Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bg, Jun 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bg

    bg Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    When you find out, let me know..
    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 ?
     
  2. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,734
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2005
  3. eagle45

    eagle45 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Southwest Ohio
    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.
     
  4. dolanp

    dolanp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  5. CentralTexas

    CentralTexas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Great point

    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:
     
  6. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    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.
     
  7. lunaslide

    lunaslide Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    163
    Location:
    Washington
    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.
     
  8. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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.
     
  9. Hardware

    Hardware Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Location:
    Delaware
    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?
     
  10. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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.
     
  11. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    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.
     
  12. DirtyBrad

    DirtyBrad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Maryland
    Humans had the right to life, liberty, and freedom from torture before the Constitution.


    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.
     
  13. CentralTexas

    CentralTexas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Was it a Highroad member quote

    "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
     
  14. Frandy

    Frandy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    NC
    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.
     
  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    I always see this bandied about, but never from anyone who is even remotely an authority on the topic.
     
  16. DirtyBrad

    DirtyBrad Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Maryland
    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).
     
  17. dolanp

    dolanp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  18. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,575
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    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.
     
  19. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Me to my future great-grand children: "Why, I can remember back when animals and trees weren't allowed to vote!"
     
  20. Fastlane

    Fastlane Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Ohio
    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. :)
     
  21. Omni04

    Omni04 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    516
    Location:
    Central Kentucky
    im not letting any left wing loonies put make-up on me!!!!!!
     
  22. Frandy

    Frandy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    NC
    Well, Justin...

    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

    One of the links from my first link
     
  23. CentralTexas

    CentralTexas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Much of the testing isn't done for

    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
     
  24. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "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
     
  25. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page