/accident. Definition =/= opinion. In the end, it both just means; hurting/killing another living being on purpose.
this just sounds like you are admitting humans are better. trust me, i wouldnt want to kill a human either, because i love all humans.
Then your love for humans is actually love. When you love someone or something, you wouldn't wish death/pain upon them, no matter what. That's what love means. Love does not equal wanting to hurt/kill the one you love. Otherwise it is in fact not even love to begin with. I love people and animals equally. Except the people who consider humanity gods and look down upon the innocent. I love my parents because I have an emotional bond with them, one I don't have with other people or animals. For that reason they are more important to me than others. But that doesn't mean that it is a fact that they are of higher value than other people or animals. In my eyes they might be because of my connection to them and my opinion to them, but other people probably consider their own loved ones the most important. Humans are not better than animals and just because I choose people I love over strangers it doesn't mean that I judge them upon race, skin colour, nationality, species or whatever.
domesticated animals are only kept alive today FOR OUR OWN USE. you can still love an animal that gives you warmth [sheep] and provides you with food every day [milk, meat].
You probably never had a pet if you think this is the reason why domesticated animals are kept alive. There is a reason why people spend money, time and efford on their dog, cat or any other animal that gives no milk, no eggs and nothing in return. I have chicken. Yes, they lay eggs and since they are pecking the eggs until they break if I don't remove them, I might as well take them. But even if they didn't lay any eggs, I wouldn't abandon or kill them like some ungrateful brat. Because animals are not equal to products. If you think animals are nothing more than tools for humanity then I feel very very sorry for you. You should show some compassion and respect towards the innocent instead of wishing pain and death upon them. My question is; why? Why do you hate them so much? Why do you look down upon them, enslave them and mistreat them just because they are different from you? They haven't done anything wrong. So why all this hate?
private owners actually shoot their cows in the head which is not cruelty in my eyes either.
If shooting people in the head is murder, then how isn't shooting animals in the head animal-cruelty? Again, please don't twist the definition of the word. You just don't consider killing animals as cruelty because in your eyes killing animals is equal to throwing away an old toy, right? It's such a shame that you think like that because if animals were truly like toys without feelings like you claim, no one would want to save or defend them. And a lot of people do. Please think about that.
the slaughterhouses use the knocker
Slaughterhouses in general are called factory farms. Factory farming is hell on earth for animals and also the main reason of Global warming worldwide. Factory farming is anything but a quick death for these animals. It's ok if you didn't know that yet, but if you want to learn more about this, please watch this educational video: [link] in your own language.
you might see both as cruelty but others wont. if everyone agreed it was cruelty [just like everyone agrees humans are mammals, because it can be scientifically proven] then it would be considered objective.
Look, there are also people who don't see killing people as murder and they don't even consider it a bad thing. That they don't consider it a bad thing is their opinion and I shouldn't enforce mine on them. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still murder, wether you agree it's right or wrong. Same for the animal cruelty example; you can agree or disagree with animal cruelty, but it's still animal cruelty.
youre comparing a cow knocker to an actual word for killing humans which is "murder". comparing apples to a damn buick at that point.
A quick bullet through a humans' head is murder, too. Humans are animals, too so I don't see why they can't be compared to other animals. I think your comparism (animal = product) is the unreasonable one here, since products don't have a spine, a beating heart, a brain or feelings at all. Animals and people have all of these things. Telling me that I shouldn't compare the two is like telling me that I shouldn't compare people of two different sexes, nationality or sexual orientation. Since humans are the worst thing the environment could ever get, I don't think it's our place to decide that we are gods among all other animals, despite our intelligence. We're not gods. We're just animals. Mortals who live and die for ourselves, just like the rest of them.
you want this human concept of "rights" applied to all animals when you fail to even comprehend that other animals do not value their own species' rights or the rights of other animals.
If rights is a human concept and should only be applied to humans according to you, then you also shouldn't drag animals into your lifestyle by enslaving them and treat them like tools and objects for humanity. Because that's also a concept of humans... right?
Look, I'm not mad at you or anything, but you shouldn't force your opinion onto people by changing the definition of words just because animal cruelty works in your favour. You can totally think that animals aren't worth saving, you are free to think that they don't deserve to be helped when they are abused by humanity. But there are other people, including me, who won't. Because we don't close our eyes to the suffering of those who are mistreated and are defenseless. I defend animals for the same reason why I defend children against child abuse. And I'm not going to consider treating animals like crap just because you think I should.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, so i see no reason why you bother bringing it up.
Because I'm getting the feeling that you are either C. (my stalker) or either one of my stalkers' friends and are using this empty account to block-evade (again). If this is true, then please don't. You can always talk to me, I'm open for everything. But a simple "can you please unblock me?" would also have done the trick, you know. I'm not that difficult and I'm not going to report you for block-evasion.
Thank you for taking your time to discuss with me.
whatever inferiority complex you possess, it's blatantly justified
maybe when you stop blocking people before they have a chance to rebut your flimsy replies, you too can experience that invaluable event called "growing up."
GalaxuFeatured By OwnerOct 26, 2012Student Digital Artist
If your friend didn't want to get blocked, he should have come with actual civil arguments instead of petty insults and I might have taken him seriously. Same counts for you by the way. You're just another immature anti-wolfabaww who goes around and blindly insult people you don't even know because they don't consider animals products, but living beings with feelings. Now, if I supported animal-cruelty I might have understood that you blindly threw around insults, but can society get any lower when people are being insulted for defending animals?
((nice job blocking my other account, i see you completely got the point of my last message.))
anti-wolfabaww? i don't even know what that is. and i like how you're blindly telling us what we support and how we feel. if you actually got off your high-horse to look, you'd realize that neither of us support animal abuse. using animal products is not abuse, i don't care what way you cut it. you telling me my eating beef is equivalent to kicking an orphan puppy into a meat-grinder or wearing wool is like force-feeding a kitten draino is going to make me run as far away from you as possible -- i choose not to fraternize with psychologically indisposed people.
society can get lower -- that was a naive addendum. i wasn't insulting you for defending animals, i was insulting you for handling her message in a juvenile manner. i do not care what you defend, if i'm honest, i have no interest in it because i have other things in my life that i need to focus on, so why would i take my time to insult you over that? feel free to defend whatever your delightful, unmolested, powerpuff heart desires.
i suggest you hide the insults you get next time, it's not that hard and it won't take the energy you could be using fighting the mojojojo of animal abusers.
nice job blocking my other account, i see you completely got the point of my last message. so ~savage u admit block evading? u do realize thats against the tos and is considered harassment? i have no interest in it because i have other things in my life that i need to focus on apparently not, since u block evaded 3 times 2 harass the artist with again just personal insults instead of actual arguments. fail i suggest you hide the insults you get next time, it's not that hard hold it, u attack and insult her from out of nowhere because, as animal-cruelty supporter her I support animal rights stamp opposes ur own views, and u expect her 2 take that? if u dont want to get blocked or being called out on your bullshit then dont insult people and block evade in the first place!! i agree with her; ur just a butthurt anti-wolfer whose butthurt over an animal-love stamp because it apposes your own violent views. thats sick!!! if you actually got off your high-horse to look, you'd realize that neither of us support animal abuse. using animal products is not abuse u act like itz only animal cruelty if u hurt a pet, but not if u hurt other animals. And just 4 the heads up; just because some types of animal-cruelty r convenient for humans, it doesn't mean that it isn't animal cruelty anymore all of a sudden. THIS [link][link][link](04).jpg [link]IS ANIMAL CRUELTY. It's legal, but no one can deny it is animal cruelty, wether its convenient 4u or not. FACT. denying that legal animal cruelty is animal cruelty too is just plain stupid. saying that the mass production of animals like products is not animal cruelty makes u the psychologically indisposed one, not her. Ur just a stereotype animal-hater who pretends 2 be against animal abuse while u support it as long as animal-cruelty is convenient for u . YES, animal cruelty. the "all animal cruelty thatz convienent for humans isn't animal cruelty" argument failed since the start of existence. Have a nice day.
Sta.sh
If women rights doesn't mean that men allowed to have a woman, then animal rights also doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to keep pets at all. Finishing off all pets = animal cruelty. Not rights.
Devious Comments
(animal rights makes no sense at all)
ummm what planet are you living on??? PETA abolishes all animal testing laboratories to "free" the animals there because they believe animals should be treated as people not possessions. thats actually the main tenant of the animal RIGHTS philosophy, whether you want to accept it or not. and sorry pancake, but not everyone has to agree with your subjective moral view of "killing animals automatically equals animal cruelty". in my opinion, i would rather be killed than tortured. you dont seem to grasp the concept that we wouldnt have cows, chicken, horses, sheep, goats, pigs or any other domesticated livestock animal if it wasnt for human intervention to KEEP THEM and BREED THEM for OUR USE for our own purposes such as FOOD and DAIRY PRODUCTS [or in the case of sheep, clothing].
Yours-"Animal welfare is a fake word"
says the person who wants a HUMAN CONCEPT applied to every other species when they themselves do not value each others lives. hahahaha you really are neurologically impaired.
fellow humansanimals is animal cruelty. Period.Sorry, mistake in my message.
Killing animals or treating animals like products does not equal loving animals; it's animal-cruelty. Fact. Denying this fact is just lying to yourself and misplacing the word love. I love my parents, so I wouldn't treat them like how people like you treat animals, because I love them. If you love animals you don't wish death upon them, no matter what. Just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore. You can call it a subjective moral view, but it's not. It's the definition of animal cruelty just like how killing people is the definition of murder. If you can't deny that killing fellow humans is murder, then you also can't deny that killing fellow humans is animal cruelty. Period.
As for your animal welfare response, I can only say this: by saying such things about me you only proof that you don't know me at all and don't know what you're talking about. Comparing animals hunting animals to people mass-producing animals like products on an unnatural way for unnatural human goals only proofs that you're nothing but an idiot. Sorry.
Also, why are you using an empty-alt-plz account to approach me? Are you too afraid to make a fool out of yourself by using your real account?
that wasnt what was stated. the ANIMAL RIGHTS philosophy is that animals are to be treated as people and not possessions. for someone such as yourself who claims to be vehemently for animal rights and not welfare, you should know this. PETA is for animal rights, and to be for animal rights, liberating animals from human is just one small step. the reason they are killing pets is because it is their own warped view that domesticated animals should have never existed, because it is for HUMANS OWN USE [as i have posted above, which you conveniently ignored]. why do you think people call PETA hypocrites for killing pets but then owning some??
Yours-"Killing all pets is animal cruelty" "Fact."
once again this isnt fact, you really should learn the difference between objective and subjective. subjective is "animal cruelty is death!" and objective is "humans are mammals". this also coorelates to your next statement claiming that treating animals as a product automatically means you dont love animals. thats your own subjective opinion, not the ultimate objective law of the world.
Yours-"I love my parents, so I wouldn't treat them like how people like you treat animals, because I love them"
this just sounds like you are admitting humans are better. trust me, i wouldnt want to kill a human either, because i love all humans. domesticated animals are only kept alive today FOR OUR OWN USE. you can still love an animal that gives you warmth [sheep] and provides you with food every day [milk, meat]. im not really following your skewed logic, but try to proceed...
Yours-"Just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore."
your definition of animal cruelty is once again subjective... not sure how many times it has to be repeated.
Yours-"You can call it a subjective moral view, but it's not." "It's the definition of animal cruelty just like how killing people is the definition of murder."
yes, actually it is. you're comparing the captive bolt pistol [aka cow knocker..] it destroys the brain and they dont even see it coming. you have to have a stanchion for the knocker, and the rod goes into their brain. private owners actually shoot their cows in the head which is not cruelty in my eyes either. the slaughterhouses use the knocker. you might see both as cruelty but others wont. this is the very definition of subjective. why cant you see that? if everyone agreed it was cruelty [just like everyone agrees humans are mammals, because it can be scientifically proven] then it would be considered objective. please learn the difference between the two. the reason i dont consider these practices cruelty is because it makes them braindead and therefore they arent aware of themselves at that point. youre comparing a cow knocker to an actual word for killing humans which is "murder". comparing apples to a damn buick at that point.
Yours-"by saying such things about me you only proof that you don't know me at all.."
oh my sweet little chinchilla, you think people dont know your views on animal rights by now? you have been shouting them from the rooftops for over 6 years now. even your stamps scream them out. you want this human concept of "rights" applied to all animals when you fail to even comprehend that other animals do not value their own species' rights or the rights of other animals. you cannot even admit you dont understand the concept of "rights" in the first place. you are kidding yourself into thinking you know this philosophy, yet you are changing its meaning by saying "rights means protect animals from humans and make them happy dadadadada". that is not animal rights. please read more into the philosophy. it means treating animals as people and not possessions. if this world view were to be accepted by everyone, no one would be allowed pets, because they are, by law, POSSESSIONS.
Yours-"Are you too afraid to make a fool out of yourself by using your real account?"
this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, so i see no reason why you bother bringing it up. why are you grasping at straws?? i could just as easily bring up the fact that you went through several accounts because you are scared of a certain someone here on DA, but it is irrelevant. so why dont you stick to the topic at hand.
No. Animal rights means that animals should be treated like living beings with their own value. Not as people. It's called animal rights instead of human rights for a reason. Treating them like people means allowing them to get married, get a job and go to school and that's impossible. No animal-rights supporter wants animals to vote/get married/get a car. I've never heard anyone say that before. If voting/marrying/school etc. would be applied to animals, then we'd give animals human rights. Not animal rights. That's different.
they are killing pets is because it is their own warped view that domesticated animals should have never existed
Wait, is that the reason why PETA kills animals? I thought it was a lack of money or because they spend too much money on silly things like making anti-Pokemon games? If you have evidence that they kill animals because they hate the idea of pets, I would like to see it. I understand PETA thinks that about the concept of pets, but the point is; pets DO exist and no one, not even PETA, should blame them for existing. Killing them for existing is in fact animal cruelty, wether PETA denies this or not.
once again this isnt fact, you really should learn the difference between objective and subjective
Then explain to me how killing pets isn't animal cruelty. They are being hurt/killed just because they exist, so how isn't that animal cruelty?
your next statement claiming that treating animals as a product automatically means you dont love animals. thats your own subjective opinion, not the ultimate objective law of the world.
No, my friend. No. I think you should really learn the definition of animal-cruelty. Like I've said before; just because some types of animal cruelty are convenient for you it doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't animal cruelty anymore. You hurt an animal on purpose and treat it like an object instead of what it really is; a living being with feelings and emotions. It's your own choice wether you want to treat animals like shit, but then don't deny that it's animal cruelty just because hurting animals works in your (or your wallets) favour. If no one can deny that killing fellow humans is murder, then no one can deny that killing animals or treating them like products is animal cruelty. And that isn't my opinion, that's the definition of the word. Animal cruelty does not just apply to hurting/killing pets. There's illegal animal-cruelty, but there's also legal animal cruelty.
your definition of animal cruelty is once again subjective... not sure how many times it has to be repeated.
you cannot even admit you dont understand the concept of "rights" in the first place. you are kidding yourself into thinking you know this philosophy, yet you are changing its meaning by saying "rights means protect animals from humans and make them happy dadadadada". that is not animal rights.
No, friend. No. I think you're the one who has the definition mixed up.
Murder = people killing people unless it's self defence/accident.
Animal cruelty = people killing animals unless it's self defence/accident.
Definition =/= opinion.
In the end, it both just means; hurting/killing another living being on purpose.
this just sounds like you are admitting humans are better. trust me, i wouldnt want to kill a human either, because i love all humans.
Then your love for humans is actually love. When you love someone or something, you wouldn't wish death/pain upon them, no matter what. That's what love means. Love does not equal wanting to hurt/kill the one you love. Otherwise it is in fact not even love to begin with. I love people and animals equally. Except the people who consider humanity gods and look down upon the innocent. I love my parents because I have an emotional bond with them, one I don't have with other people or animals. For that reason they are more important to me than others. But that doesn't mean that it is a fact that they are of higher value than other people or animals. In my eyes they might be because of my connection to them and my opinion to them, but other people probably consider their own loved ones the most important. Humans are not better than animals and just because I choose people I love over strangers it doesn't mean that I judge them upon race, skin colour, nationality, species or whatever.
domesticated animals are only kept alive today FOR OUR OWN USE. you can still love an animal that gives you warmth [sheep] and provides you with food every day [milk, meat].
You probably never had a pet if you think this is the reason why domesticated animals are kept alive. There is a reason why people spend money, time and efford on their dog, cat or any other animal that gives no milk, no eggs and nothing in return. I have chicken. Yes, they lay eggs and since they are pecking the eggs until they break if I don't remove them, I might as well take them. But even if they didn't lay any eggs, I wouldn't abandon or kill them like some ungrateful brat. Because animals are not equal to products. If you think animals are nothing more than tools for humanity then I feel very very sorry for you.
private owners actually shoot their cows in the head which is not cruelty in my eyes either.
If shooting people in the head is murder, then how isn't shooting animals in the head animal-cruelty? Again, please don't twist the definition of the word. You just don't consider killing animals as cruelty because in your eyes killing animals is equal to throwing away an old toy, right? It's such a shame that you think like that because if animals were truly like toys without feelings like you claim, no one would want to save or defend them. And a lot of people do. Please think about that.
the slaughterhouses use the knocker
Slaughterhouses in general are called factory farms. Factory farming is hell on earth for animals and also the main reason of Global warming worldwide. Factory farming is anything but a quick death for these animals. It's ok if you didn't know that yet, but if you want to learn more about this, please watch this educational video: [link] in your own language.
you might see both as cruelty but others wont. if everyone agreed it was cruelty [just like everyone agrees humans are mammals, because it can be scientifically proven] then it would be considered objective.
Look, there are also people who don't see killing people as murder and they don't even consider it a bad thing. That they don't consider it a bad thing is their opinion and I shouldn't enforce mine on them. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still murder, wether you agree it's right or wrong. Same for the animal cruelty example; you can agree or disagree with animal cruelty, but it's still animal cruelty.
youre comparing a cow knocker to an actual word for killing humans which is "murder". comparing apples to a damn buick at that point.
A quick bullet through a humans' head is murder, too.
you want this human concept of "rights" applied to all animals when you fail to even comprehend that other animals do not value their own species' rights or the rights of other animals.
If rights is a human concept and should only be applied to humans according to you, then you also shouldn't drag animals into your lifestyle by enslaving them and treat them like tools and objects for humanity. Because that's also a concept of humans... right?
Look, I'm not mad at you or anything, but you shouldn't force your opinion onto people by changing the definition of words just because animal cruelty works in your favour. You can totally think that animals aren't worth saving, you are free to think that they don't deserve to be helped when they are abused by humanity. But there are other people, including me, who won't. Because we don't close our eyes to the suffering of those who are mistreated and are defenseless. I defend animals for the same reason why I defend children against child abuse. And I'm not going to consider treating animals like crap just because you think I should.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, so i see no reason why you bother bringing it up.
Because I'm getting the feeling that you are either C. (my stalker) or either one of my stalkers' friends and are using this empty account to block-evade (again). If this is true, then please don't. You can always talk to me, I'm open for everything. But a simple "can you please unblock me?" would also have done the trick, you know. I'm not that difficult and I'm not going to report you for block-evasion.
Thank you for taking your time to discuss with me.
Sorry, mistake in sentence.
Translation: "BAWWW, UR DUNT SUPPORT ANIMAL CRUELTY!!! BAWWW! U DUNT CONSIDER ANIMALZ PRODUCTS!"
Wow, aren't you mature. Just because you call yourself savage doesn't mean that you should act like a savage. Grow up.
maybe when you stop blocking people before they have a chance to rebut your flimsy replies, you too can experience that invaluable event called "growing up."
anti-wolfabaww? i don't even know what that is. and i like how you're blindly telling us what we support and how we feel. if you actually got off your high-horse to look, you'd realize that neither of us support animal abuse. using animal products is not abuse, i don't care what way you cut it. you telling me my eating beef is equivalent to kicking an orphan puppy into a meat-grinder or wearing wool is like force-feeding a kitten draino is going to make me run as far away from you as possible -- i choose not to fraternize with psychologically indisposed people.
society can get lower -- that was a naive addendum. i wasn't insulting you for defending animals, i was insulting you for handling her message in a juvenile manner. i do not care what you defend, if i'm honest, i have no interest in it because i have other things in my life that i need to focus on, so why would i take my time to insult you over that? feel free to defend whatever your delightful, unmolested, powerpuff heart desires.
i suggest you hide the insults you get next time, it's not that hard and it won't take the energy you could be using fighting the mojojojo of animal abusers.
you can block this one now too, btw. it's cute
so ~savage u admit block evading? u do realize thats against the tos and is considered harassment?
i have no interest in it because i have other things in my life that i need to focus on
apparently not, since u block evaded 3 times 2 harass the artist with again just personal insults instead of actual arguments. fail
i suggest you hide the insults you get next time, it's not that hard
hold it, u attack and insult her from out of nowhere because, as animal-cruelty supporter her I support animal rights stamp opposes ur own views, and u expect her 2 take that? if u dont want to get blocked or being called out on your bullshit then dont insult people and block evade in the first place!! i agree with her; ur just a butthurt anti-wolfer whose butthurt over an animal-love stamp because it apposes your own violent views. thats sick!!!
if you actually got off your high-horse to look, you'd realize that neither of us support animal abuse. using animal products is not abuse
u act like itz only animal cruelty if u hurt a pet, but not if u hurt other animals. And just 4 the heads up; just because some types of animal-cruelty r convenient for humans, it doesn't mean that it isn't animal cruelty anymore all of a sudden. THIS [link] [link] [link](04).jpg [link] IS ANIMAL CRUELTY. It's legal, but no one can deny it is animal cruelty, wether its convenient 4u or not. FACT. denying that legal animal cruelty is animal cruelty too is just plain stupid. saying that the mass production of animals like products is not animal cruelty makes u the psychologically indisposed one, not her. Ur just a stereotype animal-hater who pretends 2 be against animal abuse while u support it as long as animal-cruelty is convenient for u . YES, animal cruelty. the "all animal cruelty thatz convienent for humans isn't animal cruelty" argument failed since the start of existence.
Have a nice day.