She obviously has the image for one who enforces sexist stereotypes. But she is the artist who inspired many to be themselves and not to give a damn to what people think or say, learn to love yourself.
What she does is really appreciatable from women all around them who are afraid to live their life by their choices.
Minaj has become one of the most popular female rap artist in the US In such a short amount of time. She is an award-winning rapper a talented vocalist, hip-hop artists, and a worldwide icon of woman empowerment.
In August 2009, she signed a deal with Lil Wayne ‘Young Money and started to feature with Robin Thicke, Mariah Carrey, and fellow other artists. In 2010, her first studio album ‘Pink Friday’ releases. The album featuring ‘Your Love’ went on No.14 on Billboard’s Hot 100 and No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot Rap songs.
With producing hit albums and great collaboration with Yo Gotti, Gucci Mane, Drake, Lil Wayne, Kayne West, Beyoncè & Jay Z, Ariana Grande and many other. Nicki has become the ‘Best Female Rapper in the History of Hip-Hop.’
Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to have children would be prevented from marrying. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From 1970 through 2012 roughly 30% of all US households were married couples without children, and in 2012, married couples without children outnumbered married couples with children by 9%. 6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both married and unmarried people rated love, commitment, and companionship higher than having children as "very important" reasons to get married, and only 44% of unmarried people and 59% of married people rated having children as a very important reason. Several US presidents never had their own biological children, including George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country."12] As US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted, a marriage license would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are both over the age of 55, even though "there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."
Rick Perry, the Republican Governor of Texas, was quoted in an Aug. 28, 2007 Reuters article titled "Texas Gov Says U.S. Needs Migrants, Not Border Wall":
"We need those individuals to continue to grow our economy...
If you show up illegally, without your card or you're here as a criminal element, I'm for throwing the book at those folks, but the issue of people who want to legally, thoughtfully and appropriately come to America to work and help us build our economy -- we should quickly come up with a program and an identification card to do that...
We know how to deal with border security, and you don't do it by building a fence."
If it's built, the project will be a boondoggle of legendary proportions and likely will become the subject of historic ridicule. Why? Because Trump's silly wall can't possibly address much of the problem he seeks to fix… Trump has milked the melodrama of a border wall, but he ignores the likelihood that it would be ineffectual at stopping people from entering the country without permission. Human migration routes are like rivers: If they hit an obstacle, the flow finds a way around it. So a wall will just lead smugglers to find new routes and methods — planes, boats and 31-foot ladders for a 30-foot wall — even as it is being built, further undercutting confidence in the barrier's effectiveness. Nor would Trump's wall address the growth in illegal immigration from Asia, which outpaces immigration from Latin America… Perhaps most important, a wall could do nothing to halt the growing trend of people entering the country legally (often by plane) and then not leaving, which by some estimates accounts for as much as half of the undocumented immigration.
"If this border wall actually happens, it will be an environmental catastrophe. Essentially, what it's doing is cutting through nature's bridge, which connects Central America to North America and South America. Wildlife have been using this natural corridor for millions of years. And, essentially, what this administration wants to do is put a twelve-hundred mile long barrier right through it. Think of all the different species and creatures that migrate for resources, for reproduction, for seasonality. Many of the animals that live in North America, evolved in South America and migrated along this natural causeway. So, it would be absolutely devastating. There are over a hundred bird species that migrate that will be critically impacted by this. And there are nearly 90 endangered and threatened species [including jaguars, ocelots, and the Mexican gray wolf], some of which could very well be pushed to extinction because of this proposed wall."
-jeff corwin ; wildlife biologist and nature conservationist,
"The Democrats do not support the [border] wall. And I think that the Republicans on the border states do not support the wall… The wall is, in my view, immoral, expensive, [and] unwise… The President talks about how tall it is, who's going to pay for it, and all the rest of that. But you have to understand this part of the country. There's a community with the border going through it. The President, I think, talking about this wall is expressing a sign of weakness. He's saying, 'I can't control our borders. I have to build a wall.' We certainly would like to-- We have a responsibility to control our borders. Building a wall is not an answer, not here or any place."
quoted from nancy pelosi herself.
Rothschild = The Rothschild family is a wealthy Jewish family descending from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a court factor to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, Holy Roman Empire, who established his banking business in the 1760s.
Your whole family was considered inferior by Hitler, do you believe that to be true? May I ask you, how you can call call "brown people" inferior.
Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found. [107] [129] [130] Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, "giving false credit" to animal use. [130] For example, HRA notes, "Ovarian function was demonstrated by physician Dr. Robert.T. Morris in 1895 in surgical procedures on women, yet history credits the discovery to Emil Knauer who reproduced the procedure in rabbits in 1896... [and] Banting and Best are often cited as having discovered insulin through animal experiments in 1922. However... the discovery of insulin dates back to 1788 when an English physician, Thomas Cawley, performed an autopsy on a diabetic.
Religious traditions tell us to be merciful to animals, so we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them. In the Bible, Proverbs 12:10 states: "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast..." [70] The Hindu doctrine of ahimsa teaches the principle of not doing harm to other living beings. [103] The Buddhist doctrine of right livelihood dissuades Buddhists from doing any harm to animals
The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [68] An incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee. [69] A US Department of Agriculture (USDA) lawsuit against Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories (SNBL) of Everett, WA, alleged willful violation of the AWA, including the death of 38 primates from dehydration, hypoglycemia, suffocation, hyperthermia, and seizures.
Animals can suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans. All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments. [66][67] As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote in the 1700s, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates. 87% of the studies failed to randomize the selection of animals (a technique used to reduce "selection bias") and 86% did not use "blinding" (another technique to reduce researcher bias). Also, "only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used." [64] A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies including "incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud." [128] Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research.
Animal tests are more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government research dollars. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts and found animal tests were more expensive in every scenario studied. [61] [62] Biotechnology company Empiriko invented synthetic livers which can predict the liver's metabolic reactions to drugs in a process that is quicker, cheaper, and more accurate than animal testing; in one trial it provided a level of specificity which previously would have required testing on 1,000 rats and 100 dogs. [124] According to Senator Jeff Flake's "Wastebook" of government funding, over $7.3 million of taxpayers' money was wasted on studies involving animals in 2016. [125] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) found $56.4 million of government funds spent on animal experiments that, despite running over many years, failed to provide any useful results.
Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [57] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [58] A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [59][58] A study in Archives of Toxicology stated that "The low predictivity of animal experiments in research areas allowing direct comparisons of mouse versus human data puts strong doubt on the usefulness of animal data as key technology to predict human safety."
95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research. The AWA covered 820,812 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2016, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered. These animals are especially vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse without the protection of the AWA.
Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on, or harmful to, animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. [105] Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. [127] Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH. [105] A report on Slate.com stated that a "source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans."
Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [5] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [109][110] Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.
Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. [52] Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." [53] Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats."
Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. [15] Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [15][50][51] Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals.
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." [47] The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. [48][49] The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. [65][102] The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2016 that 71,370 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,272 nonhuman primates, 5,771 rabbits, 24,566 guinea pigs, and 33,280 hamsters. [
1879
1879
1943-1946
1990
1927
1816
1895
1935
1876
the list continues.
Half of those inventions were created when blacks were either slaves or treated poorly? So how do you expect them to be using their abilities to invent. If many of them even got freedom, how do you expect them to even get credit for their inventions?
Not all black people do worse in school. I know for a fact, my mother is a teacher and she has seen little white boys stressing at such a young age they will drop out whereas black kids always participating in class and showing curiosity for the slightest things.
Also! More Black Inventors!
Richard Spikes created the automatic gear shift.
Benjamin Banneker created the world's first clock.
Alexander Miles created automatic elevator doors.
George T. Sampson created clothes dryer.
Alice H. Parker created the gas heating furnace.
John Albert Burr created the lawn mower.
Washington Martin created the modern lock.
Thomas Elkins created the toilet.
THERE ARE MANY OTHERS, I JUST DONT FEEL LIKE TYPING!
Well...
Shirley Jackson (black) invented the touch tone telephone, caller ID, and fiber-optic cable.
Lewis Latimer (black) invented/discovered carbon filament.
Marie Van Brittan Brown (black) invented closed circuit television security.
Otis Boykin (black) invented the IBM computer and the pacemakers.
Lonnie G. Johnson (black) invented the Super Soaker and now working on Thermoelectric Energy Converter.
Charles Drew (black) invented/founded the first blood bank.
Marian R. Croak (black) invented VoIP's.
Lisa Gelobter (black) created shockwaves or gifs.
Philip Emeagwali (black) invented the world's fastest running computer.
Jesse Ernest Wilkins, Jr. (black) created mathematical models to explain gamma radiation.
Elijah McCoy (black) invented lubricators that revolutionized steam engines and railroad industries.
Garrett Morgan (black) invented the gas mask and traffic signal.
Mary and Mildred Davidson (black) invented the sanitary belt, tissue holder, and walker.
Don't forget that black and whites were segregated when most inventions were made which meant it was fairly easy for whites to steal credit for black inventions.
Just because humans were granted more physical and emotional capabilities or traits, doesn't make them superior to animals. In my opinion, animals are superior to humans. Without humans, the earth would thrive. Without animals, the ecosystem would collapse plunging us all into an apocalypse of some sort. For example, the value of animals like, bees, bats, plankton, primates, and butterflies could be worth millions of dollars, due to the reason, they don't only contribute to our ecosystem but mankind also depends on them, while the economic value of many people are negative (they consume more than they contribute from/to society over their life time).
"In his influential 1986 essay, "All Animals are Equal", philosopher Peter Singer outlines the philosophical underpinnings of the kind of sentiment expressed by Newkirk. When we reflect, for example, on human social justice movements, we notice that one thing that underlies and connects these movements is a belief that, in an important and profound sense, all humans are equal. This belief, the principle of equality, is the key to making sense of Newkirk's statement. But what does it really mean to say that all humans are equal? Given that humans differ from each other so significantly in their physical, moral, emotional, and cognitive abilities and capacities, surely, as a descriptive empirical assertion, claims of human equality in this sense are clearly factually untrue. But the principle of equality is not intended as a fully factual but rather as a normative concept. In this sense, equality is not a description but rather a prescription of how we should treat human beings. The primary empirical claim grounding the principle of equality is the fact that human beings are experiential subjects; that is, there is a “what-it’s-like” to be human, experiences philosophers refer to as qualia. Put in simpler terms, human beings are sentient."
Agreed. "A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli." We are animals.
Excellent example:
Squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not squares.
