[Ghostavo]

And we are not?!? Er....

[an0n]

Originally posted by Rictor
I think its safe to assume that anyone with any real power doesn't spend time posting on HLP. They're off creating shadow governments, writing policy, making business deals and whatnot.

I'm only 18! Gimme a ****in' chance.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
PETA and Greenpeace are just a bunch of morons.

They started out as decent enough organizations but once of the bigger threats to the natural world were beaten into the background they started going after stupid goals and doing moronic things to further them.

PETA didn't even start out as a good idea. Did anyone catch Penn & Teller Bull**** about them?

Spoiler:

These guys want to liberate pets because they are slaves to humanity and no animal should ever be kept as a slave. They pay money to terrorist causes like the Animal Liberation Front etc who carry out firebombings against research facilities who's only crime is to try to cure AIDS, cancer and other diseases.

Worse one of their leaders is diabetic and therefore dependant on drugs which were researched on animals. When questioned about this her response was that she needs to live so that she could campaign for animal lives! :rolleyes

Lets face it PETA (at least their leaders) are a bunch of scumbags who should be wiped from the face of the Earth for the common good of mankind.

[Rictor]

If given the choice between ensuring that some rabbit lives a life free from torture, or having Revlon come up with a revolutionary new kind of lip gloss that exactly the same as the ones before, I'de choose the animals. I think its a more or less noble cause, though how it is in practice I really couldn't say. Maybe thats just cause I'm fairly anti-corporate..

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
If given the choice between ensuring that some rabbit lives a life free from torture, or having Revlon come up with a revolutionary new kind of lip gloss that exactly the same as the ones before, I'de choose the animals. I think its a more or less noble cause, though how it is in practice I really couldn't say. Maybe thats just cause I'm fairly anti-corporate..

Except that there is a difference between a lip gloss and an anti cancer drug that will save thousends of lives. Those morons at PETA think that both are less important than a rabbits life except when it saves their own worthless lives.

Sure experimenting on animals for cosmetics is stupid and pointless but doing tests on animals to cure AIDS is another matter.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Personally I'm of the opinion that animals are expendable, humans are not. That's not vindicating experimentation for the sake of it though.

If you have to experiment on animals to save people then I have no problems with that.
[/color]

[an0n]

**** the animals. Not literally or purposely. But if injecting a rabbit with bleach means I don't go blind at 60, gimme the ****in' needle and pair of surgical gloves.

[Flipside]

It was once pointed out to a bunch of 'No animal testing whatsoever demonstrators that about 1/3 of them would be dead or incapacited were it not for drugs that were developed using testing on animals.

I'm against cosmetic testing, however. And only really ugly animals, though, of course, they might need the cosmetic testing more

[Fineus]

If it meant the difference between life and death for someone I loved, I'd say test something on an animal. But even then in all but the most unavoidable cases it should be as humane as possible (I don't know much of the specifics behind the testing.. so I can't say more than that).

Cosmetic products on the other hand is just sick. I don't care if it removes spots - it shouldn't be tested on animals.

[an0n]

Why not?

[Fineus]

Assuming it harms them? Because it's cruel. I'm against fox hunting for the same reason.

Ever seen the people who do it? Bunch of wankers - the adults are totally into it and think they're gods gift. The kids don't know any better and freely follow the adults example, assuming the fox feels no pain and that its some kind of sport. **** that.

For the same reason, beauty products that harm animals? I don't give a **** how pretty Victoria Beckham might look because a new eyeliner was developed as a result. It's purely commercial and it causes damage to creatures who have no say in whether they would participate in the testing or not.

If you want to test cosmetics - test them on humans. They're your target consumer anyway, and they can say "no, I don't want you to test that **** on me" if they want to.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Ever seen the people who do it? Bunch of wankers - the adults are totally into it and think they're gods gift. The kids don't know any better and freely follow the adults example...

[color=66ff00]Sounds like the leadership of the orange order.[/color]

For the same reason, beauty products that harm animals? I don't give a **** how pretty Victoria Beckham might look because a new eyeliner was developed as a result.

[color=66ff00]Victoria Beckham looks pretty?
[/color]

[an0n]

You're assuming that the reason for cosmetic tests is purely...errmmm....cosmetic.

How many kids do you think every year kill themselves because the kids at school tell them they're ugly?

How many kids every year do you think are horribly scarred in fires?

How many people a year do you think can feed their children because they have the tools and ability to make Victoria Beckham look less ugly?

It's all matter of scope and you're purposely limiting your scope to support the perspective you've only chosen to follow because the politically correct nutters have demonized everyone who doesn't tow the party line and managed to force the government to hammer it into your head that such things are evil and wrong and only done by barbarians.

[Flipside]

Personally, I say meet halfway and test all new cosmetics on Victoria Beckham

[Rictor]

Yeah, for medical testing sure. But not something that serves only to profit a beauty products compny and make a rich woman feel pretty. Screw 'em, I don't care how the look. Society is overly focused on looks, its pretty damn shallow.

[an0n]

Personally, I think they should perform chemical and scientific tests on prison inmates and reduce their sentence depending on the estimated 'death-or-deformity' rate of the product or method they're testing.

[Flipside]

Agree with Rictor here, the problem is the kids being bullied and called ugly, not the need for cosmetics.

[an0n]

Well we can test on animals or we can change one of things that has been a staple of human civilization for the past 10,000 years.

Hmmm. Choices, choices....

[Fineus]

Meh, sorry - tad drunk here so just spewing as opposed to thinking about what I post. Should probably sleep.. heh.

Anyhow, some time last year I headed out on an anti fox-hunting protest with a close friend of mine and some other guys I hadn't met before.. it was a real eye-opener. You might imagine the stereotypical English "toff" or posh type who goes out hunting in his red jacket, white breeches and large brown horse... flanked by 10 or so hounds.

Well it's entirely true.

At first I laughed at the cliche. Then they (the dogs) got hold of a foxes scent and the game was on for them and us. Technically we could've been arrested for various things but weren't. At any rate we stopped any foxes from being caught or killed that day which was great - but it's a big eye opener into what goes on in certain social circles... the rest of the country goes by oblivious to this kind of thing - and it's really going on only 20 or so miles from where I live. Ergo I feel far more empathy for the fox who's minding his own business - to the horde of egotistic, rude and generally unpleasent humans who take part in such things.

And no, Victoria Beckham is ugly as hell - but a good example for someone who might use a beauty product.

[an0n]

Well, I've always said that stupid people should be killed.

So I say: **** the animals and kill the stupid!