Cruelty free cosmetics and animal testing - your views

[maxxi]

Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Id love to meet you Hu, you should come to the

> meeting to discuss?

> Im sure you'd soon see the DVVS isnt trying to be

> underhand or manipulative.

We just want to talk to you... talk to you... talk to you... talk to you... talk to you... talk to you...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHKI8jvJoxR8VQMkYR4h0QjTIE_IckqcvTqfFRxbI4l625o_on

[Thomas Micklewright]

ha I cant win can I?

[Huguenot]

So now you've moved from liptsick in bunny eyes, and you're on to smoking?

Ha ha.

Your desire to generate extreme, barely-existent, examples knows no bounds. Bullshit.

Whatever your limited knowledge may be Tommy, it clearly doesn't stretch to biology. It simply is not possible to 'model' the effects of medicines in computers. We're not that advanced. It's not medieval, it's reality.

The world is not full of animal torturers who do it for fun. Most people want to get treehuggers out of their lives. If they could. they would.

[Thomas Micklewright]

5.07am? wowzas! Loving the new descriptive words - extreme, barely-existent, tree-hugger and even some morning swearing.

Ill be right back at you this evening Huey, I agree my examples have been rather sparse. More to come.

[Huguenot]

They'll all be cheap shots Tommy, they'll all be manipulative, and they'll all be prejudiced.

4pm in the afternoon for me ;-)

[mockney piers]

We've been doing testing on humans with smoking for years!!!!

You couldn't ask for a larger or more complete sample set surely.

[Huguenot]

There's a very strong catholic feeling to animal rights, rooted in original sin. It's as if humans deserve to die of their ailments, and animals do not.

The cruelty, harsh realities and nasty deaths of a 'wild' existence are seen as a righteous path.

Crackpot.

[Jeremy]

Surely testing drugs on animals is just common sense. Isn't it just a simple question of whether you value human life/wellbeing above animals?

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

There's also the strange anthropomorphism which leads people to look after wild animals that are due to die - which is a natural state. See this rather nauseating thread as an example. "Saving two baby pigeons because Momma & Poppa pigeon have gone missing" Uuuurgghh!!

[StraferJack]

RSPCA has (as the name suggests) Royal approval, wheras the NSPCC doesn?t, for some odd reason

And the NSPCC came into being decades after the SPCA

Shows something not right with priorities

[Loz]

That's coz we don't want the royals anywhere near children...

[Alan Medic]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely testing drugs on animals is just common

> sense. Isn't it just a simple question of whether

> you value human life/wellbeing above animals?

Well humans would, wouldn't they? What do the animals say? They are innocent in this. If its a matter of a greater degree of intelligence perhaps there should be iq testing in humans. If you fall below a certain level then you can be used for testing. Perhaps even elements of the prison population could be used. Humans may be the cleverest animals but it's not the animals who are fu**ing up the planet. They don't appear to be that stupid. 73

[maxxi]

That's what happens when you get embroiled Doc - a 73 goes sailing by under your nose...

[DaveR]

"innocent" animals? Innocence implies a moral or ethical context which makes it literally pointless to talk in terms of 'innocent' animals and (by implication) 'guilty' humans. Similarly, humans may be f*cking up the planet, but what relevance does that have in the context of this discussion? If you want out of human society, you can always head for the bush and take your place in the natural food chain.

Testing cosmetics on animals isn't wrong because the animals have rights, or are innocent. It's because inflicting pain on animals for a trivial reason is wrong by our own moral/ethical code. The consensus seems to be that inflicting pain for the purpose of saving human lives is OK, but even then I'm sure for most people there are limits. Killing all the tigers in the world would save a few human lives, but I'm not aware of much support for that.

The point is this, TM. We all know you're a vegan, and for all I know you never swat flies either. But you only have one message and it's a bit tiresome when you keep on trying to dress it up as something else.

[Thomas Micklewright]

Im confused, your not on GMT?

[Alan Medic]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's what happens when you get embroiled Doc - a

> 73 goes sailing by under your nose...

Oh no it didn't.....ahem.

[maxxi]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > That's what happens when you get embroiled Doc -

> a

> > 73 goes sailing by under your nose...

>

> Oh no it didn't.....ahem.

For SHAME!