Global Day Of Action Against Procter & Gamble
#1
Posted 20 May 2006 - 08:48 AM
So what do you think about animal torturing should it be used to test products?
PS: on a note side, it's been verified that P&G sells products of lesser quality in markets of Eastern Europe (read crap), although their commercials says differrent, I smell a lawsuit...
DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#2
Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:26 PM
And if people don't want animal testing, then maybe instead of protesting and ruining people's lives, then they should volunteer themselves for testing, instead of being total hypocrites.
#3
Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:36 PM
1st paragraph 3rd sentence said:
#4
Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:41 PM
Tulac, on May 20 2006, 08:48 AM, said:
So what do you think about animal torturing should it be used to test products?
Not that I'm wildly in favour of animal testing, but over the past months, I've heard enough empty stock-phrases from both sides (ranging from "murder labs" to "animal testing saves lives") to be rather tired of them. I'm more than ready to be convinced by either side, but I want to be convinced by rational arguments, not by sweeping statements.
#5
Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:45 PM
#6
Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:00 PM
Anyway for me P&G is really a shady company, they don't use their corporate brand, so average citizen doesn't know that Pampers, Pringles and Mr.Proper are under the same company, and plus they sell lesser quality products to us, which is blatantly speaking racist...
DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#7
Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:22 PM
Tulac, on May 20 2006, 01:00 PM, said:
Anyway for me P&G is really a shady company, they don't use their corporate brand, so average citizen doesn't know that Pampers, Pringles and Mr.Proper are under the same company, and plus they sell lesser quality products to us, which is blatantly speaking racist...
It's also common to adapt your products to separate markets, because there are certain national preferences which have to be considered. Coca Cola, for example, does not taste the same everywhere. It contains more sugar in some countries, where studies have shown that people prefer it to be sweeter. So P&G maybe isn't so much selling inferior products to eastern European country, but simply different products, which they believe are better adapted to the eastern European market. They may well be wrong there, but obviously it would be silly to believe that everything American customers consider high quality is necessarily considered high quality everywhere else.
#8
Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:37 PM
Quote
DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#9
Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:47 PM
#10
Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:50 PM
DakaSha:if you go into a kindergarden and give all the kids rubber schlongs they will prob just hit each other over the head with them
DakaSha:and you have a class of little kids hitting eachother with rubber dongs which must be quite funny (also Picklweasel knight I am)
#11
Posted 20 May 2006 - 02:53 PM
Juni Ori, on May 20 2006, 01:45 PM, said:
I think everyone can agree that racism is entirely wrong, can't they? Unless you mean "positive discrimination".
QUOTE (gregor)
also consider this - the turkey *male genital*ula is called little asia on some geographical maps maps.
I'm your solar-powered princess/Your technological soulmate.
#12
Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:03 PM
edit: and prej sorry but calling people hypocrites because they are against it but wont let it be tested on themselves is a very very ignorant thing to say.
and yes if i have some terminal illness ill probably wish somebody tortured an animal for my benifit but since i dont have one now i can answer objectivly
also the stuff can very well be tested through other methods (hasnt always been possible ill agree to that.. but it is possible with the technology we have now)... but it would cost alot more money for research.. so basicaly thats all its about again. money. torturing animals to save money.
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2
#13
Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:57 PM
I'd really like to hear the scientists' reasons for this testing, personally. Something tells me it would be more informative than, "Torturing thousands of animals is wrong! " Well, yeah, we know it's wrong, but are they torturing or testing? There is a difference.
Autopsying a cat to check its stomach contents (and whatever else they test) after ingesting a pet food product sounds pretty viable to me - I mean, I'd like to know whether the food I feed my kitties is going to somehow harm them.
As for cosmetic testing - I'd really like to know what the better, safer ways of testing and production are. Being able to analyze the chemical composition that's in something is great, but you can't always predict how it will effect a person's "live" skin when you use it, or if it will have any adverse effects over a long period of time. Not to mention that most of the eco-friendly "Not Tested On Animals!" cosmetics I've bought tended to have been utter crap, quality-wise.
Besides, I find it pretty hypocritical when people protest/object to animal testing when quite a few of them eat meat and buy fur/leather products (Not all animal rights activists do, but I'm willing to bet quite a few of them do). It's not like food production or fur/leather production is all that comfy for animals.
Don't get me wrong, I love animals... but if these animal rights activists really want to do something useful, they should go after pet farms and abusive pet owners. There's something sick about adopting/buying a pet to give it a home, and then abusing it. And pet farms are awful.
As for products in Eastern Europe - what are the competitive products? If the competitive products are better, why not just buy those? Then P&G would be forced to improve their product in order to compete in the market. If they're not better, they're probably selling that lesser product to be able to match the prices of the competitive products. Believe it or not, better, more expensive production = higher prices.
doodoodoo!!!
#14
Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:59 PM
For all you artists here... and we have enough. Please draw me something :D Click Here. If possible include your nick. A simple Test. dunno of the PICKLEWAESEL order!!1!2
#15
Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:12 PM
DakaSha, on May 22 2006, 04:03 PM, said:
It's an admirable attitude to say you'd rather die than let an animal suffer for your sake, but can you really expect everyone else to make the same decision? Not everyone is brave and can actually manage to stay true to his ideals, you know. Some just like to live, no matter what.
Edit: @Tai: I think there was quite a good article in the Guardian the other day... I'll see if I can find it.