Highlander
Townie
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19
Harms way, you are still young and naive. When an organization professes to care so much about animals then kills between 73 and 97 % of the animals they gain custody of, while local shelters have a placement rate of 75% or greater, there is a problem. JCC, apparently has seen the bad from the inside. If you want to be a member of an org that helps animals join the ASPCA at least they are hands on in their efforts.
As far as the views on animal testing, I have 2 children, friends with Cerebral Palsy,MS and cancer. I would do whatever I could to cure their diseases. I guess human life has a higher priority in my view
As far as the views on animal testing, I have 2 children, friends with Cerebral Palsy,MS and cancer. I would do whatever I could to cure their diseases. I guess human life has a higher priority in my view
I don't think it is very fair of you to call me young and naive because our opinions differ. Would you rather the animals live a suffering life and die than be humanley euthanized? These animals are euthanized because nobody wants them. Not because PETA takes pleasure in killing them.. JCC has seen things from the inside because they handed out flyers? No offence but I've done a lot more than that and I know about a lot of thist stuff first hand. I am a member of the ASPCA as well as PETA.
I am very sorry to hear that, but in my opinion, no life has a greater value than any other.
How are we onmivorous by design exactly?
first of all id like to say you guys need to let this go this debate will go on forever
secondly humans are omnivorous because we have both teeth for grinding plants aka molars and teeth for tearing/ripping meat aka inscizors and we also have a lower jaw muscle strong enough to tear meat
secondly humans are omnivorous because we have both teeth for grinding plants aka molars and teeth for tearing/ripping meat aka inscizors and we also have a lower jaw muscle strong enough to tear meat
Lou
Scooby
Not really agreeing or disagreeing here. I come down FIRMLY in the middle.
I don't mind SOME animal testing. I don't mind testing that helps with vaccines or help for medical conditions....AS LONG AS they're done in a humane way. There's testing and torture. It's probably a very fine line in between, but I'll try to walk it as long as I can.
Animal testing for lesser things like cosmetics and general toiletries....not so much for that. They just shouldn't put things that questionable that we have to test it on rats and bunnies INTO things for us. There's enough safe things to use that there's no need to constantly test....or they can test it on the guy who thinks it's a good idea!
Basically, testing on animals to save children from horrible disease...good and even that is up to a point. Testing on animals so we can all have shiny hair....a totally different story.
I don't mind SOME animal testing. I don't mind testing that helps with vaccines or help for medical conditions....AS LONG AS they're done in a humane way. There's testing and torture. It's probably a very fine line in between, but I'll try to walk it as long as I can.
Animal testing for lesser things like cosmetics and general toiletries....not so much for that. They just shouldn't put things that questionable that we have to test it on rats and bunnies INTO things for us. There's enough safe things to use that there's no need to constantly test....or they can test it on the guy who thinks it's a good idea!
Basically, testing on animals to save children from horrible disease...good and even that is up to a point. Testing on animals so we can all have shiny hair....a totally different story.
Highlander
Townie
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19
As do most people, As I alluded to earlier, the man who has developed a potential cure for cancer has just been approved funding from Congress to continue the process, in animal testing the results have been 100% cure. This is a non invasive procedure using RF waves.
white avenger
white avenger
Well, as long as you have an uncorrupted government agency watch dogging these companies, said agencies are the ones who are to say the companies are not lying about their testing.
Short of that, employees can and do act as whistle blowers and get news agencies like Dateline involved so that people can see whats going on, judge for themselves and effectthe company by their decision to buy things or not. It's not just how a company portrays itself, but how that spin is recieved thats really important.
Take for instance 'going green', that would be a boon to have as a label on company packaging now.... as long as you can back up the claim. "Not tested on animals" tag will also do alot of good to sell a product.
I think most of the cosmetics my wife uses have stated they are not tested on animals because the public did get wind of what had gone on with animal testing, and other companies saw what that backlash did to the profit margin of those that did test. I'm pretty sure my wife looks for those kind of labels, I'll have to ask her.
In short, I think they (companies) care what we think, and when they lie they realize they run the risk of being discovered and how we preceive them, changing.
That need for honesty works both for the companies and NFP's like PETA. I remember one non for profit group recently showed video of their 'investigation' of a slaughter yard on Yahoo. The clip showed a downed, sickley cow being forklifted/pushed (abused) into a slaughter stall, which is highly illegal, very cruel to the animal, and a danger to consumers....at least consumers who eat beef.
If I'm remebering this correctly, it turned out a member of an activist group set that scenerio up, and the NFP did not just happen across it during an investigation. It was a 'plant' to influence behavior.
Though the cow was likely killed by the fork lift, or at the very least hurt badly, the activist figured (Well better said, I figured he figured.) that the suffering and death of this animal was worth it if it scared enough people out of eating beef; it's death would maybe save many more by crippeling the beef industry.
Animal testing as far as health issues are concerned are not that much different in attitude from that activists, except we are talking human lives instead of cow lives, and medical research rather than an influence on human behavior.
It's a shame they have to test on animals in this day in age. You would think they could just clone some cells to test or something. I understand why though, and begrudgingly accept the use of it for medical research.
Short of that, employees can and do act as whistle blowers and get news agencies like Dateline involved so that people can see whats going on, judge for themselves and effectthe company by their decision to buy things or not. It's not just how a company portrays itself, but how that spin is recieved thats really important.
Take for instance 'going green', that would be a boon to have as a label on company packaging now.... as long as you can back up the claim. "Not tested on animals" tag will also do alot of good to sell a product.
I think most of the cosmetics my wife uses have stated they are not tested on animals because the public did get wind of what had gone on with animal testing, and other companies saw what that backlash did to the profit margin of those that did test. I'm pretty sure my wife looks for those kind of labels, I'll have to ask her.
In short, I think they (companies) care what we think, and when they lie they realize they run the risk of being discovered and how we preceive them, changing.
That need for honesty works both for the companies and NFP's like PETA. I remember one non for profit group recently showed video of their 'investigation' of a slaughter yard on Yahoo. The clip showed a downed, sickley cow being forklifted/pushed (abused) into a slaughter stall, which is highly illegal, very cruel to the animal, and a danger to consumers....at least consumers who eat beef.
If I'm remebering this correctly, it turned out a member of an activist group set that scenerio up, and the NFP did not just happen across it during an investigation. It was a 'plant' to influence behavior.
Though the cow was likely killed by the fork lift, or at the very least hurt badly, the activist figured (Well better said, I figured he figured.) that the suffering and death of this animal was worth it if it scared enough people out of eating beef; it's death would maybe save many more by crippeling the beef industry.
Animal testing as far as health issues are concerned are not that much different in attitude from that activists, except we are talking human lives instead of cow lives, and medical research rather than an influence on human behavior.
It's a shame they have to test on animals in this day in age. You would think they could just clone some cells to test or something. I understand why though, and begrudgingly accept the use of it for medical research.
Buffanator
got Spike?
I used to *refuse* to wear leather, etc. until I realized that at least when a "cow" is killed for it's meat, then the rest isn't "simply discarded"... by wearing leather, at least people are using the entire "cow". Well, most of it, anyway.
Of course I still would NEVER wear fur - but I've gotten over my leather aversion.
😉
And I'm no fan of PETA. They are just too extreme, even for me. I am, however, a fan of ASPCA & other animal organizations.
I'm not a fan of animal testing. PERIOD. Animals simply are not humans, altho various animals have likeness(es) to humans. Rats, monkeys, etc.
As far as testing goes, my perfect idea is to do testing on criminals. Especially for illnesses & vaccines & so forth... not EVERY criminal, but at least those who will NEVER see the outside life of bars again. Let their sorry lives count for something.
J
JCC
Guest
That's not your opinion at all.
If you had to choose between the lives of your family and the life of a rabbit who would you choose?
Highlander
Townie
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 19
100% curing of cancer is not humane??? You would rather these animals live with cancer till it consumes them than test a cure on them?
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]
who you calling a caveman? 😀
Blondie Bear
Zydrate Addict
I finally got time to watch the video, and how cute is she?! She's all bouncy and spunky and then she pulls the bow back and it's like "I WILL KEEL YOU."
She's not a bad shot, either. I've never shot with a compound bow, but I'll tell you, recurved bows are HARD.
She's not a bad shot, either. I've never shot with a compound bow, but I'll tell you, recurved bows are HARD.
Lou
Scooby
Harm-(Boy it's fun being able to say that.)
I do understand and I respect your stiffness on the matter.
I'm not saying you feel this way because you're "young" because there is a chance that your views won't change.
I know I started to feel, as I got older, that things weren't always as black and white and I wished they were. Just as there are companies that won't change their animal testing policies or will lie about it. There will be zealots in PETA or other groups that are trying to do "good" things that will lie and go to extremes also.
Which is probably what put me square in the middle.
Animals get cancer too. And ideally, the tests for curing cancer would be,
1.) Rat
2.) Cancer
3.) Try cure. Cure either works, (YEA) or doesn't and we put rat down.
although in that scenerio there is plenty of room for someone to not follow the rules.
On the other hand, IF said rat got cured and this lead to something that would save hundreds of thousands of people pain and torture, either for their own lives, their loved ones lives, or their pets lives.
But, then again, since I had kids I LIVE with the fear we're going to take them to the doctor for the flu and end up years in the cancer ward or something like that.
But, the testing they do for general toiletries, that bugs me more. Rats, bunnies, snakes, cows all get cancer and many can get or carry lots of our diseases. But, they're rarely going to use a skin cream that makes them break out in boils or give them cancer.
In that scenerio there IS NO "yea" like in the medical testing. The only "yea" you get is when it doesn't cause boils or death to the animal and said company can make millions.
That's not enough of a yea to me.
Certainly not worth hurting tiny critters.
I do wish I could be as resolved as you, sometimes. But, I think it goes with my feelings on the ASPCA. I love what they do, but I have to recognize that not all animals are able to be rehomed, rehabilitated, cured from ailments, or there just isn't enough room. (Many times those are Chows, which are my "baby breed" of choice) I don't like it, but it's just the way it is. And in that way, I've kind of convinced myself that there IS a greater good.
And, if I have to be okay with those animals being put down, I have to be able to say that if the outcome is supposed to be a cure for cancer, then that is a better good than just more room in the shelter for others. As long as there is no torture. I hear of torture, I'm going to speak out against it.
Still, I do admire you standing behind your feelings. That means you get a pat on the back for being so young. Not many people that young wouldn't waffle in the face of differing opinions.
I would say, keep your mind somewhat open even if you don't want to practice it. The change that happens when you have a baby is one of the weirdest things in the world. I'm still amazed how quickly my views changed on so many different things.
B
Blondie Bear
Ctrl+I. ;)
I understand what you are saying. I know the facts. I support peta about 75% of the time. Nobodies perfect. But I do beleive that regaurdless of what the situation is....Testing is wrong. Point Blank.
And if they did find a cure, do you REALLY think they would use it on animals? no.
How many more lives have to be destroyed before people understand that animal testing needs to end?
"Man's domination over beast & foul is not a mandate to exploit, but a charge of responsibilty." - Unknown
=] Haha, yes I love doing that to people. whoohoo I'm harm.
And if they did find a cure, do you REALLY think they would use it on animals? no.
How many more lives have to be destroyed before people understand that animal testing needs to end?
"Man's domination over beast & foul is not a mandate to exploit, but a charge of responsibilty." - Unknown
=] Haha, yes I love doing that to people. whoohoo I'm harm.
Why do you keep argueing against me and against the scientific fact humans that humans are omnivorous its not even like im on the other side of the issue i completely agree that animal testing is wrong
So Harm i ask you Why?: erm :
J
JCC
Guest
Really really aren't designed as herbivores. Most of the chart was vague Vegan propaganda. We are not herbivores. If we were herbivores we wouldn't be able to stomach meat, we wouldn't need for our food that isn't meat to be fortified (for example, if you didn't have alternatives for protein, or rice milk). Humans are omnivorous, that has no bearing on animal testing.