[Nonsuch]

Just wondering.

[Cipher13]

I cut open dead stuff for a living.

Whether a dog has to have a bath in order to certify my shampoo as ready for public human consumption, or whether it doesn't, doesn't particularly concern me.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I cut open dead stuff for a living.

The moral dilemma arises when people cut open alive stuff for a living. Or testing shampoo, for that matter.

[rjenkinson]

why isn't there a simple "no, i don't buy such products" option?

-r.

[Naz]

can't afford to be that deep...

does apple test the iPod�s earbud-style headphones on little white lab mice ears?

I may not get my iPod if yes...

[Sherwin]

Yep. I also go out of my way to purchase organic produce and I'm a full-on militant veggie.

But strangely, I'm not a tree-hugger.

[engaged]

I try to buy food from better, local, sources.

I am opposed to any animal testing being used to develop any product for cosmetic products.

However, I am not opposed to animal testing for medical purposes - should there be no other viable alternative. I am diabetic, and inject myself with insulin; in the early 1900's dogs were used in tests related to diabetes and the existence of insulin. I can only hope that the technology we now have has done away with this need in modern times.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. I also go out of my way to purchase organic produce and I'm a full-on militant veggie.

But strangely, I'm not a tree-hugger.

Organic produce?

What do you have against GM produce?

[mike one]

been vegan for 10+ years now, almost always buy cruelty free products 99% if the time. rare instances/emergencies where it hasn't been an option but for the most part it is pretty stupid that we still pour shampoop into rabbits eyes, and see how much nail polish remover it takes to induce an LD50 in mice/rats, etc ad infinitum.

companies who still engange in this type of barbarism are fu*ked. Seriously. There is no public health benefit from this practice. It would be more logical if companies decided to make products that there was no question about their safety from the get go, rather than making things that might be dangerous and then testing them via a highly unscientific process.

I'm writing this not only as a vegan, but also as a PhD candidate in organic & medicinal chemistry, and someone who has worked for a top 5 pharma company, if that makes any difference, prolly not

anyway interesting poll-topic. curious how many non-vegs think about this issue, i think there are a few out there.

[daimoni]

.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
why isn't there a simple "no, i don't buy such products" option?

-r.

I figured the third option would suffice. I didn't think it likely that there were people who went out of their way not to buy cruelty-free.

daimoni:

[wdlove]

I've cut down on the amount of red meat that I eat!

[Gene Jockey]

I do, but not on purpose.

I really like the soap I have that notes "This finished product not tested on animals." Which means they probably dumped a gallon of its precursors into Thumper's eyes along the way to finishing it. Way to go, Bath & Body Works!

I'll leave at that.

--J

[voodoo]

price is not an obsticle. if there is cruelty "free" products to be had I choose them.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Gene Jockey:
I do, but not on purpose.

I really like the soap I have that notes "This finished product not tested on animals." Which means they probably dumped a gallon of its precursors into Thumper's eyes along the way to finishing it. Way to go, Bath & Body Works!

Sadly, you may be right.

Really "Not Tested on Animals"?

[Dogma]

Cruel products? What like Thumbscrews or Dental Equipment? Nah, not really my thing.

Oh you mean animal tested or harmful products? Well, I likes me meat, so I hope that the animal that has been killed has been given the best and most humane treatment - but prefer it when there's no huge medical treatments or anything like that (don't wanna be getting a Cow with a lethal dose of Chaemotherapy now do I?)

As for things being tested on animals, well, most things aren't these days. The stuff I buy usually has it, but I can't say I really study it. As for clothes, I like a bit of leather, but fur is horrible, but wools okay. I only wish we got to eat the horse the leather came from - the French have got it well right.

I am well against Fox-Hunting in it's Redcoated Gory (sic) - just a bunch of urban twats looking for reason to be really shitty to something. Being a country bumpkin, I know what foxes can do, and how to get rid of particularly troublesome ones - a nice clean shotgun blast between the eyes in the dead of night - not chased for miles in broad daylight by twenty horsemen and countless hounds before being ripped to shreds by the hounds, and then it's entrails being smeared across the initiates faces.

Hmm, so I kinda make a half arsed effort at being kind to animals - but they are sorta like girlfriends in that they do get on your tits after a while.

[wataru]

If I get any cruelty-free products by accident, I always make sure to put in some after-market cruelty.

[Mars_Attacks]

I was at a coffee farm in Honduras last week where the farmers had actually planted shade crops for the Toucans and Macaws to feed on. The shade crops shielded the coffee and the endangered wildlife had food.

Many of the other farmers just devastate the jungle just so someone can have their latte after work at starsux.

[Millennium]

If there is a cruelty-free product available, then all other things being equal I usually prefer cruelty-free over non-cruelty-free (what would you call that, anyway?). However, I will admit that I don't lost much sleep if there is no cruelty-free product available.

[typoon]

How bout testing these products on people on Death Row,Lifers and Rapists, child Molesters, People like that? Would people be up for that kind of animal testing? I know I would be.

[NYCFarmboy]

I prefer products be tested on animals rather than on humans. I'm very PRO animal testing...especially for important drug/medical research for HIV/Cancer/etc.

I think people that worry about animal testing and oversimply it by always pointing to some poor bunny rabbit getting shampooed rather than discussing the value of legitimate medical research on animals have too much time on their hands and need to get a life.

All of this animal welfare crap is just a new religion for people to shove down their own vegan views down other people's throats.

This poll is a disgrace to millions of human beings waiting for cures/treatments which come about thru Animal Testing.

[JLFanboy]

I don't even know if I do.

[benb]

and

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by wataru:
If I get any cruelty-free products by accident, I always make sure to put in some after-market cruelty.

Nice

[dencamp]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I prefer products be tested on animals rather than on humans. I'm very PRO animal testing...especially for important drug/medical research for HIV/Cancer/etc.

I think people that worry about animal testing and oversimply it by always pointing to some poor bunny rabbit getting shampooed rather than discussing the value of legitimate medical research on animals have too much time on their hands and need to get a life.

All of this animal welfare crap is just a new religion for people to shove down their own vegan views down other people's throats.

This poll is a disgrace to millions of human beings waiting for cures/treatments which come about thru Animal Testing.

If there are alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics, for instance, would you still hold to your polemic?

[typoon]

Originally posted by dencamp:
If there are alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics, for instance, would you still hold to your polemic?

Testing on Criminals, Those like I said on Death Row, Those in for life.

[benb]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I prefer products be tested on animals rather than on humans. I'm very PRO animal testing...especially for important drug/medical research for HIV/Cancer/etc.

I think people that worry about animal testing and oversimply it by always pointing to some poor bunny rabbit getting shampooed rather than discussing the value of legitimate medical research on animals have too much time on their hands and need to get a life.

All of this animal welfare crap is just a new religion for people to shove down their own vegan views down other people's throats.

This poll is a disgrace to millions of human beings waiting for cures/treatments which come about thru Animal Testing.

What disgusts me is that people donate millions of dollars to these causes. Take care of the important stuff first. Let's solve the problem of AIDS in Africa, or find a way to cure Lukemia or MD. Then, when all that is taken care of, I will gladly donate a few bucks to the rabbits. But there is no way anyone should be giving to the cats and dogs before thier fellow human beings. Anyone who cares more about the ethical treatment of animals than the ethical treatment of humans, or the overcrowding of shelters over the overcrowding and horrendous living conditions of Mexico City, Bombay, and the rest are completely nuts. It is sickening to think that people would rather give thier money to PETA over a childern's aid and relief organization.

[typoon]

Originally posted by benb:
What disgusts me is that people donate millions of dollars to these causes. Take care of the important stuff first. Let's solve the problem of AIDS in Africa, or find a way to cure Lukemia or MD. Then, when all that is taken care of, I will gladly donate a few bucks to the rabbits. But there is no way anyone should be giving to the cats and dogs before thier fellow human beings. Anyone who cares more about the ethical treatment of animals than the ethical treatment of humans, or the overcrowding of shelters over the overcrowding and horrendous living conditions of Mexico City, Bombay, and the rest are completely nuts. It is sickening to think that people would rather give thier money to PETA over a childern's aid and relief organization.

Yes but it should NOT be only the US who spends money to fight AIDS in Africa. The US just sent 15 billion to Africa of aid to help fight AIDS. People spend Millions a year donating to find a cure for Cancer. We should continue these endevours. But who or what do we test these cures that are being tested on? Plants? Other Humans? (the Plan I have suggested before)or animals?

Plants aren't feesible. Humans, People think that is too cruel to do it to violent criminals who are in jail for life or on Death Row. What's left? Animals. Me I would prefer testing on Criminals who have no chance of seeing the light of day ever again but that is just me. Since that will Probably NEVER happen then unfortunately animals it will have to be to find cures for these deseases.

[benb]

Originally posted by typoon:
snip

Exactly!

I just don't like it when people think of the poor animals before the poor humans.

[dencamp]

Originally posted by benb:
What disgusts me is that people donate millions of dollars to these causes. Take care of the important stuff first. Let's solve the problem of AIDS in Africa, or find a way to cure Lukemia or MD. Then, when all that is taken care of, I will gladly donate a few bucks to the rabbits. But there is no way anyone should be giving to the cats and dogs before thier fellow human beings. Anyone who cares more about the ethical treatment of animals than the ethical treatment of humans, or the overcrowding of shelters over the overcrowding and horrendous living conditions of Mexico City, Bombay, and the rest are completely nuts. It is sickening to think that people would rather give thier money to PETA over a childern's aid and relief organization.

Forget PETA for a second. Th original question was about products tested on animals, not PETA. Hypothetical: If there was a choice between 2 equally priced products with the same performance, one is tested on animals and the other isn't, is it "disgusting" to choose the product that isn't tested on animals.

See, nothing to do with PETA. Certain products don't need to be tested on animals, but they are. That is unfortunate at the very least, sick at the most.

Now the issue of funding a PAC or testing drugs on animals is entirely different. I'm trying to reign in the polemic a little by suggesting that there are some cases where testing does not need to be done on animals. Why someone would believe that we should test everything on animals seems a little ludicrous (and I don't think people truly meant to suggest that, but the angry rhetoric was starting to become a little either/or for my taste).

[Commodus]

I would say that I buy cruelty-free when convenient, but I'm not the sort who treks over to an obscure shop on the other side of town just to be sure that something unnecessarily bad has happened to an animal.

I'm more concerned about where and under what conditions human-made products are bought. I decided to stop buying Nike recently for that reason.

[typoon]

Originally posted by dencamp:
Forget PETA for a second. Th original question was about products tested on animals, not PETA. Hypothetical: If there was a choice between 2 equally priced products with the same performance, one is tested on animals and the other isn't, is it "disgusting" to choose the product that isn't tested on animals.

See, nothing to do with PETA. Certain products don't need to be tested on animals, but they are. That is unfortunate at the very least, sick at the most.

Now the issue of funding a PAC or testing drugs on animals is entirely different. I'm trying to reign in the polemic a little by suggesting that there are some cases where testing does not need to be done on animals. Why someone would believe that we should test everything on animals seems a little ludicrous (and I don't think people truly meant to suggest that, but the angry rhetoric was starting to become a little either/or for my taste).

Very true. Price also has a lot to do with it as well. When stores sell things that are "animal friendly" or "organic" It usually costs more than the processed stuff. To me if it costs the same and I don't have to go too far out of my way to get it I'd be more than happy to get stuff not animal tested.

[chris v]

I think I'll go down to the local S*x toy shop and ask them for some "Cruelty-free bondage and S&M products," just to see the confused looks.

CV

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Organic produce?
What do you have against GM produce?

Einstein: "God does not play dice".
Says it all really.

Plus, non-organic tastes like slug poop.

[benb]

Originally posted by dencamp:
Forget PETA for a second. Th original question was about products tested on animals, not PETA. Hypothetical: If there was a choice between 2 equally priced products with the same performance, one is tested on animals and the other isn't, is it "disgusting" to choose the product that isn't tested on animals.

See, nothing to do with PETA. Certain products don't need to be tested on animals, but they are. That is unfortunate at the very least, sick at the most.

Now the issue of funding a PAC or testing drugs on animals is entirely different. I'm trying to reign in the polemic a little by suggesting that there are some cases where testing does not need to be done on animals. Why someone would believe that we should test everything on animals seems a little ludicrous (and I don't think people truly meant to suggest that, but the angry rhetoric was starting to become a little either/or for my taste).

If you don't need to test it on an animal, don't. But you if need to, you should.

And the PETA thing was more a tangent, I admit. But if you don't want to support animal testing it would be better to do it by buying certain products rather than donating money to organizations that campaign against it. There are far more valuable causes for the money.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by benb:
But there is no way anyone should be giving to the cats and dogs before thier fellow human beings. ........ <SNIP> It is sickening to think that people would rather give thier money to PETA over a childern's aid and relief organization.

I agree. I think it would work out better though if people were able to go to these labs and take their sick pets, say a cancerous dog, and trade it in for a healthy new one. This way $$ is saved on vet bills that can be given to children's charities, the person gets a new pet, and the lab gets an animal that is terminal anyway to experiment on.

All the world is a better place.

[mike one]

Originally posted by chris v:
I think I'll go down to the local S*x toy shop and ask them for some "Cruelty-free bondage and S&M products," just to see the confused looks.

CV

HAHAHAHAhAAHAHAHAH^

http://www.veganerotica.com/

[mike one]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

I think people that worry about animal testing and oversimply it by always pointing to some poor bunny rabbit getting shampooed rather than discussing the value of legitimate medical research on animals have too much time on their hands and need to get a life.

right. there are TWO distinct issues here. Medical research and cosmetic "research."
People who point to Fuzzy when discussing medicinal research are indeed misguided, or unable/unwilling to deal with the tougher issue of medicinal testing.

But it would probably do you a bit of good to read up and understand that even medical testing on animals is far from an exact "science." It is about the best we have for now (but there are some pretty exciting areas that have been sucessful as well that don't rely on animals), but by no means does it hold all the solutions to all our problems. AIDS/Cancer being two of the biggest examples. For every sucessful use of animals in these areas there are huge numbers of failures. ( I am a chemist and anti-cancer researcher.) AIDS testing on animals has been a complete disaster, and much of it has been a SHAM as well.

i always love the "should get a life line." super classy and original to boot


All of this animal welfare crap is just a new religion for people to shove down their own vegan views down other people's throats.

This poll is a disgrace to millions of human beings waiting for cures/treatments which come about thru Animal Testing. [/QUOTE]


a new religion?!?!? whatever.

this poll is a disgrace to no one, this is a damn lounge and the poll is probing at an issue that is of obvious interest to at least 30 posters.

[NYCFarmboy]

this poll is a disgrace to no one, this is a damn lounge and the poll is probing at an issue that is of obvious interest to at least 30 posters. [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, this is poll is ultra offensive to me personally and I know it is personally offensive to many others.

The Animal Cruelty issue is only an attempt by vegans to impose their own lifestyle choices on others.

If you don't eat meat, don't wear fur, don't drink milk or cheese..fine. But I think it is very sad that the Animal Rights Activists hide behind a bunny rabbit getting its nose powdered in an attempt to force others to adhere to their own lifestyle choices.

Every year hundreds of thousands of human beings lives are saved because of medicines that were developed using Animal Testing.

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Every year hundreds of thousands of human beings lives are saved because of medicines that were developed using Animal Testing.

But this thread is about products you buy in the store -- not life-saving medicines. You must be confused.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Einstein: "God does not play dice".
Says it all really.

Says nothing because he was wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say that about quantum mechanics?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Again, this is poll is ultra offensive to me personally and I know it is personally offensive to many others.

The Animal Cruelty issue is only an attempt by vegans to impose their own lifestyle choices on others.

Get over yourself, you child. Nobody's imposing anything on anybody. For your information, I eat meat and yet I buy cruelty-free. Try not to let your head explode at that mind-boggling contradiction.

How you can be offended by a simple, non-judgmental question boggles my mind.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Get over yourself, you child. Nobody's imposing anything on anybody. For your information, I eat meat and yet I buy cruelty-free. Try not to let your head explode at that mind-boggling contradiction.

How you can be offended by a simple, non-judgmental question boggles my mind.

When I was 19 years old I watched my best friend die of leukemia ... near the end they had to break his neck to keep him breathing because of muscle constrictions.

Don't preach to me about what offends me.

Maybe someday there will be a cure for leukemia based on animal testing. Or even just a drug to keep the muscles from constricting around someone's neck in their last stages of life while suffering from Leukeumia.

Raising such a topic as a poll is an attempt to legitimize an issue with implications that are far more grave than whether a bunny rabbit gets various scents of a particular shampoo tested on it.

Research to cure HIV is being disrupted by the interests of the Militant Animal Rights Activists such as when they broke into the laboratory in England and released monkeys that were involved in trails of a HIV vaccine.

Somewhere today a little boy will hold his mother's hand as she dies from complications from HIV...

Again, hundreds of thousands of HUMAN lives are saved each year because of drugs/treatments/procedures that are first used on animals.

[dencamp]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I hope for the sake of many that cures can be found.

What I was saying earlier in this thread applies even more here. Both sides of the polemic are myopic and driven by emotion. The notion that there are no exceptions to animal testing or the converse is ludicrous. I think it is important to try to see the middle ground. Just because there are people adept in agit-prop doesn't mean you have to listen to them. It also means you don't have to negate everything associated with the issue at hand.

Yes, I think that testing medicine on animals has been necessary. Yes, I believe that in many cases it continues to be necessary. Yes, I believe that the day is coming when the limitations of testing on animals will become too great. Yes, I believe that time has come for a lot of conventional uses of animal testing (i.e., beauty products) to be phased out because they are not necessary.

I have always had animals in my house (cats, dogs, fish, rabbits, hamsters, etc) and I get emotionally attached to all of them. When I was young, I held a strict PETA-like set of beliefs, but began seeing the flaws in both method and possible end-goal of that particular organization. What I finally realized after much thinking was that I personally (I never proselytized-since we are using religious terminology) would try to live my life in a way to minimize my complicity with the type of cruelty that is NOT necessary. My life, my decision. To say that my beliefs are only a part of a vast cadre of zombies trying to force others to believe as they do is insulting. I have made my own reasoned decision as I expect every one else to.

A life with only polemics is boring. I love contradictions and the constant effort to live a life that is in line with one's beliefs.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Raising such a topic as a poll is an attempt to legitimize an issue with implications that are far more grave than whether a bunny rabbit gets various scents of a particular shampoo tested on it.

No it isn't. I made the fcuking poll; don't put words in my mouth. As I said, I eat meat and I don't apologize for it. I give my charity donations to groups like the ACLU and the Center on Wrongful Convictions; my main concern is social justice, not animal welfare. However, if an animal must be exploited for my benefit, I prefer such exploitation to be as minimal and humane as possible. That's just my choice; only the most simplistic worldview would consider that some kind of attack.

You believe that no one can be opposed to cruelty-free consumer products without also being opposed to animal testing in medical research. You're wrong. If animal testing can serve a legitimate scientific purpose, I'm for it. Exactly how efficacious animal research is in practice is another debate altogether, one I will leave to those more informed (i.e., mike one).

[davesimondotcom]

I specifically will not buy any products made by the guy who made fun of me in grade school.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by mike one:
http://www.veganerotica.com/

OMFG! That site is hilarious!
WTF is "vegan leather" anyway? Do they skin those annoying twats and then tan the skins and... ?
I may have to buy some.