HOME | DD
TheUnsilenced β Perception
[NSFW]
Published: 2009-02-05 04:27:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 301; Favourites: 9; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
An animal rights ad I made with pictures I found on the web. I decided to make it because of the seal massacre that's currently going on, and in response to those who are disgusted with the killing of seals, but who have no problem consuming animal products, which involve violence towards sentient beings, just the ones who aren't commonly perceived as cute or important. I don't understand why there are those who cry for one animal, but harm another. Part of it is cultural; the majority of those who object to the seal massacre are from the U.S., where seal hunting isn't a part of our culture. Since other forms of nonhuman violence are ignored (as in the slaughtering of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish, etc. for food), which can be considered equally unnecessary as fur, the only way to describe the hypocritical anti-sealing campaigns, is a cultural attack, much in the same way people from the U.S. and Europe crusade against the eating of cats and dogs in certain parts of Asia whilst eating other animals back at home.When it all comes down to it, farmed animals, seals, fish, dogs, cats, etc. are sentient beings with consciousness, thoughts and feelings, individuals with likes and dislikes, who desire to be free, and from harm, and who have an interest in continued existence. We do not need animal products such as meat, dairy, and eggs for our survival, anymore than we need fur to survive. The only explanation for this violence is that it is done for pleasure, preservation of tradition, or convenience. And neither of those are justifications for harming sentient beings.
The only difference between a farmed animal and a seal, is perception. If you care about seals, dogs, cats, or any other nonhuman being, why not extend your compassion to farmed animals?
*NOTE: Rude and hostile comments will be removed. Civilized discussions regarding the message in the ad are welcome.
Related content
Comments: 25
Good job on the poster. and to the assinighn comment from some of these folks. All walking, flying and swimming beings are sentient. Humans ar eno more special than any other. we aren't intelligent. If we were we would have clued into what we have done to this planet and its inhabitants earlier and acted on it. Sorry for the rant but I am rather tired of the b*llshit comments by prosealers who think that the seal are over populated and need to control their number when its humans that need to control their own. 6.9 billion humans. 3.5 million seals ( and that's when there is ice pans for them to whelp on). The melting ice is causing so much destructive force to the oceans and its inhabitants plus the pollution we have pumped into the oceans have contaminated everything. Not to mention the bycatch and the over fishing both canadian and foreign overfishing.
I am vegan and I have been researching ocean wildlife (especially seals, whale, polar bears, and dolphins) for well over a decade and it's disturbing how much humans take for granted that every animal they eat, they think its healthy for them. They don't want to think about the mercury levels, the toxic waste that has been absorbed into the animals. They don't want to think of the growth hormones and drugs that have been injected or feed to these species.
thank you for making this poster, continue to make more if you can. The non human inhabitants of this planet need creative people like yourself to speak up for them.
again sorry for the rant.
π: 0 β©: 0
Lesser animals are not sentient. Some are smarter than others, but only humans have sentience in the true and proper definition of the word.
π: 0 β©: 0
maybe the difference that animals don't wear cloths but eat meat. And what is the big difference between me and a lion, why should it be allowed to the lion to eat meat and not to me?
π: 0 β©: 1
By that logic, certain indigenous tribes (or nudist colonies) should be exploited and killed, because they don't wear clothing. How is that a moral argument? What does clothing have to do with sentience? Is someone less sentient if they are naked? If a clothed person and an unclothed person are harmed, is it a worse harm to the clothed person than the unclothed person?
Yes, lions and other carnivorous animals eat meat. They must eat meat in order to survive. Cats, for example, cannot synthesize taurine, so they must obtain it from meat. If they do not have taurine in their diet, it can cause eyesight and heart problems, and can lead to death. Humans can synthesize taurine, and we can acquire all the necessary nutrients from plant sources. We can survive on a well-balanced vegan diet. That is not to deny that we are omnivore, but being omnivore does not mean that we must include animal products in our diet, but rather, that we are opportunistic consumers, able to survive off plant and animal protein, whichever is available to us. Many people argue that a vegan diet is unnatural. So is running water and electricity. So are sanitation departments, TVs, refrigerators, gaming systems, stoves, automobiles, computers, cell phones, and hospitals.
Another thing we must also consider, is our ability to think rationally and morally. Children and the severely mentally disabled don't always behave in a way that is what we would consider to be morally acceptable in our society, but they still (and should) have at least the basic moral right not to be used as a means to the ends of others (exploited, killed, etc.). Since we are capable of behaving rationally and morally, we should refrain from causing unnecessary harm to other sentient beings, whether or not they have the same thinking capabilities as we do. Our behavior should be the focus, because we ought to know better.
And we cannot justify exploiting and killing nonhuman beings for food anymore than we can justify exploiting and killing them for pelts. We do not need meat, dairy, or eggs to survive anymore than we need fur to survive. Meat, dairy, eggs, and fur (and other animal products) come from sentient beings; exploitation and violence must be done to them in order to get those products. How can we justify any of it when we can survive healthily on a well-balanced vegan diet? Furthermore, how can we explain our love and concern for our companion animals, our dogs and cats, or for favored wildlife such as seals and whales, when we contribute to the exploitation and violence of more than 53 billion nonhuman sentient beings every year, all for the sake of our pleasure, convenience, or tradition--frivolous gain?
π: 0 β©: 1
Who say i'm harm to an unclodeth person?
And i asked once a doctor, he told me vegetarian is possible for human and vegan is bad because we would miss some special proteins oh and for womens it would be worse because of iron
We should know it better? Doe4s that mean you would allow the stupid people out our society to eat meat?
Oh and you don't need to be cruel to the animals, some are but it is not neccasary. oh and a death under 10 seconds won't be curel in my eyes...
π: 0 β©: 1
In your wording, it came across as though you meant that people are more important than nonhumans because we wear clothing, so there was confusion.
Also, one doctor's word hardly accounts for anything, especially when a number of nutritionists, and even the American Dietetic Association, say that a vegan diet is safe:
[link]
Notice that iron is one of the nutrients they acknowledge to be attainable from plant sources, and they also say that a properly balanced vegan diet is safe for humans during all stages of life, including infancy and pregnancy.
I donβt care how an animal is killed; they are still killed. I donβt see how the manner in which they are deprived of life holds any relevance when it comes to morality, and whether or not we--a supposedly morally and intellectually superior species--should harm others for selfish reasons. A human could be killed peacefully in their sleep, with no fear, and no pain, and it would still be murder, because a sentient individual was deprived of life. Same goes for nonhuman animals. They are sentient, and as part of being sentient, value their lives, and so deprivation of life is a harm to them, no matter how βhumaneβ it is. We do not need animal products to survive. It is an old myth perpetuated by the ulterior motives that are pleasures, conveniences, traditions - greed. If we truly take seriously the interests of other animals, we won't exploit or kill them at all.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually, one good reason for not liking the violence towards seals but being fine with beef is that seals are endangered, cows are not.
π: 0 β©: 1
Perhaps, if you see nonhuman sentient beings as mere automatons, or resources, and not individuals with intrinsic value. A typical conservational objection to violence is entirely different from a moral objection to violence. Regardless of the quantity of the members within a species, harm to any species is always a harm to one individual; they are not mere numbers in a statistic, but individual sentient beings whom the violence is committed against, and that violence is inflicted upon one sentient being times 53+ billion every year, for reasons every bit as frivolous as seal pelts and flipper pies.
π: 0 β©: 1
It really all depends on what you view as morally objectionable, as well as your definition of a "sentient" being. But I'm not here to troll, you make valid arguments and your poster is good.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow, so many stupid omni comments. Great work from another vegan
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome! Thank you for the fave also!
π: 0 β©: 0
You forgot that between "sentient being" and "murder" there is "comedy laugh track."
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, yeah, I forgot; violence is "funny". I'll take your suggestion, and then add a human child to the diagram, and see how loud the comedy laugh track gets then.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, stop it... silly goose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Silly arrogant, depraved human.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're the one that wants to kill a baby...
Man is it ever easy to troll the self-righteous.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said I wanted to kill a baby. I implied that your "comedy laugh track" wouldn't be so loud if I added a human child to the diagram of sentient beings and murder. There's no reason to be apathetic to any sentient being. You are the one who finds violence to be funny.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for proving my point.
π: 0 β©: 1
About what? That I somehow want to kill a baby? No, it wouldn't be funny to laugh at violence against a child, anymore than it would be funny to laugh at violence against a nonhuman being. You, however, find violence against nonhuman beings to be hilarious (as you proudly proclaimed in your first comment), yet find violence against a child to be wrong and offensive. I'm pointing out your moral inconsistency; not saying that I find violence against humans to be funny (because I don't just care about nonhumans, and I don't just care about humans; all sentient beings, human and nonhuman, have at least the basic moral right not to be used as a means to an end, exploited or killed).
π: 0 β©: 1
And you keep going on.... Further proving my point: the self-righteous are easy to troll. "Moral inconsistancy?" I'm not even arguing a point! I'm just rattling your cage to waste your time. Have fun writing your next paragraph.
Sage advice for today: if you take yourself too seriously, no one else ever will.
π: 0 β©: 0
I could really go for a burger right about now. Good job with the poster though.
π: 0 β©: 2
First comment was rude and unnecessary, but thanks for the compliment.
π: 0 β©: 0