Forum - Stowarzyszenie Empatia

K.Biernacka napisał(a):"Ładny biust dzięki ... świni"

K.Biernacka napisał(a):Butcher's Pet Care - autentyczna nazwa firmy produkującej karmę ze zwierząt dla zwierząt.

Do Butcher’s test on animals?

We do not carry out invasive testing or keep captive animals.

Butcher’s only carry out palatability tests on new products, to make sure everything we produce is as delicious as your dog expects! This is carried out in the dog’s home environment, by the owner and at the usual feedingLearn about proper dog nutrition and how to keep your dog in optimum health through high quality nutrition. Lifestage dog food - is it worth it? It's never been more important to recognise the connection between good health, longevity, good behaviour, great condition and all round vitality with the diet we provide for our canine friends. Our dogs rely on us entirely for their nutrition and knowing more about this specific topic is so important it can literally add years to your dog's life. times.

Zezwierzęcenie

Jakiś czas temu, w wypożyczalni filmów moją uwagę przyciągnął tytuł „Królestwo Zwierząt”. Opis filmu szybko uzmysłowił mi, że mowa tu wyłącznie o zwierzętach ludzkich – Homo sapiens w ogólności, a o zdemoralizowanej rodzinie gangsterów w szczególności. „Królestwo” - chyba ze względu na nienaruszalną hierarchię stanowiącą podstawową zasadę funkcjonowania tej grupy kierowanej przez tyle miło wyglądającą ile bezwzględną kobietę-matkę-królową. „Zwierząt” – zdaje się dlatego, że w potocznym postrzeganiu człowiek minus kręgosłup moralny równa się bezwzględne i okrutne zwierzę.

Jakże to niesprawiedliwe i niewłaściwie ułożone równanie. Po pierwsze, żeby stracić kręgosłup moralny, trzeba go najpierw mieć. O ile u zwierząt pozaludzkich obserwuje się pewne formy poczucia sprawiedliwości i empatii, o tyle u ludzi umiejętność rozróżnienia dobra od zła, zdolność wczucia się w położenie innych i niezwykle elastyczna możliwość wyboru osiągnęły nieporównywalnie bardziej rozwiniętą formę. Zatem świadomy wybór między dobrem a złem tak wówczas, gdy wesprzemy altruizm, jaki i wtedy, gdy opowiemy się za okrucieństwem jest ludzki, tzn. charakterystyczny dla naszego gatunku. Człowiekiem był nie tylko Gandhi ale również Hitler.

Druga kwestia to nasze wyobrażenie świata zwierząt pozaludzkich jako ogarniętego wyłącznie walką, ranieniem, zabijaniem i pożeraniem też nie jest zbieżne z rzeczywistością. Zwierzęta tworzą przecież rodziny, stada, wzajemnie się sobą opiekują, ostrzegają przed zagrożeniem, potrafią ustalać hierarchię w sposób bezkrwawy, a wolno żyjące drapieżniki polują, by przetrwać. Warto zauważyć, że otyłość występuje nie u wolno żyjącego lwa, tygrysa czy krokodyla ale u ludzi i zwierząt pozostających pod ich bezpośrednią opieką.

Zdechł mi kot – powie niejeden były właściciel zwierzęcia. Przez usta mu nie przejdzie „umarł”. Zapytany dlaczego, często odpowie „bo zwierzęta nie mają duszy”. Zapomina jednak, że sam nie wie, czy on tzw. duszę posiada. Pewne jest tylko, że w nią wierzy i że wygodna to wiara, dobrze na miarę ego skrojona.

Ile „bydlęcia” zobaczymy w łagodnych oczach krowy, którą bezwzględnie doimy, której dzieci posyłamy na rzeź – my hodowcy i konsumenci mleka, cielęciny czy wołowiny. Patrząc na Auschwitz, gułagi, Hiroszimę i wszystkie, pracujące pełną parą rzeźnie tego świata – musimy skonstatować, że bezsprzecznie pierwsze miejsce w rankingu okrucieństwa wygrywa bestia ludzka.

Bardziej niż rzekomego zezwierzęcenia, czyż nie powinniśmy obawiać się „uczłowieczenia” zwierząt, na przykład na hitlerowską modłę, albo ten powszechnie przyjęty sposób tyleż dystansujący się od okrucieństwa ileż biorący w nim pasywnie czynny udział?

Najnowsze wydanie "Nature" opisuje nową strategię tworzenia szczepionki przeciw HIV, która nieźle sprawdza się w modelu zwierzęcym.

Do organizmu zwierzęcia nowa szczepionka wprowadza jakby "babę w babie". "Babą zewnętrzną", czyli nośnikiem, jest małpi wirus cytomegalii, a wewnętrzną - małpi odpowiednik HIV zwany w skrócie SIV. Okazuje się, że tak spreparowana szczepionka wywołuje zdecydowanie mocniejszą i trwalszą odpowiedź immunologiczną małp niż podanie samego wirusa SIV.

The somewhat clumsy term "speciesist language' may be defined as utterances that express a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of one's own species and against those of members of other species. In this definition, I follow the general though not altogether unproblematic direction of its popularizer Peter Singer, who has written that the term refers to the view that "species membership is, in itself, a reason for giving more weight to the interests of one being than to those of another."

Historically, the distinction between Homo sapiens and animals carries with it a cumbersome cultural baggage. Implicitly, it tends to be voice as if humans were somehow not animals and as if all nonhuman animals were insapient ("dumb animals"). At root, the distinction is based on the prejudice that nonhuman animals are necessarily the Other. At times, this Other is viewed as the embodiment of virtue. Thus, at least since classical antiquity, humans have anthropomorphized their deities, among whose numerous emblems are the eagle of Jupiter, the owl of Minerva, and the serpent of Aesculapius. At other times, the animal Other is assigned to the nether regions since it is of course not only to gods that theriomorphic symbols have been attached but also to devils. Indeed, the earliest known usage of the word "animal" referred to diabolical or inferior traits typically associated with the Devil, with the Antichrist, and with feral animals.

These traits of the animal Other included—and in many respects still do—uncleanliness, irrationality, untrustworthiness, lust, greed, and the potential for sudden violence. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Latin words anima ("spirit" or "breath") and animal probably entered old English as beste or beast from the French bete, which in turn likely de- rived from the Sanskrit "that which is to be feared."21 The Devil's earthly manifestations have been held to include animals such as snakes, cats, toads, goats, and, more imaginatively, dragons and vampires. These occur not only in the Homeric myths and in the Icelandic sagas but also in our own fairy tales and morality plays. To mention but one example from this list of Satanic animals, cats have traditionally been invested with a cultural repertoire of deep symbolic significance. They have been held to be in league with the Devil, and their occult powers were to be feared by sensible folk. At medieval carnivals, cats were thrown onto bonfires in the belief that this would bring good luck. In an episode recounted by the Enlightenment historian Robert Darnton, one night in Paris in the late 1730s, a group of young male printer's apprentices administered the last rites to several offending cats owned and adored by their master's wife, strung them up on an improvised gallows, hanged them, and then erupted into gales of joyful laughter. To understand their merriment, we need to know that the vengeful apprentices suffered appalling working conditions, including being fed far less well than Madame's cats. The cat massacre was a low-risk method of causing great emotional distress to Madame and to her husband. Because cats have long represented female genitalia and so too have been associated with the cuck-olding of men, to the apprentices the killing of her cats was thus to take exquisite revenge on Madame and on her as her husband's property. The occasion was thus worthy of joyous celebration.

Modern societies, too, continue to be saturated with speciesist social practices, among them words and phrases that derive from dubious animal images and metaphors. In this regard, the English language is richly en- dowed with attributions to animals of deviant and criminal characteristics. Indeed, in the dog-eat-dog world of our rat race, we fret about bats out of hell and deride those who are as crazy as cuckoos, loons, or coots and who are as mad as March hares. We refer to sly or cunning foxes (especially when they "steal" chickens or "fleece" their prey) and to rogue elephants, black sheep, dirty or traitorous rats, murderous hyenas, and thieving monkeys and jackdaws. Moreover, speciesist terms of derogation are increasingly lodged in the discourse of descriptions of violent criminals, such as serial murderers, mass murderers, rapists, and child molesters ("animals" one and all). In June 2007, the outgoing British prime minister, Tony Blair, blamed the media for having contributed to his political downfall, complaining aggressively about the media's declining standards, stating that they hunted in packs and acted like feral beasts.

The often-violent images and metaphors of speciesist language are saturated with implicit declarations about how worthwhile lives differ from lives with little or no intrinsic value. For example, we refer without hesitation to humans as human "beings"—a symbolic term of personhood denoting volitional and sentient forms of life with self-consciousness and with bundles of rights and obligations that are worthy of respect. But we rarely if ever refer to nonhuman animals as "animal beings." Rather, they are named simply as "animals"—the Other—an implicitly derogatory term synonymous with the notion that they are altogether different from humans and, as such, necessarily less important than humans and less worthy of consideration and respect.

Humans, instead, tend to be understood as complex creatures whose gender is an important item in forms of address. For example, we refer to Jane Smith as "Ms. Smith," to Jack Jones as "Mr. Jones," and to "she who . . ." or "he who . . ." Except for animals appointed as companions ("pets"), however, nonhuman animals are seen as undifferentiated objects each of whom is normally identified not as a "she" or a "he" but as an "it" ("if which . . ."). Speciesism and sexism clearly often operate together and in tandem, with women and nonhuman animals depicted as objects to be controlled, manipulated, and exploited. Thus, when men describe women as "cows," "bitches," "(dumb) bunnies," "birds," "chicks," "foxes," and "fresh meat" and their genitalia as other species, they use derogatory language essentially to relegate both women and animals to the inferior statuses of "less than male" and, even, "less than human."

Some forms of speciesist language are seemingly more subtle. These often hinge on animals' master status as the property of humans. "Fisheries," for example, refers not to an objective ontological reality but to diverse species that are acted on as objects of commodification by humans and, as such, trapped or otherwise "harvested," killed, and consumed. The same sort of egregious misdescription appears in many other categories as well, including "laboratory animals" (instead of "animals used in laboratories"), "pets," "circus animals," and "racehorses." The last of these, to offer another example, misdescribes as "racehorses" those horses who are used by humans to race against each over tracks and on courses (a misdescription that is specifically explored in chapter 4). In fact, they are horses used as racehorses. Clearly, radical revision of speciesist language is long overdue. In some cases, new descriptions altogether are needed—for example, misothery for hatred of and contempt for animals, animal sexual assault for bestiality, and theriocide for the killing; of nonhuman animals by humans.

But the central juxtaposition, namely, that between humans and all other animals, seems quite a hard one to avoid. Several attempts have been made to overcome it, including "nonhuman animals," a term that has been in vogue among many members of the animal protection community. Other candidates include the rather cumbersome "animals other than humans" (the preferred usage in the journal Society & Animals) and, derivative of this, Geertrui Cazaux's clever if obscure acronym "aothas" (animals other than human animals).

However, set against the obvious errors embedded in the dichotomous phrase "human/animal," neither of its two erstwhile alternatives manages quite to escape the clutches of speciesism either. In a sort of Wittgensteinian vicious circle, both fail for precisely the same reason. Thus, while the term "nonhuman animals" is a welcome reminder that the terrain of human-animal relationships is marked by speciesist language, to speak of "nonhuman animals" is ironically to privilege humans, for it defines all animals other than Homo sapiens as lacking in certain qualities that allegedly inhere only in humans. Put another way, the phrase "nonhuman animals" involves rather the same sort of error as if we were to speak of (human) women as nonmale humans. For the very same reason, the acronym "aotha" also fails to avoid the embrace of specicsism.

So, what is to be done? Unsatisfactory though it might be, my own practice is initially to juxtapose "humans" with "nonhuman animals" and then, at a suitably proximate point, to attach "(hereinafter, 'animals')" after the term "nonhuman animals." This might look like a lot of effort to arrive at a point no further than the one of departure. But the jarring effects of the journey are well worth it, especially if our fellow creatures are thereby accorded more respect.

Zwierzęta domowe powinny być nazywane „kompanami” lub „towarzyszami”, a szczury to po prostu „żyjące na wolności” – jak postulują obrońcy praw zwierząt.
Zwierzęta nie powinny być opisywane jako "szkodniki", a w stosunku do domowych pupili nie powinno się nawet używać określenia „zwierzę” – jak zadecydowali naukowcy zajmujący się ”etyką zwierzęcą”. Uważają oni, że tradycyjnie używane słowa takie jak „zwierzę”, czy „zwierzątko”, a nawet „pupil” są obraźliwe i powinny być zastąpione takimi, które nie uwłaczają psom, kotom i innym „towarzyszom” człowieka. Określenia takie jak „szkodnik” należy zupełnie odrzucić, a pupila czy zwierzę, zamienić na domowego kompana, druha lub współtowarzysza – postulują redaktorzy Journal of Animal Ethics. "Dzikie zwierzęta" powinny być określane jako "wolne” lub „żyjące na wolności”, ponieważ przymiotnik „dziki” także ma negatywny wydźwięk i kojarzy się z czymś barbarzyńskim, pozbawionym pozytywnych cech.