Addict's term for the video game "Animal Crossing" or its sequel, "Animal Crossing: Wild World".
Derived from the compulsion to dedicate inordinate amounts of time to one or more of the game's voluntary missions: making friends, writing them letters and sending them ugly clothes, expanding your house, paying off your mortgage and expanding your house again, collecting all the furniture in a set, fishing, donating fossils to the museum, building a second town, planting fruit trees, getting iglooed, hitting unwanted neighbors with a butterfly net...
Derived from the compulsion to dedicate inordinate amounts of time to one or more of the game's voluntary missions: making friends, writing them letters and sending them ugly clothes, expanding your house, paying off your mortgage and expanding your house again, collecting all the furniture in a set, fishing, donating fossils to the museum, building a second town, planting fruit trees, getting iglooed, hitting unwanted neighbors with a butterfly net...
by mgdu February 22, 2008
Get the Animal Crack mug.by Chockymilkisnotfunny February 3, 2021
Get the Animaesexual mug.Related Words
azima
• azimah
• Azimak
• Ali Azima
• animal
• aiman
• Animal Crossing
• Animal Farm
• Animal Jam
• animal rights
by iheartfosse February 20, 2009
Get the stuffed animal route mug.by Ratched, RN March 17, 2022
Get the Emotional support animal mug.by everyone has the good names June 6, 2011
Get the animalist mug.Hypocritical asshole who thinks that he/she can stop the killings of "poor, innocent animals" by harming humans and being a bitch until they get their way. In other words, someone with smaller intellegence.
by weirdgirl August 7, 2003
Get the animal rights activist mug.A philosophy that claims that humans are inherently "moral" animals and have an "ethical" duty to consider the "rights" of animals. Naive at best, they ignore that the concepts of "morality," "ethics," and "rights" are merely inventions of the human mind and do not exist beyond the man-made implications of actions of human beings that only other humans "perceive."
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs and nobody would complain.
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs and nobody would complain.
Animal rights..."Rights" and "justice" are human creations that are absolutely meaningless beyond the human mind's ability to perceive and analyze action.
The same is true about the notion of "worth" - "worth" is a human fabricated psychological device used to describe in our minds alone what we measure and evaluate the things we perceive.
Animals do not have inherent or natural "worth" or "rights to considerations" because nothing does - even humans - because they are not real. These ideas are not real things beyond the human mind's ability to create words and definitions for their use of measurement.
The notion that animals having measurable "rights" is a natural and inherently occurring state of being is as false as the notion of humans having "rights" is a natural and inherent occurrence and state of being. "Righteousness" and "justice" are human modes of psychological perception, nothing else.
The same is true about the notion of "worth" - "worth" is a human fabricated psychological device used to describe in our minds alone what we measure and evaluate the things we perceive.
Animals do not have inherent or natural "worth" or "rights to considerations" because nothing does - even humans - because they are not real. These ideas are not real things beyond the human mind's ability to create words and definitions for their use of measurement.
The notion that animals having measurable "rights" is a natural and inherently occurring state of being is as false as the notion of humans having "rights" is a natural and inherent occurrence and state of being. "Righteousness" and "justice" are human modes of psychological perception, nothing else.
by Fingerlickin'good December 15, 2008
Get the animal rights mug.