The real beast - Animal Videos Community is dedicated to animals who have been killed by greed, selfishness and lust for blood of humans.
At present and future generations of innocent beings to suffer and die because of human brutality.
To all our creatures like that, because of the abuse of human beings, have been mutilated, slaughtered, burned, poisoned, strangled, gassed, shot, electrocuted, cooked, invest, skinned, eaten, enslaved and domesticated -
Many men deny their feelings toward animal suffering, building giusticare alibis for their abusive behavior. People soon learn to stifle what they really feel when they see animals suffer. Separate thoughts from feelings of alienation is part of the process that afigge humanity.
Many others lie somewhere in between. They believe that animals should be treated well, but they still put on a throne of the human species. Torn between empathy for other creatures and the need to control them, playing the role of the moderates. They try to quell the animosity of extremist animal defenders, trying to increase the sensitivity on the part of the exploiters of animals, suggesting larger cages and slaughtering "more human". They feel that animals should be free to live their lives, but then I think that freedom would be unreasonable in conflict with their lifestyle. They want to use drugs and eat meat and other products of animal exploitation, but they are wrong when they become aware of what the animals suffer for their production. That's why slaughterhouses are built away from the eyes of the public and the doors of research laboratories are kept tightly closed. This helps people keep their heads in the sand, closing his eyes to the cruelty around them. Today, it is time for moderation and compromise, when it comes to moral principles concerning the life and death -
There is a reason why so many people become defenders of the animals and looking for love in them are in non-human honesty. The animals do not act. They are directed. And they are never deliberately cruel. Once
, hunting, slaughtering, skinning animals and beating was part of the daily life of ordinary people. That people today are more sensitive to the cruel past, is an illusion in contemporary society. In fact, people simply no longer used to kill animals with their own hands. This dirty work is left to the specialists, such as butchers, hunters, vivisection or employees of certain kennels.
Although some people currently remain disrupted to view photos of mistreatment of animals, the importance they attach to the products of such abuse leads to simply reused the view of those images, or to accept that these actions against animals are a "necessary evil".
Today, the world has been dened for men by men themselves. Putting people at the center of the world is dened anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism allows humans to treat animals as "natural resources", objects for human use and consumption. These have often been created by man Denition gloricate from religious scripture, which impregnates many violent practices of an alleged divine acceptance, and isolated from any possible riessione around them by erecting impenetrable walls of faith. The men, thirsting for blood, do not have much need giusticazioni for the massacre of the kind they make, but also armed with faith, becomes an unstoppable holocaust that feeds on itself. This anthropocentric view of the world, also led to environmental destruction. Mountains, moisture, and do not post entire rain forests are considered nothing more than objects, used to satisfy the human craving for material possessions and power. The subjugate the world and its inhabitants to human desires has not stopped people from killing each other too. This is because the connection between non-human and human is irrefutable: we are all animals. If the animals do not Humans can exploit and sacricare, the same can be done with humans. Anthropocentrism alien humans from the rest of the natural world -
anthropocentric When people feel affection for animals or nature, their feelings are always contaminated by their anthropocentrism. When you claim to love animals, they mean to them like animals for what they have to offer to people. Usually, they prefer pets. Domestication is a process by which the animals were bred to be controlled and manipulated by man. Dogs, cats and other "pets" are very often loved by people who think in relation to animal life human needs.
The anthropocentric approach also makes up the animal and the environmental issue as they were two separate issues. It is not surprising. Alienated people, who are themselves outside of nature, also see animals as not related to their environment. But the whole planet is a single system. And the entire planet is greater than the sum of its parts plant, animal and mineral. Separate from the animals is a human mental construct. It has nothing to do with reality.
Adopt a biocentric vision means to the contrary, humans do not like the center of the planet, but as a participant in a multitude of other beings. The elephants, otters, sea bass, sea spiders and vultures etc.. have the same right as humans to live on this planet -
Many people claim to love animals. The hunters say they love nature, even if they discharge their guns at anything that moves. Poachers also insist that they love animals and argue that the traps they use are not too painful for the unfortunate animals that are trapped. Pin vivisectors vaunted love of animals, insisting that the animals undergoing the tortures which are necessary for human health. Selfishness and anthropocentrism of the beliefs of hunters, poachers and should be obvious even to vivisection people are losing interest of the animals. This vision of some supposed "animal lovers", it is clearly ridiculous. For them, for example, torturing and killing animals in laboratories is giusticabile, if the research is "required", provided it is done in a compassionate way. Pin eating animals is acceptable, provided they are 'slaughtered in a humane "... The concept of "humane slaughter" - whatever signichi - is a perversion. Shows how humans are confused about what should be regarded humanitarian. "Humane slaughter" is an oxymoron, like "intelligence" military. Instead, I believe strongly that killing an innocent being, human or nonhuman, that will not die, never humanitarian. Can you consider humanitarian murder of your brother or your sister? What if the murderess apologized telling you who killed your sister with love, with an overdose of barbiturates, or electrocution? Smiling, humanitarian considerations and his assassination? It is clear that the real purpose, dene the "humane" slaughter, and make things easier for the killers. E 'be noted that each year in U.S. animal shelters are killed at least fifteen million animals. The public does not want to know that animals that have been discarded are killed with a blow on the head. It 'more humane, according to the people, kill animals in a more discreet - with an injection, for example. It does not matter that the animals are removed murdered solely because of human negligence and lack of will to change the system, such as preventing the sale of animals in stores, or by making it illegal to reproduce and compulsory sterilization. It 's totally incociliabile oppose the suffering of animals, but not to their murder -
Many people appear to be contrary to the farms, where animals are treated like machines and are connate in the dark, confined spaces and crowded. Still, do not move any objection to the killing of animals for human consumption, if these creatures were raised on traditional farms, family-run, before being slaughtered. Until the animals are treated well while alive, do not find anything wrong in killing. Death is natural for them, after all -
Some murderers of animals giusticano their actions by saying that humans are animals, and animals to kill each other. Humans are simply following the law of nature. But do not explain why, as animals, humans choose to behave as parasites and how aggressive carnivores. Also, do not explain how, as cruel beasts who kill and exploit other creatures, humans can behave in a respectful and compassionate towards other humans. When sdata to respond, they say, that humans are different from animals. Humans deserve more respect. This statement reveals a prejudice called speciesism, which involves the belief that nonhuman species are less than human, just like racism implies a belief that certain "races" are inferior to others. Treat animals as inferior beings and to a lesser degree than that of humans is a feature common to most human beings. Humans are not able to dene the value or quality of life of a dog or any creature. This view is strongly anthropocentric. Humans can not judge the quality and value of the life of another creature. What relevance has this view? The value or quality of life which we attribute to our neighbor are not the least important when it comes to respect her right to life. It makes no difference that our neighbor is a dog, a snail, a fly, a bat or a giraffe. Most people have difcoltà not to put the interests of humans above those of animals, rather than on the same floor -
Unfortunately, the human mind has a tremendous ability to shut down too often in front of any reasoning and to isolate itself from the moral arguments. To intellectual arguments about ethics, most people do not react at all. When you ask them why they eat animals, for example, will say: "I like the taste," "I've always eaten," "If you do not eat I eat someone else", "E 'nature', and so on. When, with the words, gets in trouble by showing them the inconsistency in the treatment of human and nonhuman, and that they are just speciesists, say, at best, "Okay, are speciesist I am inconsistent! The I accept. " Even after you show them how animals are treated on factory farms and slaughterhouses, and even after explaining to them that billions of animals are sent to death in that way each year keep to eat meat, even looking away when passing in front of a particularly grisly butcher's shop window. Of course, now their behavior is not due to ignorance, not their initial knowledge. However, almost always, your words fall on deaf ears. Why?
The arguments do not change people's behavior. Only a change in sentiment can lead to a transformation. As a simple demonstration of this truth, you look at the example of slaughterhouse workers. It 'clear that these people know what they're doing. Talk to them about the killing of animals does not make sense. It 's a living thing in person. Yet, they continue to slaughter animals. Why continue to do so? Why, even if they know what they're doing, just do not feel -
Then why some people respect animals and not others? To answer this question, it would be better to address a deeper question: What motivates a person to take into account the needs of others? The most obvious answer is that a person takes into account the other unless it inuisce about her feelings, more specifically, about his feelings of pain or pleasure. Empathy is what we feel when we believe we can prove what he's trying unaltro. It has nothing to do with the mind, but with the heart, so is real and powerful in its effects on our behavior. It 's the way it establishes our connection with others, and the way we uniquely identify with their reality. Without empathy, we can not feel affection for others. It 's the basis of friendship and love. It makes us feel good. We need it. Love, the highest form of empathy. We all need love and empathy because we feel alone in the world. Humans are an alien species, fundamentally insecure of their connection with the rest of nature. The world is scary when you do not have the faintest idea how to behave, no internal instinct to indicate what is healthy and what is harmful. If we had such knowledge, we would not need ethics and religions to decide how to behave. Both attempt to dene the behavior of human beings and our place in the world. Ever since man exists, there have been religious and moral codes that try to make sense of the chaos of the human condition. This basic existential uncertainty makes the lonely and scared. Friendship is a relief and, as such, it is appreciated. The other side of this coin is the existential need to exercise control over the world -
E 'quite clear that the desire to exercise power and control are dominant in the life of most people. If people can not control their lives, try to control the lives of others. People are afraid of losing control, because it hurts to lose control. Let us pretend that we'll be good in the world, that the environment is not hostile and that we will meet our needs. For humans, exercise power over others is a way to reach an illusory peace of mind, a vision in which the world is a safe and controllable. Love for others and power over others are mutually exclusive. You can not love someone who uses, or make someone you love. The way people deal with this paradox is to love and some to control others. And since the control often leads to exploitation, try a little or no empathy for those who are screened, so as not to suffer with him, when it is exploited -
To illustrate this point, it can be shown the example of Nazi doctors who led atrocious experiments on Jews during the day, behaving then from loving fathers and husbands in the evening. Humans label a group with "other," using race, nationality, gender, or species as the basis for this distinction, and consider that group deserving of empathy and, therefore, a reasonable target for exploitation. As long as there is another group with whom they can Identicar and to find empathy and love, humans can satisfy their need for affection. Denendo groups in this way, people love giving pleasure to certain groups, thus reducing their suffering in exploiting other groups. The groups to which is kind consist of human beings, particularly those with a power equal to or greater. The exploited are typically powerless and unable to respond to aggression, like the animals -
If you have power over others, is not afraid of them. This signica that they can be treated in the manner that you prefer, which is based on exploitation or fairness. If exploited, can not help but suffer. If treated well, they can choose whether or not to return the courtesy. When people choose the groups to exploit the easiest target is of course the less powerful group. Nonhuman animals do not have the power to respond to aggression and human exploitation. The animals are forced to suffer human power over their lives. Since most humans consider animals as objects not worthy of empathy, do not recognize the suffering that they cause. They squalicato animals such as sentient beings capable of suffering and have their own interests. These people are so insensitive to their screams and their suffering. And 'what is this numbness allows exploiters to sleep at night and kill the day. Those who feel empathy for animals, respect them. Relish nell'identicarsi even with non-human beings, love to see them free, and they respect all beings as members of the family life since they have the right to live on the planet. Instead of seeing animals as objects to be checked, see them as individuals to love -
If you do not empathize, at least to some degree, to animals, it is understood never any arguments explaining how their autonomy must be respected. The animals are defenseless and easy prey of human exploitation, because they can not rebel. I know a breeder of pigs that they "love" until they end up at the butcher. It also takes the calf as "pets" for two years, and then they "put in the freezer." What these people have for animals, are driven by motives purely personal interests, in an attempt to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. Love and empathy are very different feelings
gaspare thanks! we love you!
0 comments:
Post a Comment