check out some of his other bands. good stuff.

Hahaha! That is so true! Great comment!

Report  
acris (November 16, 2009)

ugh to both of these comments

Report  
AmericanRiot (November 16, 2009)

do you only come out for animal rights posts these days?

Report  
acris (November 16, 2009)

no. if you checked my 10 most recent posts, which any registered user can see, then you'd see I was on navel gazing last night.

Report  
AmericanRiot (November 16, 2009)

i'm not trying to give you no guff. i don't participate in any navel gazing myself. i try to stay away from the internet on weekends.

probably that's peta's goal, but not this campaign's. it says "this campaign appears to be strictly about cosmetics testing".

Its PETA, they dont care about anything in the long term, they just like to throw tantrums.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (November 16, 2009)

Good point.
As a vegetarian/vegan, I think there's a fine line. There is definitely a need for some animal testing The important thing is making it as humane as possible, I guess.

Report  
TheAutumnPeople (November 16, 2009)

What's a vegetarian/vegan? You're either one or the other.

Report  
madomen (November 16, 2009)

what are you, a hardline?

Report  
TheAutumnPeople (November 16, 2009)

Not at all. It's just that there is a difference. Calling oneself a "vegetarian/vegan" is illogical, so I asked for clarification.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (November 16, 2009)

It means I've been both. There are also a lot of degrees of both so it's not totally black and white.

Report  
TheAutumnPeople (November 16, 2009)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I know there are degrees of both, but I'm sure you'd agree that someone cannot claim to adhere to a vegetarian AND vegan lifestyle at the same time. That was what I was asking about.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (November 16, 2009)

Yeah, totally. I guess I mean, "I'm on the border." But there's also some people who consider themselves vegan, but other more hardline vegans may call them vegetarians. So, I just generally say "vegetarian," but steer clear generally speaking, of any animal products.

Report  
AmericanRiot (November 16, 2009)

it's like squares and rectangles. a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square unless it has four equal sides.

Report  
LookingForCorpses (November 16, 2009)

Interesting analogy.

I don't know about that one... still on the fence as far as medical application goes, though I do know that not all animal tests on those things tell us much about how they will work in humans. I do fully believe that cosmetics tested on animals is completely unnecessary and vain. Some living thing shouldn't have to suffer for your fucking hair gel when there are plenty of alternatives.

animal testing has no correlation to how a medication is going to act on a human anyway. it's an old, antiquated, cheap, and lazy way of doing business. i don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but something like 90% of first run drugs tested on animals don't have the same effect on humans, and of the percentage that actually gets to the FDA approval stage 60% of those fail once they get rolled out to be lab tested on humans.

Report  
returnofdebs (November 16, 2009)

what i should say is 90% of drugs tested primarily on animals don't do what science intends while the drugs that appear to do what is intended to animals, 60% of those drugs don't have the same effect on humans.

Report  
acris (November 16, 2009)

thank you

the person who runs PETA is a diabetic
he uses insulin from animals

Report  
misterspike (November 17, 2009)

You mean "she". She says it's OK, because it helps her save other animals. Seriously.

Worse things could happen then people dying.

You mean sad

They also wanted fish to be renamed "sea kittens"

You know what, you make a great point Hasheesh. PETA doesn't want their precious little monkeys to be exploited but it has no problems exploiting a woman's body to generate interest for its cause. Now I'm a dude and I actually like the PETA commercials with the hot girls but I'm not claiming to sit on a moral high horse while being an ethical hypocrite like PETA.

I see it like this:

PETA doesn't want to to object a woman's body yet finds it an unfortuate necessity to attract interest to its cause.

In a perfect world, animals would not have to be the subject of testing to help improve the quality of living for humans, but this is the real world and animal testing is an unfortunate necessity.

I find PETA to be so hypocritical in its view of the world that I cannot take it seriously.

Report  
14theroad (November 16, 2009)

Did I miss the guns to the head of any of those women who took part in the "I'd rather go naked" campaign?

how edgy of you

while i'm sure hundreds agree with you, there are thousands of angsty youth who believe otherwise

Report  
RonnieD (November 16, 2009)

Fair enough, I won't argue with you there. All I know is that it was painful to have Rancid's set cut short on the summer tour so that Rise Against could play its radio rock for a longer amount of time.

no AETA handles all animal on animal ethical issues.

for fuck's sake, are you serious?

I seriously doubt that an organization dedicated to bettering animals lives at the hands of humans is concerned with what animals do to each other in the wild. An animal being attacked and/or attacked and eaten by another wild is nothing like a human keeping it in a cage, testing on it, confining it to a box its life, etc. etc.

Report  
RonnieD (November 16, 2009)

Hehe, struck a nerve.

But seriously, how come it doesn't matter if an animal mistreats another animal in the wild but it does matter if a human uses an animal to make life better for other humans. Both acts are part of the natural food chain.

Report  
TheProblemWithFire (November 16, 2009)
meh. i don't know if you struck a nerve so much as i'm just sick of this idiotic kind of thinking. yes, animals kill each other in the wild, but humans aren't just simply killing and eating animals like others do in the wild.

we're mainly talking about cosmetics here in this thread. hair gel and nail polish aren't improving human lives, and there are tons of companies not using animal testing for those kind of products anyways. medical is another issue, but if you see some of the posts above, even then animal testing for life-saving drugs isn't that applicable or helpful towards humans anyways.

and until animals in the wild start torturing their prey through means of confinement and abuse, it's not even worth bringing up, that's why. yes we're humans and we're part of nature, but we're smarter than say, a wild tiger, who is going to maul its prey and eat

show rest of commentmeh. i don't know if you struck a nerve so much as i'm just sick of this idiotic kind of thinking. yes, animals kill each other in the wild, but humans aren't just simply killing and eating animals like others do in the wild.

we're mainly talking about cosmetics here in this thread. hair gel and nail polish aren't improving human lives, and there are tons of companies not using animal testing for those kind of products anyways. medical is another issue, but if you see some of the posts above, even then animal testing for life-saving drugs isn't that applicable or helpful towards humans anyways.

and until animals in the wild start torturing their prey through means of confinement and abuse, it's not even worth bringing up, that's why. yes we're humans and we're part of nature, but we're smarter than say, a wild tiger, who is going to maul its prey and eat most of it. versus a human, for example, caging a rabbit and putting soap in its eyes to see if it's going to irritate them. or stuffing chickens into tiny cages caked in shit with hundreds of other chickens, feeding them massive amounts of food and hormones, fucking up their social order they would normally have outside, and then slaughtering them (and sometimes kicking them around and beating them in the process).
Report  
RonnieD (November 17, 2009)

You don't use hair gel or nail polish or other kinds of cosmetics such as tooth paste, mouth wash etc.? Are you some dirty hippie?

Haha, you're points are so ridiculous, they're more unbelievable than your grammar. So you don't think animals torture other animals in the wild by attacking one another and causing injury. Seriously!?

Yeah, you know what, as a human I am more intelligent that a chicken, so I realize that the lives of humans can benefit by leveraging the natural food chain, just like primitive animals do in the wild every day.

Report  
TheProblemWithFire (November 17, 2009)

i use cosmetic products, but they are not tested on animals. what don't you understand about this?

if you think animal testing and factory farms and on the same level as animals attacking and/or eating each other in nature then we have a completely different view point...

no one is saying you can't eat meat. you want to eat meat, good for you. i choose not to, but where has i or any other vegetarian or vegan in this thread said you can't? everyone going on a meatless diet is unrealistic and i feel that people should make their own choices.

not that this justifies anything, but I find it funny that the only people I ever personally ever hear this over and over from are meat-eating, animal-tested product using people who otherwise don't give a shit. Hypocrisy on PETA's part that needs to be brought to attention? Absolutely. But when did everyone else start caring? It's not like everyone who is a vegetarian or vegan automatically is a PETA-supporter or support everything they do/have done.

also: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Fr eedom