 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Jackie Elston
Joined: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 4
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female & 23
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Folsom
|
Why is this in the
July 31, 2004 - 05:35 AM
|
|
Why is it that in the United States, animal cruelty is only a misdemeanor? Anyone could torture and kill as many animals as they want and get away with it. People need to realize that we are animals too. We are no better than the rest, and they deserve to live just as much as we do.
I don't understand why cosmetic animal testing is still legal. That counts as animal cruelty in my book. How could anyone hurt an innocent, defenseless animal just to see if they like the color of some stupid lipstick? I read that IAMS cut a chunk of muscle out of a dog's thigh (along with forcing it to live in a cold, dirty, concrete cage) to make sure their food wasn't harming it.
The only way to stop animal cruelty is to protest it. If we don't buy products from companies that test on animals, they'll either have to stop or go out of business. Here is a website with a list of companies that do and don't use animal testing.
http://www.caringconsumer.com/searchcompany.html
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrea21
Joined: Jan 27, 2005
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 27, 2005 - 06:17 AM
|
|
I agree with you that using animals for tests for cosmetics is totally wrong. I am all for animal rights, but I think that to use animals in tests for possible medical breakthroughs like a cure for cancer or something is okay, if you're going to get that much closer to saving thousands of lives in the future. But for something as trivial as cosmetics, I think it's so pointless. I get that they need to test on animals because they don't want the people using their eyeshadow to have a severe allergic reaction and die or anything, but why not test on paid humans instead? Like you said, animals should be equal to us, because they feel and understand as well. So humans (if paid-a pro compared to animals that are taken from their parents and forced into testings)should be able to prove good specimens, if not the best, because it's the exact reaction the scientists or whatever are looking for. I think that a first step to stopping this nonsense would be for the cosmetic companies to share their information. It's stupid that tons of animals are dying in one place for a test that another place already did, but won't tell them about because of 'competition'.
As well as the IAMS thing, yeah I've read that too. Actually, I have about four stacks of pamphlets about it to hand out. I recently read on the IAMS website that in response to the I AM DEAD¨/PETA organization they wrote that the undercover informant who worked at IAMS is the one who put such severe testings in action, like the debarking of dogs and such. I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that someone working for an animal activist group would let tons of animals suffer to prove that the place is crooked.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
David Martin
Joined: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: Missouri
City: Savannah
|
Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 01:02 AM
|
|
All I have to say is why is this issue being raised in a forum dedicated to environmental issues?
This is something that has baffled me for some time. Why do animal rights activists try to tie their cause to that of the environmental movement. I could understand it if wild animals were being cruelly treated and what not. However, we are talking about lab rodents that were born into this world for one reason and one reason only...to be used as a test subject.
While you are entitled to your opinion about animal testing, as an environmentalist I despise the fact that animal rights activists are lumped together with me. One, because their cause is typically unrelated to any environemntal issue. Secondly, I have been in many pharmaceutical and genetics laboratories and their animal facilities are probably cleaner than your kitchen countertop. They have to be. Otherwise, the specimens would be contaminated for whatever research or testing they are to undergo. On that same note, the animals also have to be healthy to avoid any inconsistancy in results.
If you really want to be an advocate against cruelty to animals become an ASPCA agent. The pet owning public has a much higher rate of animal cruelty than any cosmetic or dog food company.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
David Martin
Joined: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: Missouri
City: Savannah
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 01:30 AM
|
|
BrianK- I guess it just depends on your perspective. I live in the Midwest where there are lots of CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operations) and I never think twice about the animals being treatly "badly." When I think about manure entering streams via runoff, I view that more as a health issue for humans, as well as an environmental issue for the stream ecosystem. This pollution isn't occurring because the animals are being treated cruelly. Just because animals live on large farms in a concentrated manner does not mean they are subject to cruelty. I realize that it is often implied that feedlot operations treat their livestock cruelly, but this is a product of the propaganda being dealt out by radical groups like PETA and Greenpeace.
Instead of focusing on the cruelty to animals, those that wish to see change in CAFO's, should focus on the human health and environmental impact. These are the issues the that general public is concerned with, not whether or not the steak they are eating was treated cruelly when it was alive. For any cause to succeed it needs to garner the support of the general public (who is more often than not, uneducated and ignorant to the issues that don't directly affect them).
As far as what forum this topic should be in? I have no idea? Maybe the PETA website has a forum for people to post their views on this topic?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrea21
Joined: Jan 27, 2005
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 05:38 AM
|
|
dwm376s-your comment about how if we wanted a correct place for this convo we should go to PETA.com offended me. I joined this site in hopes that my opinion would be respected, and you're making it seem as if animal rights activists 'don't count' here. Regarding your other post, we did not question the cleanliness of the labs themselves, rather what went on in them. You cannot deny that there are many places today that treat animals horribly, just like there are places that treat the environment horribly by polluting it. I'm not questioning your beliefs in the environment, so please don't act like my opinions are trivial compared to yours. I also think that in certain opinions, like mine, rats being born for testing is like as if children were being born for their place in child labour camps. Not that I'm saying that child sweatshops aren't important or can be compared to an animal, but taht to me, an animal's life has the same value as a human's life.
But again, this is my opinion and you obviously don't need to agree, but please try to respect it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
David Martin
Joined: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: Missouri
City: Savannah
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 06:32 AM
|
|
andrea21- my statement about those interested in animal rights going to the PETA website, was in response to briank's question about which forum this topic should be in.
My intent was to show that there isn't really an appropriate forum on this site for this topic. No offense was intended.
I am also not denying that there are places in which animals are subject to cruelty. And those persons involved in these acts should be held accountable. However, I do believe that many times it is blown out of proportion and greatly exaggerated. Groups like PETA have very little credibility especially in the academic and professional world, because they tend rely on emotion rather than fact.
While I believe you are entitled to your belief's relating to animal rights here are some source based facts regarding PETA:
-----------------------------------------------------------
7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines. (1)
2.PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. (2)
3.PETA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (3), an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to a violent animal-rights group called SHAC. (4)
4.PETA has used their contributors’ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for fire bombs and death threats. (5)
5.PETA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda. (6)
6.PETA spends less than one percent of its $13 million budget actually caring for animals. (7)
7.PETA has repeatedly attacked groups like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, for conducting animal testing to find cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. (8)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
(1)Ingrid Newkirk, "Animal Rights 2002" convention keynote speech
(2)Analysis of PETA's publicly available annual tax returns
(3)Analysis of PETA's publicly available annual tax returns
(4)Letter to Japan Nippon Kayaku Corporation dated 9/20/2001, co-signed by PCRM president Neal Barnard and SHAC leader Kevin Jonas
(5)PETA's publicly available annual tax return, fiscal year ending 7/31/2001
(6)PETA web site,go here http://www.petakids.com/
(7)Analysis of PETA's publicly available annual tax returns
(8)PETA web site, go here http://www.peta.org/feat/pryor/index.htmlurce
-----------------------------------------------------------
for a PDF of this information go here http://www.animalscam.com/downloads/peta_7things.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Other links and info:
http://www.animalscam.com/ - The truth about animal-rights extemeists
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
or just enter anti-peta into a search engine..you'll be surprised.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danny Sweeney
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 9
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 23
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 08:41 AM
|
|
The laws in our country on animal rights are somewhat strange too - but i think you can now be prosecuted for cruelty to animals.
But more worryingly is that some animals get better protection than people.
There is a bill going through parliament to ban fox hunting -when it happens foxes will be better protected under the laws of our country than unborn children.
Good for the foxes - but not so good for society
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrea21
Joined: Jan 27, 2005
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 08:53 AM
|
|
dwm376s- I really appreciate your response and now that you've clarified yourself and added that information on PETA I must admit that I agree with practically everything in your most recent post.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 10
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 37
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 28, 2005 - 09:33 AM
|
|
dwm376s I can think of some overlap between these two issues. When animals like pigs for example are treated badly and their waste runs freely into local water supplies then that becomes an environemntal issue. The activists I have met and have heard speak have often been equally involved in both causes. As to this thread being in the wrong forum section, which one should it be in? The only one I can come up with is Social Justice and Human Rights. Maybe we can change that to Social Justice and Human/Animal Rights? TIG Staff...hello? ; )
These two issues meld often because there are many caring people in both camps. Here's just one site I found that demonstrates this. I'm sure there are many others.
http://hometown.aol.com/earthforceunited/FARE.html
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cicero
Joined: Feb 1, 2004
Posts: 26
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: London, City of
City: London
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 29, 2005 - 04:41 AM
|
|
Yes, most of the cruelty is done on pets. Most importantly, this is often done by young members of the family or they can witness such behaviour done themselves.
This utterly damages their growing up in the way it makes them more violent and less compassionate (khm had to write it this way).
There sohlud be some "phsychiatric tesT" done to all that want to buy a pet. I mean.. to drive a car u need to have a license, to adopt a child you need to abide some laws.. I think "buying" a pet should be from now on weighted similarly as adopting a new family members - with regulations etc..
Ave Futuria
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
David Martin
Joined: Dec 21, 2004
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United States
Province/State: Missouri
City: Savannah
|
Re: Why is this in the
January 29, 2005 - 08:53 AM
|
|
Pet ownership is one of those things that would next to impossible to regulate. We can't even regulate people having kids, because lets face it there are just some people that aren't responsible enough for children of their own.
Here's a suggestion parents gave to me in college. I was wanting a new puppy really badly, because I grew up with dogs and missed mine from home. They told me that I should wait until I have more time...etc...etc.
what they did say was to go buy a houseplant, and If i could keep it alive for one year, then they would have no objection to me getting a puppy.
needless to say the plant died several months into the process, I was so busy with school and my social life I always forgot to water it.
So if your thinking about getting a pet, get a houseplant first and see how well it goes.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
