Funny Animal Pictures : August 2013

Thursday 15 August 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Biography

Source:-(Google.com.pk)

Like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, New Year’s and other holidays of this world, St. Valentine’s Day is another attempt to “whitewash” perverted customs and observances of Kemetian (Ancient Nubian Egypt) and the Ancient Mystery Metaphysical System of KMT and the Tree of Life, turning them into pagan gods and idols by “Paganizing” them.

As innocent and harmless as St. Valentine’s Day may appear, its traditions and customs originate from two of the most sexually perverted pagan festivals of ancient history: Lupercalia and the feast day of Juno Februata.

Celebrated on February 15, Lupercalia (known as the “festival of sexual license”) was held by the ancient Romans in honor of Lupercus, god of fertility and husbandry, protector of herds and crops, and a mighty hunter—especially of wolves. The Romans believed that Lupercus would protect Rome from roving bands of wolves, which devoured livestock and people.

Assisted by Vestal Virgins, the Luperci (male priests) conducted purification rites by sacrificing goats and a dog in the Lupercal cave on Palatine Hill, where the Romans believed the twins Romulus and Remus had been sheltered and nursed by a she-wolf before they eventually founded Rome. Clothed in loincloths made from sacrificed goats and smeared in their blood, the Luperci would run about Rome, striking women with februa, thongs made from skins of the sacrificed goats. The Luperci believed that the floggings purified women and guaranteed their fertility and ease of childbirth. February derives from februa or “means of purification.”

To the Romans, February was also sacred to Juno Februata, the goddess of febris (“fever”) of love, and of women and marriage. On February 14, billets (small pieces of paper, each of which had the name of a teen-aged girl written on it) were put into a container.

Teen-aged boys would then choose one billet at random. The boy and the girl whose name was drawn would become a “couple,” joining in erotic games at feasts and parties celebrated throughout Rome. After the festival, they would remain sexual partners for the rest of the year. This custom was observed in the Roman Empire for centuries.

Whitewashing Perversion

In A.D. 494, Pope Gelasius renamed the festival of Juno Februata as the “Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary.” The date of its observance was later changed from February 14 to February 2, then changed back to the 14. It is also known as Candlemas, the Presentation of the Lord, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin and the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

After Constantine had made the Roman church’s brand of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire (A.D. 325), church leaders wanted to do away with the pagan festivals of the people. Lupercalia was high on their list. But the Roman citizens thought otherwise.

It was not until A.D. 496 that the church at Rome was able to do anything about Lupercalia. Powerless to get rid of it, Pope Gelasius instead changed it from February 15 to the 14th and called it St. Valentine’s Day. It was named after one of that church’s saints, who, in A.D. 270, was executed by the emperor for his beliefs.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “At least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs, are mentioned in early martyrologies under the date of 14 February. One is described as a priest at Rome, another as bishop of Interamna (modern Terni), and these two seem both to have suffered in the second half of the third century and to have been buried on the Flaminian Way, but at different distances from the city…Of the third Saint Valentine, who suffered in Africa with a number of companions, nothing is further known.” Several biographies of different men named Valentine were merged into one “official” St. Valentine.

The church whitewashed Lupercalia even further. Instead of putting the names of girls into a box, the names of “saints” were drawn by both boys and girls. It was then each person’s duty to emulate the life of the saint whose name he or she had drawn. This was Rome’s vain attempt to “whitewash” a pagan observance by “Christianizing” it, which God has not given man the power or authority to do. Though the church at Rome had banned the sexual lottery, young men still practiced a much toned-down version, sending women whom they desired handwritten romantic messages containing St. Valentine’s name.

Over the centuries, St. Valentine’s Day cards became popular, especially by the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These cards were painted with pictures of Cupid and hearts, and meticulously decorated with lace, silk or flowers.

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures With Sayings Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Biography

Source:-(Google.com.pk)

Unless you've been living under a rock, you all know Knut (pronounced 'ka-noot'): the sweet journal of his cute, cuddly baby frosty-bear face - his four short years of life as a resident and visitor magnet at the Berlin Zoo - is resplendent on the 'net. Google 'Knut' - just his name, no further keyword necessary - and you'll be rewarded with hours of smile-generating, awwww-inducing photos of the precocious Polar Bear.
The controversy began with the rejection by his mother at birth, followed by his being snapped up as the tiny helpless, almost-furless infant-cub he was (in the wild, it is common for the mother bear to eat her cub(s) if she has, for reasons only a new mother Polar bear understands, determined her offspring either too weak to survive or if she is simply a first-time, utterly-confused and annoyed mother) and given over to zoo keeper Thomas Dörflein to hand raise.
There's much more to learn, and I'm being overly-simplistic here because my point doesn't need the particular details (visit WikiPedia for the best, in-a-nutshell synopsis of little Knut's life, his caretakers, and the controversy that swirled around him around his 1st birthday).

Of course there are always those who choose to stand for one extreme or the other.
I experienced a childhood not unlike that: you do the one thing, and are chided for doing it wrong. So you do it the other way, and are scolded for doing it wrong. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
An animal rights activist started the spark, publicly denouncing 1 year old Knut as a 'psychopath' of a bear, a casualty of bad judgement, basically decrying Knut's 'spoiled' and 'un-bear-like' life in the zoo as tragic, that he would have been better off had the zoo allowed nature to take its course (allowing the cub(s) to starve and fail, and/or be eaten by their mother after rejection) instead of his current 'spoofhood', the emptiness of his 'bear life', as it was certain Knut would never have a mate, cubs of his own, etc., as he had absolutely no knowledge or experience of 'being a Polar bear' to live by.
This accompanied by shots of a wet and dirty 1 year old Knut rolling in joyful abandon on the rocky poolside of his habitat.
Sure, Knut had become the new staple of pop culture, the cutie of the moment, and merchandising had become a huge enterprise (stuffed toys, snacks, coloring books, not to mention souvenirs, all selling like hotcakes not only in the zoo gift shop but worldwide), verging on exploitation (Vanity Fair magazine shoot with celeb Leo DeCaprio, the subject of songs, weekly TV shows, DVD's, and yes, a motion picture, etc, etc.).
For me, the surprisingly-profound cherry atop the media blitz was this: a book (published in Germany by Ravensburger on July 26, 2007; US publishing company Scholastic released the English version in the United States in November of the same year; rights to the book were also sold to publishers in Japan, England, Mexico, China, and Italy over the next few years) entitled Knut: How one little polar bear captivated the world.

For me, that title says it all.
Knut. The little Polar Bear that, indeed, captivated the world.

Because for all the fuss and holler over whether it was cruel (or not) to have rescued Knut from certain death to let him grow up in a way no Polar Bear ever would, in the wild, I believe Knut had a purpose that embraced his unorthodox cub-hood, a destiny that superceded all the ideas of natural vs. unnatural, morally right vs. ethically wrong.
Regardless of how 'unnatural' it was that he fawn and climb all over his non-bear 'mama', Thomas Dörflein, the man who raised him as a cub to a little after his 1st birthday (and who, sadly, died after suffering a heart attack in 2008), that he pose and tumble for the thousands of human visitors to his habitat, that Knut was so comfortable with the constant click and flash of cameras he seemed to be addicted to humans and their attention - regardless. Knut served the world a far greater purpose than he would have, had he gown up as a mother-approved, albeit captive, but more 'beary' bear, or had he been ultimately blessed to have been a Polar Bear born in and living in the wild country and glaciers and ice of the arctic, along with the approximately 20,000 other 'natural' Polar Bears alive in the world today - all of them no-less important, but nameless and faceless to the world.

See, there is a tragedy happening as I write. Polar bears are slowly - more rapidly now, however - losing their battle to survive, as climate changes, ice melt, are destroying their natural habitat.and resulting in their suffering starvation and death, in massive numbers yearly compared to the cycles of centuries past. The numbers of Polar Bears living in the wild are in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 30,000 today, but are expected to face a 30% drop in just the next decade! Will it be THEN, when there are perhaps 10,000 Polar Bears in existence, or less, that the humans of the world realize something needs to be done? It might be too late.

So one asks the blunt question: would it have been better for Knut to have been born into the iffy-ness of a 'natural' life in the arctic? Maybe. Was it better that he lived a spoiled, pampered and media-circus life at the zoo? Maybe, maybe not. For a few year, however, he was safe.
And from all of those snapshots, those Kodak moments that relayed his every day's experiences to the world, he appeared to be healthy and happy, if happy could be something an animal can be described as (I think so, but scientists are still out on that one).

But most of all, I would answer the question, instead, with another question...
The world knows who Knut is (was).
The world knows more about the plight of this threatened animal, and the world knows something needs to be done.

And, the world, people of the world, have been giving, in the name of Knut, to wildlife organizations, donating money and time to efforts to impact a change that will protect the Polar bear from extinction, all things that would not have come to be had those people not seen a particularly-precious webshot of that fluffy white, black-eyed teddy-bear-cute Polar Bear cub face.

How many Monday mornings were brightened, for millions of people, with a quick shared peek at the latest Knut pic? Did positive actions not take place, as a result?

I think yes. In Knut's case, his 'unbearlike' existence was a small price to pay for the caretaking, human attention and over-marketing that took place over the course of his short 4 years because Knut was serving a far greater purpose, in a fashion, than that of his wild and natural counterparts.

Knut was an ambassador.
He had been born into the position of mascot, of a 'face to a name', even a product, but representative of something great, no less.

Now think of what a LOSS this world would have suffered, having NOT had this wonderful little cub in their media-laden lives.
If one little hand-raised, 'psychopath', human-addicted Polar bear cub can accomplish so much in such a short time, then I think that validates the reasons by which he was rescued as a cub.

On March 19, 2011, Knut was, as often, romping on the banks and splashing in the water of his enclosure. WItnesses say he seemed fine one minute, then jumped in the water, than there was short spasm and he died.
It may be weeks before anything definitive is reported, as to why this young Polar Bear simply 'shut off', like the flicker and zap of a lightbulb going out, his reason for dying...

But Knut most certainly did have a wonderful reason for LIVING, exactly way he did live ...
Because of Knut and his unnatural existence, he introduced the world to the plight of his natural-living counterparts.
And I fail to see the 'wrong' in that.

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Cute Funny Animal Pictures Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures For Kids Free Photos Images Pictures 2013

Funny Animal Pictures For Kids Biography

Source:-(Google.com.pk)

Draeyk wrote "im curious as to where people are on the pets issue as well since its something ive had a hard time over. i was absolutely against the keeping of pets. animals reared and bred for our own use and benefit. i guess when the're from a shelter its better but isnt it like second hand leather goods? shouldnt we try and close down this industry of exploitation?

i used to argue this at very many animal rights meets... ppl who had dogs running around all over and breeding left, right and centre... that it was irresponsible and counter to an animal rights agenda. "

In my opinion ideally in a utopic Vegan world of the future. NO. We could perhaps eventually develop relationships with other species...but I think it would take a while before we could be trusted to do this.

But in this world. YES. We created the problem and therefore it is our duty to have companion animals to treat them as equals and to respect and honor them. This goes agianst depriving their rights to reproduce. But unfortunately the society being what it is I think it is our responsibility to spay and neuter them too.

That is perhaps the only area in which I do not respect animal rights, but I think that the alternatives caused by our sick and depraved society justify this violation. I agree with you, at least in theory. If the choice we're presently faced with is (a) to release domesticated animals to fend for themselves (most of which would die pretty quickly and painfully), (b) euthanize them or (c) give them homes where they can be safe and fed for the rest of their lives, my ethical compass says "c".

Concurrent with that, it's important to work to eliminate the sources of those animals that need homes. And I would like to see a world where any companion animals were just those who chose to be around humans on their own accord, not those kept by fences and leashes. That's a long way away, tho'.

I do still have deep misgivings about petfood industry. It disturbs me to consider that chickens and other animals are killed to feed our cats. While I realize that cats would naturally hunt birds, I still don't like our meddling in the process.The biggest problem is the massive overpopulation of cats and dogs who are left to fend for themselves in our urban environments - which means they end up getting horrible diseases, suffering, being tortured, murdered, etc., ... and then procreating so the cycle gets worse. I definitely believe that it's part of being an animal rights activist to adopt/foster who we can, to advocate spaying and neutering, and to fight for state-wide laws and actions to make breeding, pet stores, etc., illegal. It's all about reducing suffering.

Being the person that I am, I feel a very stong connection with any living thing. Whether it's a bug or a dog. I always feel like I should save an animal if I feel that it is in distress. My cat, Maliq loves to kill chipmonks and everything else. Any time that I see him getting sometimes I immediately run outside and scopp him up and let the animal go. But, I have learned that most times it is best to let him finish killing the animal if he has already hurt it because it is best for him to kill the animal than to let it suffer.

I just got back from a walk a bit ago where I heard a bird chirping and noticed it was on the pavement and that it was young and couldn't fly. I was with two kids and my 16 year old sister who is very opposite of me. My initial reaction was to try and pick it up and then I don't know... look online how to help. Immediately my sister says" you care too much about animals". And then a man heard what was going on and says don't mess with it it's probably abandoned and birds have disease. So I just left it alone. I got back home and started to cry because I knew that I didn't do what i wanted. I went back with a towel to try to find it and it was gone. What disgusts me more than the fact that this "artist" (psychopath) though of this and did it.

and more that this is considered "art" and what it means for real artists

and more than that artistic organizations acclaimed the work.

and even more than that the gallery (sociopaths) allowed it to happen

is that people

watched this and DID NOTHING...that not even ONE person who saw this thought of feeding the poor dog, giving him water even if they didn't have the balls to rescue him. No one even thought of helping him...This to me says a lot about the people of Honduras.