A bit off topic : What do you think of this..?


PDA






bg
June 21, 2005, 04:13 PM
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/244501

I have a problem with companies using animals for cosmetic use. I see
no need nowadays to do these experiments on animals for some goofy
color for hair dye, lipstick or perfume. I also believe many times
these animals go through a lot of pain via different experiments
for medical need as well, but I'm hoping in the end the cure for
different illness' justify these "studies" and though it bothers me,
sometimes one has to take a step back and look at the overall good
many new medicine's provide and wouldn't be avail if these works
didn't go on.

However my other real concern is the fact that one day WE
as gun enthusiasts under a Democratic led Congress and WH will
also be looked upon so and in such be sought after by the Government.

We already know the pro-firearms agenda already has many enemies in
the Congress who consider us extreme ..What do you think ?

If you enjoyed reading about "A bit off topic : What do you think of this..?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MechAg94
June 21, 2005, 05:20 PM
Animals and humans are not the same. The Constitution does not mention that animals have any rights. I am sure some would like the logic, but I am not sure the source of supposed rights for both groups comes from the same place.

eagle45
June 21, 2005, 07:50 PM
Uhmmm . . . .That this thread makes no sense???

What comparison are you making, exactly?

Sorry, no disrespect intended, I just don't see a connection here between the two.

dolanp
June 21, 2005, 08:38 PM
I think we have a duty to minimize the suffering of animals for experimentation. I also don't think cosmetics are a valid reason to do it either. To develop drugs for cancer cures, sure.

However this extremism stuff where they vandalize property and assault people is completely hypocritical.

CentralTexas
June 21, 2005, 09:26 PM
this is about protecting business interests. ********** pedophile molests 36,000 boys+, in the last month middle eastern and chinese have been caught illegally crossing the border looking for "work", billion dollar companies screw thousands from their pension, 911, missing nukes worldwide etc etc etc etc and thsi IS THE FBI'S BIG PRIORITY????
Agree with them or not, the animal rights folks have the kind of balls I hope we do when they finally legislate us all into criminals....CT :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

jefnvk
June 21, 2005, 09:55 PM
I think we have a duty to minimize the suffering of animals for experimentation. I also don't think cosmetics are a valid reason to do it either.

The only other option, is to test the cosmetics on humans. Considering that we won't let terminally ill cancer patients test a new drug, which could save them, because it might kill them, I don't think that is going to fly.

lunaslide
June 21, 2005, 10:45 PM
I think people should not wear make-up at all. I want to know what she really looks like BEFORE it's too late :neener:

By the way, this isn't a little bit off topic, it's WAY off topic.

beerslurpy
June 21, 2005, 10:47 PM
Those who judge behavior towards animals in the same way that they judge behavior towards humans are misguided.

Animals are simply living property that can be killed, skinned, eaten, experimented on or kept as an object of affection. They have no rights and no ownership of their own bodies.

While torturing, killing or eating a human being deprives them of life and property, an animal enjoys no such fundamental rights. A non-sentient animal is incapable of the mental or linguistic feats necessary to function as a normal member of society. They cannot be held accountable for their actions nor can they fulfill contracts. Indeed, since ancient times, animals have been the responsibility of their owner.

If humans raise, feed and breed animals for many thousands of generations, is the life so given not free to take as well?

I am sure that a sentient alien that looked like an animal would be treated as an equal to humans.

Hardware
June 22, 2005, 03:01 AM
Intersting points slurpy, but let me ask you this;

If you took a dog or cat, confined them in a small cage and jammed cosmetics under their eyelids day in and day out just to see how the animal's body reacted to this violation then I can almost guarantee that you would be a resident of the graybar hotel.

Yet somehow corporations are given rights that you and I are denied.

Put it another way; you are deer hunting and you get a shot off at a buck. When you go to the place where the buck was you find blood and bile. You've gutshot the deer. Do you go home and let the deer die slowly from a gutshot or do you follow the trail to give the deer the coupe de grace?

The question is not: can they feel? The question is: can they suffer?

beerslurpy
June 22, 2005, 03:12 AM
The corporations are not getting away with anything- the individuals who do similar things are being punished for a victimless crime. The real question is why we are allowing the childish fads of our culture to dictate whether or not we make the best use of animals?

American popular culture is immersed in a sugar coated version of reality that denies the necessity of violence, suffering and death in a healthy society. A society that loves to consume McDonald's hamburgers but would break down in tears if you harvested the meat in front of them. A society that feels genuine pity for criminals who are killed by their intended victims. A society that recoils in shock when a cuddly bear mauls a friend or relative.

While I can tolerate these morons, I do not beleive they should be allowed to make policy that governs the behavior of the more intelligent members of society.

jefnvk
June 22, 2005, 03:12 AM
Do you go home and let the deer die slowly from a gutshot or do you follow the trail to give the deer the coupe de grace?

You wait the deer out. Often, when you gut shoot it, it'll go and lie down and die. Chase after it, it'll keep running until it dies.

At least, waiting it out gives a much better chance of recovering the deer.

DirtyBrad
June 22, 2005, 10:38 AM
Animals and humans are not the same. The Constitution does not mention that animals have any rights. I am sure some would like the logic, but I am not sure the source of supposed rights for both groups comes from the same place.
Humans had the right to life, liberty, and freedom from torture before the Constitution.


Animals are simply living property that can be killed, skinned, eaten, experimented on or kept as an object of affection. They have no rights and no ownership of their own bodies.
While torturing, killing or eating a human being deprives them of life and property, an animal enjoys no such fundamental rights. A non-sentient animal is incapable of the mental or linguistic feats necessary to function as a normal member of society. They cannot be held accountable for their actions nor can they fulfill contracts. Indeed, since ancient times, animals have been the responsibility of their owner.

If humans raise, feed and breed animals for many thousands of generations, is the life so given not free to take as well?
This is why torturing retarded people is perfectly acceptable. I mean, it's not like we humans as the ones possessing self-awareness and reason (hahaha) have even the slightest responsibility to look out for anyone or anything else.

CentralTexas
June 22, 2005, 10:58 AM
"Animals are simply living property that can be killed, skinned, eaten, experimented on or kept as an object of affection."

Or Jeffery Dahmer? Yup, I compared you. Rightly or wrongly....
-CT

Frandy
June 22, 2005, 11:08 AM
The only other option, is to test the cosmetics on humans.

Nope, hardly true at all these days. We have the technology to do such tests without testing animals. It's just that some companies don't make such a change or investment. Many cosmetic companies today have opted out of testing on animals because it isn't necessary to do so.

Justin
June 22, 2005, 11:22 AM
Nope, hardly true at all these days. We have the technology to do such tests without testing animals. I always see this bandied about, but never from anyone who is even remotely an authority on the topic.

DirtyBrad
June 22, 2005, 11:37 AM
Bandied about or not, my girlfriend and I have no trouble -- or even inconvenience -- patronizing only companies that do not test on animals. Some people say the testing is mandatory, but we manage to bathe, shave, and groom without it (and without going blind).

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 11:37 AM
Who gives rights? The Constitution? I could have sworn people at THR believed the Constitution was about guaranteeing that rights endowed by the Creator were not infringed. No animals are not citizens and they are not legal entities with legal rights but they can feel pain just like we can.

And I'll go ahead and throw this out there, even though I'm sure many of you will disagree or flame: I do think some people's lives are worth less than animals. I'd shoot some murderous rapist on death row before I'd shoot my dog, that's for damn sure.

benEzra
June 22, 2005, 12:13 PM
As far as testing cosmetics, you'd think there would already be a lot of data already extant, making much testing now unnecessary (just speculation).

HOWEVER, I think animal testing for medical issues is vital. Case in point, my 6-year-old son has a genetic deletion (22q11.2, DiGeorge syndrome) that caused a near-fatal cardiac defect (he's had 2 open-heart surgeries and 7 angioplasties so far, more to come), lots of immunological issues, gastroparesis, palate problems, etc. etc. etc. Just this month it has been announced that a mouse model of DiGeorge/VCFS has been achieved, i.e. a genetic knockout that exhibits the same phenotype. In the next few years, doctors may start to understand what's going on with some of my son's medical issues, and be better able to treat them.

And, had the cutting-edge surgical techniques used to reconstruct my son's heart and pulmonary artery system not been developed (on animals), my son would be dead. Period.

I certainly understand both sides of this issue, but I think on the whole, there is less suffering in the world because of lab animals. Though I do think they should be treated responsibly and as humanely as possible.

Henry Bowman
June 22, 2005, 12:27 PM
Me to my future great-grand children: "Why, I can remember back when animals and trees weren't allowed to vote!"

Fastlane
June 22, 2005, 12:33 PM
Animal rights do exist. They are given rights by the owners. Anyone trying to hurt one of my pets "family" will find out what those rights are. My 870 will make sure of that. :)

Omni04
June 22, 2005, 12:55 PM
im not letting any left wing loonies put make-up on me!!!!!!

Frandy
June 23, 2005, 03:32 PM
I'm no authority but a friend works at NC State College of Agriculture and Animal Science and he knows plenty. No, he isn't a tree-hugging liberal and he isn't a vegetarian... But, he is in research and he does know a lot about testing on animals.

By the way, I took no position on testing, though I am against it for "frivolous" things like cosmetics.

FWIW (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about-us/links.htm)

One of the links from my first link (http://caat.jhsph.edu/about-us/achievements.htm)

CentralTexas
June 23, 2005, 04:03 PM
reasons claimed but liability CYA. They already know element X is or isn't harmfuletc but won't bring new products out without testing them in case of a lawsuit
I'd prefer testing on violent criminals myself

JohnBT
June 23, 2005, 04:37 PM
"I can remember back when animals and trees weren't allowed to vote!"

Thank you. Needed that laugh.

I ate some tofu once and it was pretty good. Of course it was fried in bacon grease. Seriously.

John

WT
June 23, 2005, 04:47 PM
I had to chuckle when someone mentioned that they only do business with companies that don't do animal testing. Of course they don't do testing on animals. They've outsourced the animal testing to another company.

If you enjoyed reading about "A bit off topic : What do you think of this..?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!