Animal Testing: Does it matter to you?

[DragonPearl]

This argument makes no sense. The meat industry is regulated by the FDA and has to meet certain standards for humane treatment and handling. This is not to say the animals aren't suffering--it is what it is and if you've ever researched the industry, it's still foul and a lot of change and more regulation is still needed. But consumable meat is in no way the same thing as cosmetics.

They do not kill cattle in front of other cattle. The cattle pass thru a curtain one at a time, where each is killed with a single bolt to the skull. The success rate of a 1st-time death has to be about 98%. Cattle that are stressed by a "dirty kill" or by knowing what's about to happen to them will release adrenaline, which ruins the meat--and that's costly to ranchers.

Their lives are in no way pleasant, but compare that to rabbits being immobilized for hours, days... however long the study takes while someone smears eyeshadow or conditioner in their eyes, which may burn and sting and blind them.... all so you can look pretty. Many of these tests are far worse, and research reveals that much testing these days doesn't even require the use of animals anymore, but some industries have yet to stop. It would be easier to choose a similar product that caused no animal to suffer needlessly for a vanity industry like hair and makeup. Food is a necessity, unpleasant as it is. A favorite brand of lipstick or a choice of 15 different conditioners is not.

I am glad you broke it down. I don't think most people know how animal testing is done.

 

[Blu217]

I get that you really really care about this and that's cool and totally your perogative and you should indeed avoid product based on whether animal tested or not.

But, a lot of folks, myself included, just don't feel as you -- doesn't make me a lesser human being or less caring or less moral or whatever -- I just have a different point of view on this one. I respect yours. Respect mine.

Dagnabbit--here we go AGAIN with this touchy, misguided perception of moral judgment.

I do not see how my quote clarifying someone else's explanation of an opinion on testing makes a logical leap to an issue of respect. Did I disrespect you by having an opinion of my own? It's unfair to me to filter my comments with perception and assign all sorts of things I've not said. And unless I've posted that anyone here is bad people, it's equally unfair to attempt to place those words between any of my lines.

I've been VERY clear on my point of view and I think I've shared it very respectfully, but not everyone recognizes the difference between debate and argument. If I disagree with you, I'm judging you? Come on.

This thread is making my brain bleed, and I'm not being tested for anything other than patience. I'm out.

 

[Cooyah]

nope, i'd rather fluffy be blind than me

 

[Neroli]

Dagnabbit--here we go AGAIN with this touchy, misguided perception of moral judgment.

I do not see how my quote clarifying someone else's explanation of an opinion on testing makes a logical leap to an issue of respect. Did I disrespect you by having an opinion of my own? It's unfair to me to filter my comments with perception and assign all sorts of things I've not said. And unless I've posted that anyone here is bad people, it's equally unfair to attempt to place those words between any of my lines.

I've been VERY clear on my point of view and I think I've shared it very respectfully, but not everyone recognizes the difference between debate and argument. If I disagree with you, I'm judging you? Come on.

This thread is making my brain bleed, and I'm not being tested for anything other than patience. I'm out.

Perhaps the reason I perceive a judgement on your part are the implications in your various statements. For example, your posts in this thread as numbered:

#23 where you state: "while someone smears eyeshadow or conditioner in their eyes, which may burn and sting and blind them.... all so you can look pretty"
***IMO, this is a judgment that those who don't feel like you do are vain and cruel in order to "look pretty" . . . ***

#34 wher you state: "I show my respect to what I'm consuming by being educated about how it got to my plate. I know all about the inhumane practices in the industry. I don't like ANY of it. But I am well educated on how it goes down, as I think we all should be. Understanding the complete process about how your food is raised, slaughtered/harvested and the process by which it arrives at your table does change the way you feel about the foods you consume."
***IMO, makes an assumption that if doesn't feel like you do, then not educated. Than makes the judgement that if educated, should change how feel to reflect how YOU feel now that you're educated about it.***

#38 where you state: "It's a line that lies between those of us who don't care if animals bleed from their eyes for frickin' SHAMPOO, and those who do. One needn't be fanatical about researching everything she buys, but if learning this goes on doesn't at least move her, I believe it says a lot about a person"
***IMO, this is MORAL judgement. What exactly do you mean by "says a lot about a person"? I presume and the implication is that you and those who feel as you have higher moral superiority. But, I may be wrong.***

#41 where you state: "any moderately compassionate person would feel similarly"
***IMO, this is a judgment that those who don't feel as you do are not compassionate.

#54 where you state: "What I didn't clarify is that it says to me that person is not wholly compassionate to all living things. If it sounds unpleasant, well it's simply what has been posted in the thread many times: don't care, doesn't bother me one bit, I prefer animals to be tested... I view that only as fact--this stuff about passing morality judgments is incorrect.
***IMO, this is an explicit moral judgement on whether someone is compasionate based on whether they agree with you or not . . . ***

Now, to some of your specific comments:

-you did not disrespect me by expressing your opinion. Nor did I intend to disrespect you by expressing MY opinion that you're passing moral judgement by the manner in which you chose to state your position.

-I have recounted you exact statements above to show WHY I formed the perception you were judging those who don't agree with you.

-I'm not placing words between you lines, I'm merely reading your posts as documented above.

-You have indeed been VERY clear on your views and have been respectful thus far.

-No, if you disagree, doesn't necesarily mean you're judging. Your comments lead me to believe you're judging, not your opinion nor the position you have taken.

-As an attorney, I totally understand the difference between debate and argument -- it's what I do for a living.

Perhaps your strong and admirable feelings for animals just makes this too hard for you to discuss without getting emotional . . .

 

[Blu217]

Thank you for supporting my assertion--and I will repeat myself for clarity--that it is blatantly unfair to filter my comments with perception and assign all sorts of things I've not said outright--let alone a completely incorrect, if impassioned interpretation of their meaning. You will note that almost every one of those quotes was about what I think. They are my opinions. You seem to feel very sensitive about the subject and are assigning my feelings about what's right for ME as some sort of indirect judgment that if you don't feel the same, you are wrong. Have I said this? I have not.

I would imagine that most of us here are compassionate people, even if we don't all feel the same on this issue. This is only one of the many quoted misinterpretations, but my statement was in fact inclusive of us all--not at all a judgment.

I'm not at all emotional on this issue. I am, however, finally exhausted by hypersensitive reactions by those who wish to assign all sorts of meaning to my words themselves, then point their finger at me and wish to TELL ME what I meant. Never put words in another's mouth--that is, in my opinion, disrespectful. Who is really judging who here?

You are simply wrong, on a number of levels. That's unfortunate. But I believe I said I was not going to continue, because we're officially off-topic and this is devolving into a personal attack by a few disgruntled posters, and it's equally unfortunate that we can't just have a discussion about our different feelings on a controversial issue. But thanks for your thoughts on... my thoughts.

 

[Neroli]

Thank you for supporting my assertion--and I will repeat myself for clarity--that it is blatantly unfair to filter my comments with perception and assign all sorts of things I've not said outright--let alone a completely incorrect, if impassioned interpretation of their meaning. You will note that almost every one of those quotes was about what I think. They are my opinions, council. You seem to feel very sensitive about the subject and are assigning my feelings about what's right for ME as some sort of indirect judgment that if you don't feel the same, you are wrong. Have I said this? I have not. If you felt that way, that's on you.

I'm not at all emotional on this issue. I am, however, finally exhausted by hypersensitive people who wish to assign all sorts of meaning to my words themselves, then point their finger at me and wish to TELL ME what I meant. Never put words in another's mouth. That is, in my opinion, disrespectful. Who is really judging who here?

My recitation of your quotes and the implications therein remain. Of course I realize they represent your opinion (that's what we are all expressing in this thread!) and IMO, your opinions as expressed gave me an perception that you're passing moral judgment on those who don't agree with you on this issue.

I'm not judging you, I'm trying to point out how your words may be perceived, even by folks who may not necesarily be "hypersentive" about this. People have no choice but to "assign meaning to words" for that is what words are meant to do -- convey meaning! In my profession, one of the first things we are thought is to be very very precise in how we speak or write because different folks will INTERPRET and assign meaning that we may not intend.

Others have expressed a point of view similar to yours on this thread without making judgments, implicity or explicit, about those who do not agree with them.

I really do understand your side of this argement (having debated it a number of times with friends and family) and may even agree with some of it, but not enough to change my habits or opinion, yet. . .

Anywho, I'm glad you're not emotional and no disrespect intended and certainly no intent to put words in your mouth, just seems like what was coming through, at least to me.

Peace!

 

[B_Phlyy]

nope, i'd rather fluffy be blind than me

I totally agree.

 

[ChoKitty]

I think I voted the right one, the way the question was worded was a little confusing to me....but I won't buy tested on animal products if I know they are.

 

[Blu217]

I'm not judging you, I'm trying to point out how your words may be perceived, even by folks who may not necesarily be "hypersentive" about this. People have no choice but to "assign meaning to words" for that is what words are meant to do -- convey meaning! In my profession, one of the first things we are thought is to be very very precise in how we speak or write because different folks will INTERPRET and assign meaning that we may not intend.

Neroli, I respect that. I swear I wanted to be done, but...

You should know that I am a professional journalist, with a master's degree from one of the best--since we're taking it there. I write for a living and have for years. To say I understand how to communicate a position and know the concerns about interpretation is an understatement. I also understand slander, libel and other issues that can arise when we do not check the facts and ask questions first, when we jump to conclusions, lead with our perceptions--as I'm sure you, as a lawyer, do too. But I was not asked to clarify my position. I was told what my position was. And many of the things I wrote and did explain were selectively and repeatedly left out to support the "judgment" argument.

I debate often. The reaction in this thread was something... different from the norm of my experience.

I wish I had simply been asked first, "Blu, what do you mean by, because this to me sounds like..." I'd have been very happy to clarify my positions. I generalized at every turn precisely because I was not singling out anyone in particular--and I happen to not care what people think about my thoughts on an issue, will never apologize for them, nor shirk from a strongly stated opinion. It's part of what I do.

Anyhoo, thank you for YOUR clarification. It's all good.

 

[Dogmd]

I am a veterinarian, a raw vegan and I choose to use products that have NOT been tested on animals whenever possible.

I have worked in the labs and I have worked in the slaughter houses and it is not pretty. I am working toward incorporating as much "green" and environmentally friendly things into my families lives as possible. I will raise my daughter to be concious of her choices as well.

Thanks for this thread ... this is an excellent topic. This has made a lot of people THINK about the choices they make in what they wear, eat or put in and on their bodies!! Excellent!!

I like how you ladies have debated your positions by the way.. Blu 217 you express yourself effortlessly and I admire that!!

 

[Neroli]

Neroli, I respect that. I swear I wanted to be done, but...

You should know that I am a professional journalist, with a master's degree from one of the best--since we're taking it there. I write for a living and have for years. To say I understand how to communicate a position and know the concerns about interpretation is an understatement. I also understand slander, libel and other issues that can arise when we do not check the facts and ask questions first, when we jump to conclusions, lead with our perceptions--as I'm sure you, as a lawyer, do too. But I was not asked to clarify my position. I was told what my position was. And many of the things I wrote and did explain were selectively and repeatedly left out to support the "judgment" argument.

I debate often. The reaction in this thread was something... different from the norm of my experience.

I wish I had simply been asked first, "Blu, what do you mean by, because this to me sounds like..." I'd have been very happy to clarify my positions. I generalized at every turn precisely because I was not singling out anyone in particular--and I happen to not care what people think about my thoughts on an issue, will never apologize for them, nor shirk from a strongly stated opinion. It's part of what I do.

Anyhoo, thank you for YOUR clarification. It's all good.

Blu, thanks for YOUR clarification. . .

 

[chayil0427]

Actually I'd prefer something that WAS tested on an animal before they test it on me....but that wasn't an option. Animal testing doesn't bother me one way or the other.

I think you're saying that knowing a product was tested on animals makes you feel like they're safer, but what a product does a rabbit says very little about what it will do on you. Plus, we have so much information about what chemicals do in products and in combinations that there is really know need for animal testing, moreover, there are more accurate and humane ways of testing product safety then torturing animals.

Chayil

 

[chayil0427]

Bumping this for more input...very interesting range of opinions on this topic. I'd like to hear more.

Chayil

 

[seraphinelle]

I am all for animal testing. Sounds cruel? I suppose in a sense.

But there are so many things that have come from animal testing.

I have learnt so much that optometrists and the likes wouldn't even have access to without animal testing.

Life saving drugs, from animal testing.

And if y'all remember what happened very recently when they tested drugs on those people in England, ie. The Elephant Man. And that's why I'm AGAINST testing on humans. THAT is inhumane.