fightingforanimals:

Why feeding water birds bread is harmful:

  • Duckling Malnutrition: In an area where ducks are regularly fed bread, ducklings will not receive adequate nutrition for proper growth and development. Furthermore, because ducks will naturally seek out an easy food source such as human handouts, ducklings will not learn to forage for natural foods as easily.
  • Overcrowding: Where an easy food source is abundant, ducks and other waterfowl will lay more eggs and the pond or lake will become overcrowded. This makes it more difficult for the birds to seek out healthier food sources and increases the likelihood of territorial aggression.
  • Pollution: When too much bread is offered to ducks, not all of it will be eaten. The soggy, uneaten bread is unsightly and rotting bread can create noxious odors as well as lead to greater algae growth that can clog natural waterways. This concentrates the pollution and can eventually eradicate fish and other life in the vicinity.
  • Diseases: Feeding ducks bread can increase the spread of diseases in two ways. First, a carbohydrate-rich diet leads to greater defecation, and bird feces easily harbor bacteria responsible for numerous diseases, including avian botulism. Second, moldy bread can cause aspergillosis, a fatal lung infection that can decimate entire duck and waterfowl flocks.
  • Pest Attraction: Rotting supplies of food leftover from sated ducks will attract other unwelcome pests such as rats, mice and insects. These pests can also harbor additional diseases that can be dangerous to humans.
  • Loss of Natural Behaviour: When birds become accustomed to handouts, they lose their natural fear of humans and may become aggressive in order to get more food. Their loss of fear can also cause other dangers, such as a willingness to cross busy roads in order to reach picnickers and other likely sources of food.

Good Foods to Feed Ducks:

The best foods for ducks are those that provide the nutrients, minerals and vitamins the birds need for healthy growth and development. Many of these foods are similar to the natural seeds, grains and plants the birds will forage on their own. As omnivorous birds, ducks will eat a great deal of different foods, and the best foods to offer ducks include:

  • Cracked corn
  • Wheat, barley or similar grains
  • Oats (uncooked; rolled or quick)
  • Rice (cooked or uncooked)
  • Birdseed (any type or mix)
  • Grapes (cut in half)
  • Frozen peas or corn (defrosted, no need to cook)
  • Earthworms
  • Mealworms (fresh or dried)
  • Chopped lettuce or other greens or salad mixes
  • Vegetable trimmings or peels (chopped)
  • Duck feed pellets or poultry starter pellets (x)

isis-:

elluvias:

heterophobicgoat:

stupidandreckless:

NOOOO NO NO NONO FUCK FUCK  FUCKIG CBS IS TELLING WOMEN NOT TO REPORT SEXUAL HARASSMENT BECAUSE IT WILL “DAMAGE THEIR CAREERS” and “HARASSMENT IS AN UNFORTUNATE PART OF CLIMBING THE LADDER” I AM SO ANGRY THEY ARE LITERALLY TURNING SEXUAL HARASSMENT INTO A NORM THIS IS NOT OKAY

This is an actual article and I’m still having a hard time believing it’s real.

IF YOU ARE SEXUALLY HARRASSED YOU REPORT THAT SHIT

WhAT THE HELL?? HOW COULD THIS EXIST?

x0202:

teach your kids to be nice to each other. it makes me livid when i see kids who are mocked and friendless. it’s always seen as this shameful thing to say you were bullied, the word itself is glib and brings to mind images of kids throwing insults around like “four eyes”, shit no one really cares about. in reality i have yet to see a kid who was bullied throughout their life that didn’t develop self-deprecating, mistrustful coping mechanisms. isolation and degradation is psychological abuse, shoving a kid around, throwing someone into a locker, giving them a black eye is physical abuse. a lot of times bullying intersects with sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia. it’s not light hearted, “school yard bullying” is actually sick behavior that has a lasting impact throughout a person’s life. and just saying, idt the corny anti-bullying posters and half assed speeches school faculties throw around are helping the situation either. if anything they make bullied kids feel embarrassed about their very legitimate problems and reluctant to speak out.

leafsfeelings:

choptail:

*SLAMS REBLOG BUTTON*

HIT REBLOG SO GODDAMN FAST

(Source: htkfr)

When Stuyvesant says that women’s dress and bodies are distraction in a learning environment, for example, what they’re really saying is that they’re distracting to male students. The default student we are concerned about - the student whose learning we want to ensure is protected - is male. Never mind how “distracting” it is to be pulled from class, humiliated, and made to change outfits - publicly degrading young women is small price to pay to make sure that a boy doesn’t have to suffer through the momentary distraction of glancing at a girl’s legs. When this dentist in Iowa can fire his assistant for turning him on - even though she’s done absolutely nothing wrong - the message again is that it’s men’s ability to work that’s important.



And when rape victims are blamed for the crime committed against them, the message is the same: This is something that happened to the perpetrator, who was driven to assault by a skirt, or a date, or the oh-so-sexy invitation of being passed out drunk. Women have infringed on their right to exist without being turned on. (Ta-Nehisi Coates describes this centering of male sexual vulnerability quite well.) Our very presence is a disruption of the male status quo.

From my latest at The Nation, “Asking For It” 

(via quoilecanard)

(Source: jessicavalenti)

theveganmothership:

If humans were in the picture, this would be called a genocide, a holocaust. The people in charge would be called evil, their acts: Torture and murder. But because this is happening to animals who are not humans, it is seen as “farming”, “the circle of life”, and worst of all: “Normal”. 
This is NOT acceptable. 

theveganmothership:

If humans were in the picture, this would be called a genocide, a holocaust. The people in charge would be called evil, their acts: Torture and murder. But because this is happening to animals who are not humans, it is seen as “farming”, “the circle of life”, and worst of all: “Normal”. 

This is NOT acceptable. 

i think you're super cool but i mean dude people are allowed to have their own opinions on how and what they eat. i respect you for being vegan please try to respect me/others for NOT being vegan

Anonymous

vegan-because-fuck-you:

I need to take a megaphone to the closest mountain top so I can scream this from the skies, in hope that this argument finally dies.

Difference in opinion DOES NOT warrant mutual respect. 

Your opinion defends everything that I stand against. 

Your opinion encourages the continuance of an institutionalized oppression that has an annual body count of 150 billion strong.

Your opinion takes the lives of loving, feeling, thinking sentient beings and reduces them to fucking nothing. Then you strip them of their victimhood by insisting this is just about what you put in your mouth.

Your opinion silences the screams of suffering bellowed out by those affected by it. So confident that nothing you are doing is wrong that you have the audacity to come to me and try to silence my words on behalf of them?

If you want some reassurance that you are allowed to have your opinion then go bask in the glow of the billions of others that share it with you and the society that encourages it. Don’t invade the place I come to hide and demand respect. Because you sure as fuck aren’t going to get any reassurance or respect from me because there is absolutely fucking NOTHING about your opinion worthy of respect.

naughtylittlevegan:

image
I’m vegan for the animals but also for my health. There are people who are vegan for their health like my aunt and uncle.

You don’t avoid leather and animal tested products for your health. You can be on a plant-based diet for your health, and although a plant-based diet is part of being a vegan, it’s not the only thing.

(Source: lilytakeson)

philosoveg:

Greyhound races are an unnecessary and cruel form of entertainment for humans, as the animals are often kept in cramped cages for long hours, and can succumb to injury, heart attacks and heat stroke due to the racing. Though more and more greyhounds are being properly retired when their racing days are over, many are still abandoned, shot, sent to overcrowded shelters or to medical laboratories. [Source]

(Source: acti-veg)

viciousgoth:

i’m giving away this binder
about a year or more ago, i applied for the “in a bind” program, which gives free binders to trans people who can’t pay for them. in the intervening year since i applied, i got a binder myself. and forgot that they might actually send me one. so i got this for free and i want to pass it on to someone who actually needs a binder. it’s brand fuckin new. i tried it on once. it’s pretty similar to this underworks binder, it’s full-length, tanktop style, with 2 layers in the front and 1 layer in the back. it’s a size “small” and it’s a bit small on me: my bra size is a 34A if that helps. it would probably fit someone whose band size is a 32. please message me if you’re interested. i’m down to ship it anywhere in the US but if you live outside the US and want to throw me a lil $ for shipping that would rock (but isnt required like if you really cant afford it i’ll ship it myself). 
xo Demi

viciousgoth:

i’m giving away this binder

about a year or more ago, i applied for the “in a bind” program, which gives free binders to trans people who can’t pay for them. in the intervening year since i applied, i got a binder myself. and forgot that they might actually send me one. so i got this for free and i want to pass it on to someone who actually needs a binder. it’s brand fuckin new. i tried it on once. it’s pretty similar to this underworks binder, it’s full-length, tanktop style, with 2 layers in the front and 1 layer in the back. it’s a size “small” and it’s a bit small on me: my bra size is a 34A if that helps. it would probably fit someone whose band size is a 32. please message me if you’re interested. i’m down to ship it anywhere in the US but if you live outside the US and want to throw me a lil $ for shipping that would rock (but isnt required like if you really cant afford it i’ll ship it myself). 

xo Demi

this reminds me of that one time when we had money

(Source: stardustandunicorntears)

(Source: cyberpunkutopia)

soycrates:

luke-absurd:

soycrates:

(I’ve cut the original text out for brevity, anyone interested can click through to see them in their entirety.)

"I believe that it’s definitely grounded in more legitimate philosophical explanation…"

However you must also realize that on its own it is not a sufficient argument at all and should have no reason when people who offer these sorts of statements alone are criticized for having overly simplistic and overly dismissive responses to extremely important ethical concerns.

"I agree that anthropocentrism is logically untenable.  But why maintain sentiocentrism?  In my opinion, assigning moral value only to those beings with what you define as “sentience” seems arbitrary: strongly reminiscent of speciesism."

Some people believe that moving from anthropocentrism to sentiocentrism is merely pushing the goalposts for moral considerations, and yet I would argue otherwise. The main reasons that many people give for anthropocentrism do not coincide even with the ways we treat other human beings. For example, some claim that an anthropocentric mindset is permissible because humans are intelligent beings, that we are capable of feats unimaginable to other creatures, and that in light of the sheer extravagance of our possibilities we have a decent incentive to protect this species which has a complex understanding of pleasure, pain, and emotional responses in general.

Yet not all humans can claim this status. Some humans are physically or mentally impaired - whether they are unable to run the longest marathon known to humankind, or take part in the building of a particle collider - and yet we still grant them the most basic decencies of freedom from harm and recognition of their status as a person. While we have different treatment of some humans who cannot perform the acts that anthropocentrists claim are important parts of all human beings, such different treatment has never, morally or legally, warranted harm or killing.

"Specifically, why should pain - as you specifically focus on - be assigned any moral significance?  According to science, pain is merely neuropathic electrical and chemical impulses.  Where’s the connection between my attempt to avoid such somatic impulses and the moral obligation of others to ensure the success of that attempt or refrain from causing those impulses in the first place?"

I’m not really sure what you’re getting at describing the brain state of pain. How our brain responds to pain has very little to do with the moral significance of it, and no physiological description perfectly sums up what happens outside of a strictly technical understanding of the event.

For example, the feeling of “love” is a combination of serotonin and oxytocin (as well as testosterone and estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrin, vasopressin, etc. as you likely already know) and yet no amount of studying these chemicals on their own or knowing what functions they play in the body will give you a deeper understanding of how humans treat the concept of love, how love plays organizing factors in our society, how many different types of love have been categorized, and so on.

In short, approaching the feelings of living beings from a strict neurochemical perspective will give you an extremely limited viewpoint of phenomena, and suggests a dire disconnection from the question at hand.

This is why what constitutes pain for me vs. what constitutes pain for you is as relevant in this discourse in asking whether or not we are legitimated in both calling a green object green even if we perceive slightly different colour variations. Despite our inherent differences as living beings, the only possible way we are able to make sense of the world, and maybe even the only possible way to continue our existence, is to not let inherent differences count as outright barriers of understanding.

A being who knows everything about every element on the periodic table but nothing else would not understand pleasure, pain, language, interaction between living beings. They might not even understand the principles of extension or of gravity very well.

"This line of questioning takes a more abstract look at the idea of pain, and if pain is abstractedly subjective, how can you derive from it any sort of cohesive ethic?"

How have we devised a cohesive system of colour complimentation if colour is “abstractedly subjective”? Yet we have, because we know that if the differences were so wide, such a system would not function properly. 

"E.g. judging what universal pain is seems entirely contrary to the feminist principles I think you espouse: arbitrarily paternalistic"

You should inbox me about this because I’m not sure if you read my blog or not but you might be thinking of someone else when you said this. I hope you haven’t confused me with any of the other lovely vegan bloggers here.

Having sufficiently answered question A, I believe, it would be nonsensical to address B as it follows from A.

"My argument derives from my own answers to these questions: that there is no reason as to why an ethic should be centered around pain or pleasure"

Except that our own intuitions towards pain and pleasure tell us exactly how we value them,  that we do value them, and that they are the root of some of our highest values. So, if an existentialist human ethic is to be based off of anything, it should be where our highest values lie.

"grounded on the idea that beings pursue/avoid pleasure and pain and require “sentience” to do so."

You haven’t made a case against this point - in fact I felt like your argument did not deal with the fact that we do as sentient beings avoid things we find displeasurable and seek that which we find pleasurable. You cannot assert that pain does not matter when it is your basal intuition to act as if it does.  

"Indeed it inverts the naturalistic fallacy because all life pursues some goal and therefore is afforded respect, via universalizability, in that pursuit.  Importantly, even plants have their pursuits - coded in their DNA"

You’re ignoring that different life forms will require different kinds of respect. Even though you acknowledge that perception and sensation is subjective, that all beings may experience things differently and thus warrant different wants and needs and definitions of pain, you’ve failed to grasp that this too would extend to plants. The majority of plants used for human consumption are not being disrespected in any way, for example, since the disrespect of another creature - to cause them an abstract injustice or pain, if you will - is accompanied by a stimulus of response. Whereas sentient animals cry out in pain, some plants release deadly toxins, other have harsh and abrasive spikes that stick into the animal who is trying to consume it.

The goal for a plant is to grow. That human beings grow plants is a respect of their nature, and that they eat them is not unless accompanied by some sort of response that would warrant such a belief. You’re confusing non-sentient goals with sentient ones, and even I might think suggesting that all living creatures do have the exact same drive for survival and the same needs, which would conflict with your statement of subjective perception.

I’ve failed to see how the Kantian approach provides any useful ethic, as one who has seen how Kant believes that his Categorical Imperative is intrinsically tied to the belief in a higher power that grants value. Nor have I found any papers put forth by my recent advanced environmental philosophy course on a good compromise for Kantian morality and environmental ethic (though they’ve tried, let me tell you that!)

i imagine teaching aliens from outer space “how not to be complete dishholes” kinda feels like this.

chronicallyvegan:

shinykari:

madmaudlingoes:

bropakpro:

touch-my-cuboner:

zecretary:

zecretary:

the stereotype that women talk more than men is infinitely amusing to me because men are literally incapable of shutting the fuck up

i hope this post gets popular enough that i hurt a man’s feelings

It’s not a stereotype it’s a proven fact you femanazi piece of shit.

lmao there it is 

You wanna talk proven facts? This shit’s been done, son: researcher Dale Spencer in Australia used audio and video tape to independently evaluate who talked the most in mixed-gender university classroom discussions. Regardless of the gender ratio of the students, whether the instructor was deliberately trying to encourage female participation or not, men always talked more—whether the metric was minutes of talking or number of words spoken. 

Moreover, men literally have no clue how much they talk. When Spencer asked students to evaluate their perception of who talked more in a given discussion, women were pretty accurate; but men perceived the discussion as being “equal” when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time.

Spencer’s conclusion, if I may parahprase: you only think we talk too much because you’d rather we were silent.

Don’t fuck with me, asshole, I’m a scientist.

image

"you only think we talk too much because you’d rather we were silent."

holy shit u guise