Uncaged Animal Rights organisation boycotting 'Herbal essences'.

Scroll to see replies

Norfolkadam

Hm, let me see, which do I care more about.

- Massive poverty and injustice in the third world
- Civilian Deaths in wars
- Clean drinking water in Africa
- Finding a cure for cancer
- Stopping global warming
- Human rights abuses
- The global reccession
- The Gaza conflict
- Helping the homeless
- Protecting battered women

Somehow mentally damaged rats and boycotting shampoo is not going to squeeze itself onto that list.

I don't get why when mentioning animal rights to people they come out with 'there's people starving in the world' etc. Just because you support one cause doesn't mean another has to suffer ,what are you doing to help the stop the conflict in gaza btw? you must have your work cut out so I can see how you'd have little time for any other causes.

Reply 81

SoundDevastation

Renner

Well our entire civilization for a start, animals are a simple commodity for us to do with as we please.

Different argument, they are violating human rights in what they are doing.

Human rights and Animal rights are linked and supportive of one another. Many activists, myself included are involved in both and would never sacrifice one for the other... the Food not Bombs movement is a great example of this.

Animal rights activists are often framed and made example of.. Fox hunters have been known to poison their dogs and blame it on animal rights activists and so on. Obviously there are individuals that do some silly things.. but hurting people (physically or emotionally) is never, and never has been, representative of the AR movement.

Reply 82

numb3rb0y

Renner

Well our entire civilization for a start, animals are a simple commodity for us to do with as we please.

So slavery was cool as black people were a simple commodity for white people to do with as they pleased?

Renner

Different argument, they are violating human rights in what they are doing.

Again, give me an objective a priori argument for human rights existing and animal rights not.

Renner

I think its time you let go of your miss-guided morals and opened you eyes. Between the species of this planet all life is not equal. If it was there would be no predators or prey, the powerful overcome the weak. We are the powerful; rats are the weak as are all animals. We are the dominant species and we can do whatever we like.

If you spent a day out in the brazilian rain forest you would soon learn we are not the dominat species.

bansheeee*

exactly. All you have to do to make a point against vivisection is buy one shampoo instead of another.. its hardly a drain in energy! And all those causes are interlinked..

"While there are slaugter houses there will be battlefields." - Tolstoy

Reply 87

mermania

I think from now on I'm going to make a conscious effort to buy hair products that have been tested on animals. That way I can be confident that the strictest and most thorough testing standards have been adhered to and that the product is of the highest possible quality :thumbsup:

Reply 88

FyreFight

bansheeee*

If you spent a day out in the brazilian rain forest you would soon learn we are not the dominat species.

Take a look around you. We are, quite clearly, the dominant species. We could level the Amazon rainforest, turn it into a car park and burn every plant and animal within it if we so desired.

Reply 89

Renner

If you spent a day out in the brazilian rain forest you would soon learn we are not the dominat species.

If you spent a day in the Brazilian rainforest I think you would find we are, I don’t see anything stopping there habitat being destroyed, do you?

So slavery was cool as black people were a simple commodity for white people to do with as they pleased?

You think this is a good argument for animal rights?

Reply 90

FizzBitch

FyreFight

Take a look around you. We are, quite clearly, the dominant species. We could level the Amazon rainforest, turn it into a car park and burn every plant and animal within it if we so desired.

People who do things like that might be dominant, but they are also stupid. :p:

Reply 91

numb3rb0y

Renner

You think this is a good argument for animal rights?

No, I think it's a counterpoint to your ridiculous notion that just because a majority of people in a society are doing something makes doing that thing morally acceptable.

A good argument for animal rights would be that you simply can't come up with a non-subjective argument differentiating humans from animals in a way that objectively paints humans as superior, and thus deserving of rights where other animals are not.

Reply 92

Norfolkadam

bansheeee*

Just because you support one cause doesn't mean another has to suffer

If I give £1 to Oxfam then it doesn't go to the British Heart Foundation.

If I give £4 to the RNIB then it's not going to Africa.

See?

Reply 93

Lunarsea

FyreFight

Take a look around you. We are, quite clearly, the dominant species. We could level the Amazon rainforest, turn it into a car park and burn every plant and animal within it if we so desired.

While that is true that we could do anything we wanted, it doesn't mean that we should. Do you think that we should destroy the rainforest? (not having a go btw, I am just curious :smile:

)

On a more general note... to be honest I think we should treat animals with compassion. It really isn't that difficult and helps prevent suffering. It really isn't a lot of bother to buy products that are BUAV approved and it makes a small difference. Although it is true that human suffering in the world, and that should be hugely important to everyone (I know it is to me), the fact that animals are suffering still matters to me too. I'm sorry to anyone that disagrees with me but that is just how I feel. :s-smilie:

Reply 94

FyreFight

Lunarsea

While that is true that we could do anything we wanted, it doesn't mean that we should. Do you think that we should destroy the rainforest? (not having a go btw, I am just curious :smile:

)

Why would we want to destroy it? I'm just making the point that we are unquestionably the dominant species, not that we should recklessly abuse that power.

Reply 95

Dan1990

animal rights activists shouldnt go on a march, but volunteer for testing on themselves, therefore saving the animals. Suprisingly you dont see this happening though...

Reply 96

Lunarsea

FyreFight

Why would we want to destroy it? I'm just making the point that we are unquestionably the dominant species, not that we should recklessly abuse that power.

Fair enough. I completely agree. I just wanted to see what the opinion was. :yes:

Reply 97

Lunarsea

Dan1990

animal rights activists shouldnt go on a march, but volunteer for testing on themselves, therefore saving the animals. Suprisingly you dont see this happening though...

To be honest human testing is not a viable option in reality simply because of the number of volunteers that you would need to find (I would think). Even if animal rights activists did do that, there wouldn't be enough of them and ethically, I seriously doubt that any company would test on humans anyway.

Reply 98

menagerie

I understand people personally boycotting Herbal Essences as they could probably go and buy a similarly priced, non-animal tested version of similar quality at the Body Shop or somewhere (ignoring any animal testing controversies for the point of my post), but as for the whole of Proctor and Gamble, it's ridiculous.

P&G have so many products that it would be impossible for me to eliminate them from my life. It would take so much effort and time and possibly money, that I'd rather some rats die instead. It may be selfish of me, but I have much more important things to do than find alternatives for everything I use. It's just the rat race we live in (geddit? geddit? omg lolll)

Reply 99

jacketpotato

Dan1990

animal rights activists shouldnt go on a march, but volunteer for testing on themselves, therefore saving the animals. Suprisingly you dont see this happening though...

lunarsea

To be honest human testing is not a viable option in reality simply because of the number of volunteers that you would need to find. Even if animal rights activists did do that, there wouldn't be enough of them and ethically, I seriously doubt that any company would test on humans anyway.

Companies regularly recruit people for cosmetics testing. I'm sure many animal activists (and many other people as well) would be more than willing to test shampoo products for a couple of hours and get some pocket money for their trouble. This is shampoo we are talking about here, its not like it a dangerous medicine that might stop the heart or something.

Quite why its not a "viable option" is a mystery, given that many companies do rely exclusively on human testing - its not hard to find volunteers for this kind of thing.

The only reason that rats are used is because they don't need to be paid £5 an hour - it saves the company a couple of quid.

norfolkadam

If I give £1 to Oxfam then it doesn't go to the British Heart Foundation.

If I give £4 to the RNIB then it's not going to Africa.

See?

You are making the assumption that there is a fixed pool of money which goes to charitable causes. All money could be given to Oxfam, not just money which goes towards animal causes. If you choose to spend £10,000 on a car, this is also £10,000 that could go to Africa. Its simply not true to say that causes like Oxfam are somehow "denied" from getting money because of causes such as this, because the pool of money going to charitable causes is not fixed.