HOME | DD
loneantarcticwolf — .:: Animal Rights Stamp ::.
Published: 2007-02-04 08:41:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 9134; Favourites: 485; Downloads: 130
Redirect to original
Description
I support Animal Rights. Do you?If you do, please
and post this stamp in your journals or link back to it please!: thumb48026450 : (without the spaces)
Version 2.0 found here ---> [link]
Related content
Comments: 85
I find animal rights more interesting than human rights.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Awesome stamp!! I love animals! I will use it on my profile, ok!?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I assume that means you don't own pets? Your animal rights leaders consider that slavery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do not support animal rights, I support animal welfare
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no, I don't.
animal welfare is ensuring animals get plenty of fresh water, food, enrichment, and clean living conditions.
animal rights is a cat voting.
:s
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oops, sorry.
"Please take into consideration that this stamp was made several years ago before I knew the difference between the two. However, as my most popular deviation, I have left it up."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I will never support animal "rights". I do, however, support animal welfare.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nice stamp.
Please take into consideration that this stamp was made several years ago before I knew the difference between the two. However, as my most popular deviation, I have left it up.
I have
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mm, good point. It is a pretty common misconception.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is indeed. I'm in the process of doing up an animal welfare stamp, which I will finish when I get my design computer back from the repair shop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
o end all human "exploitation" of animals -
this includes, but is not limited to, raising
and slaughtering of livestock for human or
animal consumption, eating meat, hunting,
using animals for any medical or veterinary
research, zoos (regardless of how well
managed), circuses, rodeos, horseshows,
dogshows, animals performing in TV
commercials, shows or movies (regardless
of how well treated any of the above are),
guide-dogs for the blind, police dogs, search
& rescue dogs, and the practice of owning pets
Your really support this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sad... so you really want to eliminate everyone having a pet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the animal's best interest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
really? How is a Chihuahua supposed to survive? They can't give birth without a C-section. Or perhaps the fact that millions have been saved because of insulin that was developed using medical animal research?
The sad thing is, you don't realize you are actually being cold-hearted about the situation. Many animals we keep as pets are incapable of living without human care; or at the very least will have a miserable existence if left on their own. Have you ever been to an animal shelter where the dog or cat has been found and rescued? Did you notice how pitiful the animal looked? Covered in fleas no doubt, ticks all in their ears, and skinny to boot. They don't know how hunt, they don't know how to take care of themselves properly, and they do want to be around humans.
NO It is NOT in the animals best interest. That's a load of crap.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This doesn't mean to suddenly release all animals, it means end animal owning through a process, sorry dear, you have the wrong idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
still though. the idea of eleminating pet owner ship just does not work. there are to many people who the only interaction they have with another living being is through their pet.
not to mention I would rather 1000 rats die in the process of developing a new vaciene than 1000 humans. can't you at least agree with that?
now to mob you- the more you learn. I am not trying to say don't keep your ways, but learn both sides:
PETA has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to animal-rights activists who have been charged with or convicted of crimes.
Ingrid Newkirk is the head of PETA; she is nothing more that a extremist. Don't fall for her BS image of "saving the animals." This is the same woman who urged Yasser Arafat to spare animals in suicide bombings, but could care less about the humans that were being killed. To show just how much of a crackpot this woman is, click the following link to see her afterlife requests:
PETA members believe that animals should have the same rights as people.
PETA head, Ingrid Newkirk has stated that there is no moral difference between poultry farms and Nazi death camps.
PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.
PETA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 3, an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to a violent animal-rights group called SHAC.
PETA has used their contributors’ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for fire bombs and death threats.
PETA cares more about chickens and other farm animals than they do about starving or sick children..
PETA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They also operate a webpage which advocates to people to stop drinking all milk because its supposedly a health hazard! PETA believes that milking cow's is a painful and hurtful experience. However, I once asked a cow about it, and he told me he ENJOYS getting his nipples squeezed, therefore, PETA LIES!
PETA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals.
PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Regulatory agencies in the U.S.—including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration—as well as regulatory agencies in the European Union and elsewhere in the world require chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and many other products to be tested for toxicity. Animals are forced to ingest or inhale—or are injected with—toxic substances such as gasoline components and mercury. Animals used in these tests suffer extreme pain before they are killed, dissected, and thrown away like garbage.
All the more upsetting is that many of these tests could easily be replaced with more sophisticated, more accurate, and less expensive non-animal alternatives.Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques. Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, as well as modifying animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress. Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon.
To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include the following:
* An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(9)
* The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
* Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(10)
* The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
* Microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place.(11)
While effective non-animal test methods become more and more numerous, animal-based toxicology remains, as researcher Thomas Hartung wrote, “frozen in time, using and accepting the same old animal models again and again, often without stringent examination of their validity.some cosmetics, personal care products, foods and beverages and household cleaning products are still tested on animals, or that their local university or hospital torment animals in cruel experiments.
Although modern alternative test methods exist, huge multiproduct manufacturers, including Unilever, Clorox, Church & Dwight, Johnson & Johnson, and others, continue to poison and harm animals in tests that aren't even required by law.Rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals are forced to swallow or inhale massive quantities of a test substance or endure the pain of having caustic chemicals applied to their sensitive eyes and skin––even though the results of animal tests are often unreliable or not applicable to humans. Even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You know...you look like you copy and pasted from a PETA site, because I seem to remember reading all that before.
I am certified to do animal testing, and I can tell you there are so many damn papers you have to fill out just to use a damn cockroach! Yah- something you can freely kill in your house, you have to fill out paperwork, about 60 pages worth, just to even to be considered to use the bug!
Yes, I support animal testing. No, most companies that make cosmetics do not test on animals anymore.
By the way, you left the "references" numbers on that copy and past job.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did copy and paste. Not from peta though.. from an essay I did several years ago for collage
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"still though. the idea of eleminating pet owner ship just does not work. there are to many people who the only interaction they have with another living being is through their pet. "
->The breakthrough of Virtual and robotic pet technology are growling by the day, though it is a big step, it's still possible.
"not to mention I would rather 1000 rats die in the process of developing a new vaciene than 1000 humans. can't you at least agree with that?"
-> To be honest, no. If humans want a vaccine so bad then they can give the sacrifices, or otherwise use other methods or slow their progress. I'm sorry, but it's my opinion. I believe the question is not "Can they reason?" but "Can they feel pain?" The answer is yes, (and in the previous question the answer is still yes in the instance of rats, just thought I'd throw that in.)
"Ingrid Newkirk is the head of PETA; she is nothing more that a extremist. Don't fall for her BS image of "saving the animals." This is the same woman who urged Yasser Arafat to spare animals in suicide bombings, but could care less about the humans that were being killed. To show just how much of a crackpot this woman is, click the following link to see her afterlife requests:"
->The link didn't work, but if you have it I'd like to see it simply out of curiosity. And yes, there are many extremists, but there are extremists in any case. If someone said "I like the color green so much that anyone who doesn't must die!" does that make it wrong to like the color green? I'm free to agree with anyone's opinions, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say. Just like I don't believe it's mortally wrong to drink milk or eat eggs, though I don't agree with selfish factory farmers who believe it is right to horridly care for the animals who produce the products. It's all a matter of where we draw our own boundaries.
"PETA members believe that animals should have the same rights as people."
-> My limit on animal rights is as follows
Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their best interests, regardless of whether they are "cute," useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation. Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog's right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her, nor to be disposed of when he or she is no longer useful. However, animals don't always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals' lives. For instance, a dog doesn't have an interest in voting and therefore doesn't have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
"PETA head, Ingrid Newkirk has stated that there is no moral difference between poultry farms and Nazi death camps."
-> Moral is one's on boundaries... though I wouldn't put it that far, the same general idea is one of which I agree. Let me just say a jail or dungeon is a better condition than what these animals live in.
"PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines."
-> I can agree with most of these, though some of these things are not directly wrong, in the best interest of the animals it may be. If PETA ever grows enough to put this into large action, I'll be on the following side, though obviously some huge things may never get through, such as "no wool" or "no pets", if they did, I'd accept it, considering it'd be what's best.
"PETA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 3, an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to a violent animal-rights group called SHAC."
-> Like I said above, just because there are some extremists doesn't mean I need to completely turn my back on a cause that I agree to.
"PETA has used their contributors’ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for fire bombs and death threats."
-> Again, the whole extremist thing was explained above.
"PETA cares more about chickens and other farm animals than they do about starving or sick children.."
-> Well... I'm not sure about that. What do you mean by that exactly? Sorry.
"PETA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. They also operate a webpage which advocates to people to stop drinking all milk because its supposedly a health hazard! PETA believes that milking cow's is a painful and hurtful experience. However, I once asked a cow about it, and he told me he ENJOYS getting his nipples squeezed, therefore, PETA LIES!"
-> Alright, the comment about asking a cow is a little off, and I'd rather keep this friendly than turn into an argument, so can we drop that little note? Aside from that, I don't find it horrible that they try to spread the word, as any organization would do. Cow and goat milk is not meant for humans to drink, so if you find your nutrients elsewhere, it is healthier. As for the milking comment, well, here's the thing: Milking by hand without separating the cow from her calf, or giving it steroids to keep the milk coming? I personally find that fine. Organic, factory-free milk is okay in my opinion, but I limit myself on even that, because as humans we aren't meant to drink cow's milk. Now average milk from common grocery stores? Well, cows are hooked up to robotic milking machines, which can cause pain and stress for the cow, along with the stress of the calf being prematurely taken away from her. And the cows are often inhumanely disposed of when they can no longer produce milk, so I'm against that.
"PETA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals."
-> Yup. I don't donate my money to PETA, only my time, because I control where that goes. Can't really argue with that, I've complained to PETA many times about their spending. I agree with many of PETA's opinions, but I don't believe they can do no wrong, hence my agreement with this statement.
"PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases."
-> Verbal attacks are fine in my opinion, protesting helps. Though I don't donate to these organizations, for the reason of them conducting animal testing. What PETA does is what PETA does, not all of it is perfect.
So, those are my opinions. I'm not trying to argue with you, only allow you to see my side as well. I enjoyed reading your opinions, though I only agree with some. I hope you'll see my point in some of my opinions as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
yw anything to help animals
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Awesome, awesome stamp, a must have for my collection!! Thanks for making it and sharing it as well!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not a problem
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>