Jump to content


Global Day Of Action Against Procter & Gamble


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#1 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 08:48 AM

http://www.indybay.o.../05/1820715.php

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 PrejudiceSucks

PrejudiceSucks

    Freeware Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:26 PM

All I can say is that I object to animal testing for cosmetics etc. but on the other hand, it's oft-vital for medical testing.

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 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:36 PM

1st paragraph 3rd sentence said:

The Global Day of Action Against P&G remains as important now as it was a decade ago because the gigantic multinational corporation continues to test their products on animals
Doesn't that actually mean their efforts have gone wasted and it is pointless continuing this way, if nothing has changed in 10 years??? :P
...70 years... LOL

#4 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:41 PM

Tulac, on May 20 2006, 08:48 AM, said:

http://www.indybay.o.../05/1820715.php

So what do you think about animal torturing should it be used to test products?
*sigh* I think that first of all, when discussing a sensitive issue like animal testing (and the most neutral term is still "testing", not "torturing"), it's important to keep things on a rational level. That site seems rather biassed to me, to be honest. Phrases like "needless killing of tens of tens of thousands of animals in painful, archaic and entirely unnecessary product tests" are deliberately emotionalising the issue but are hardly very informative. I couldn't really find any information as to why those methods of testing should be considered outdated and why they are entirely unnecessary. Or, for that matter, why Procter and Gamble apparently disagrees.
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.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#5 Juni Ori

Juni Ori

    Gaming Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 12:45 PM

When are we getting married, AJ? I totally agree! It's the same with nuclear power, racism, etc.
...70 years... LOL

#6 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:00 PM

Yeah you're right, I only linked to that site, cause I didn't know that such a day exists...
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 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:22 PM

Tulac, on May 20 2006, 01:00 PM, said:

Yeah you're right, I only linked to that site, cause I didn't know that such a day exists...
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...
They're hardly the only ones, though. There are lots of large companies that prefer their customers to think of their products as individual brands. For example, there is a large company (Masterfoods, I think) that produces pet food as well as food for humans. Naturally, they don't want to advertise that ("This bar of chocolate was brought to you by the makers of Kit-e-Kat!!"). Supermarkets are another example. Often the direct "competitors" there are owned by the same company.
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.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#8 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:37 PM

Quote

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.
Nope Ariel, the detergent is the best example, it has much more toxic element and is much less effective the same is with food, cheaper chemicals (emulgators?) are used in our food, some of which is basically forbidden in western Europe...

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 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:47 PM

OK, in that case they really are being cheap. But the best way to fight that would probably be to have stricter regulations, so they'd have to follow them if they wanted to continue selling their stuff...

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks

#10 Tulac

Tulac

    The Great Red Lemur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1546 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 01:50 PM

Yeah, most of the Eastern European countries are members of the EU, so they probably have more strict regulations than us, but that's probably only on paper...

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 BeefontheBone

BeefontheBone

    Self-titling Egotist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2953 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 02:53 PM

View PostJuni Ori, on May 20 2006, 01:45 PM, said:

When are we getting married, AJ? I totally agree! It's the same with nuclear power, racism, etc.

I think everyone can agree that racism is entirely wrong, can't they? Unless you mean "positive discrimination".
[center]
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 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:03 PM

since this is one of those threads that could get me in alot of trouble im going to try and stay out of it.. but i do have to say that i find animal testing wrong no matter what the so-called benifits are for us. i find it completly wrong for medicines and i find it completly useless for cosmetics.

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.

Posted Image
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 taikara

taikara

    Tai-Fu Mastah

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2389 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:57 PM

I agree with Raffles.

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! :P" 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.
..<[[[Tofu Ninja of the Pickasldawessle Order]]]>..
QUOTE (Tai - in response to DD on how people who fear change are like cats)
you mean the "you moved my litterbox, so I'm going to pee in your clothes hamper" attitude?
Yes, I just quoted myself. ph34r my T4i-F00!!.
doodoodoo!!!

#14 DakaSha

DakaSha

    Happy Little Tree-hugger

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2013 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:59 PM

well like i said im staying out of this one :P

Posted Image
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 A. J. Raffles

A. J. Raffles

    The Grand Inquisitor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6304 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:12 PM

View PostDakaSha, on May 22 2006, 04:03 PM, said:

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.
See? That's exactly what I meant. That's just as much of a sweeping statement as "animal testing saves lives". A lot of money is being spent on research for alternative methods, actually, but obviously they haven't reached the stage yet where animal testing can be fully replaced by those methods, or they would, obviously (unless they really are torturing animals for fun, which I doubt, to be honest). Yes, money is a prime issue, but it is in so many other areas of life as well. Thousands of people die each day for reasons that are directly connected to someone saving money, which is every bit as cynical, really.

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.

"Flippin' immigrants, stealin' our bandwidth etc. etc." - PrejudiceSucks