Things that are very important to me: working towards saving animals from exploitation, suffering and death at the hands of humans and salvaging what is left of our planet’s health.
Things that are not very important to me: meat eater’s hurt feelings.
Hope that clears things up.
Posted on 2 September, 2014
Posted on 30 August, 2014Reblogged from vegansidekick
This was so beautiful that I had to put it up on my wall and examine it as if it were an exquisite piece of art.
"Manpain" by Anonymous
Above we have a quintessential example of early 21st Century prose by an aggrieved man. The author of this piece is unknown, but we can surmise by his inability to properly say “shit” to a woman and his assurance that he likes “admirable” female characters that he is most likely a “Nice Guy.”
The anonymous author employs deliberate obtuseness in order to provoke a reaction from his audience. Notice how he pretends no British individual supports the idea of a woman portraying the Doctor, despite clear evidence to the contrary, even amongst actors who have portrayed the titular character on the show. Then there is the stunning self-centeredness regarding his perception of third wave feminism; he is only interested in equality it grants him the “right” to hit the women whose arguments make him so incoherently angry that he is unable to rationally reply.
His final challenge attempts to trap the reader. Do we respond and grant him the audience and validation he so desperately seeks, or do we ignore him and let him believe he has won? But perhaps we have a third option: to turn the focus back on him and examine how his comments display his deep insecurity in his own sense of masculinity, something he feels can only be reclaimed by challenging a girl on the internet to a fight and preemptively declaring victory because he fears he cannot engage with her on an intellectual level.
a work of goddamn art oh my god
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.
I am not quite sure what this “silence” is that you attribute to tumblr vegans… I can’t speak for anyone else in the community but for me personally there has been very little information released about the vaccine in its early stages and I dislike commenting on things without a good amount of information. For that reason I’m mostly going to talk about animal testing more generally here.
You are making a bit of a fallacy in this claim, in that you are assuming the only way this drug could have possibly been developed is through animal testing. The effective drugs on the market have been tested on animals, but it does not follow that these things have been effective because they have been tested on animals. In the UK for example, any new drug must be tested on at least two mammals to be considered fit for market. Now, that does not mean those drugs came about because they were tested on animals, they could be (and in many cases, are) the result of much more advanced and less victorian methods of testing drugs.
It is not the case that we treat this by testing on animals or we don’t treat it at all. There are a wealth of alternatives like en vitro, test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computerised patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans, and micro dosing, to name a few. There are many well respected figures in the bio-medical community who do not believe animal testing is in any way helpful anymore. We have undoubtedly gained a great deal from animal testing in the past, but people like Nobel-prize winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar pointed out that we will be at a point where we can dispense with animal research altogether in as few as ten years time, and that was in 1972.
Even ignoring ethical considerations, the animal model of research is deeply flawed, 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests still go on to fail or cause harm in clinical trials. UK based companies like Pharmagene use human tissue exclusively, not out of any ethical considerations, but because they believe that the animal testing model is scientifically redundant. Animals do not get many of the diseases that humans do, so these diseases must be artificially inducted. This simply does not give us an accurate measure of how authentically caught diseases will respond to treatment, human cell tissue gives us a much more accurate picture. To use cancer as an example, Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition said, “Animals don’t reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people.” As for the metholodolgy, it is widely known that animal experiments have serious limitations in that results in humans cannot be extrapolated from results in animals. A mixture of high dosage, stress conditions of animals in confinement mean there are simply too many variables to gain reliable results. Lets also look at what we actually gain from animal testing. Last year, globally, we killed 115 million animals in scientific experiments, yet the FDA approved only 35 new treatments. 115 million lives, for 35 new drugs? Does that sound like an efficient research model to you? Today’s drug companies do the actual research with computer based and stem cell models, and are simply obliged to test on animals once that process has been completed, in many cases slowing down the process rather than helping it. For every research organisation you can name me that is testing on animals, I can link you one that is having equal or superior results using non-animal models.
What is happening in West Africa and elsewhere is horrific, but you are making a mistake if you assume that the only two options we have available are animal testing or let everyone die. I think you are guilty of a rather obvious confirmation bias here. You’re assuming because animal research has been done, that animal research is the only way it could have possibly done, with very little possible evidence to back up that claim. Animal testing is inefficient, expensive, out of date and utterly unethical. On a personal level, I absolutely do not believe that animal lives have any less inherent value than human lives. You may believe it is perfectly okay for 115 million animals to suffer every year so long as it benefits a higher number of humans, but we do not have to look very far into our own human history to see horrific examples of this cold, utilitarian idea in which it is acceptable for a minority to suffer for the good of the majority. The idea that some lives matter less than others has been responsible for some of the most horrific injustices in human history, and I do not believe this is an ethos any serious thinker should entertain.I honestly believe that at this point, the only thing we still have to learn from animal testing is the depths of cruelty that humans are willing to inflict on sentient beings.
Posted on 22 August, 2014Reblogged from serenitaaaaa77
Posted on 15 August, 2014
Posted on 14 August, 2014
Posted on 14 August, 2014
Vivid Theme by JoachimT Powered by Tumblr