Newbie

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 91
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
Just try your best I guess. If you **** up oh well, just adjust your behavior to do better next time.
|
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
Oh snap. I never realized I didn't know the actual definition of the word. I thought it was strictly a diet thing. I guess I am not vegan. Hopefully, I'm at least vegetarian, but I feel like it's so much more than that. My wallet and belt are nylon. Most of my shoes are synthetic, it's just that my motorcycle riding gear utilizes leather. Dang it. Should I not even post here now?
|
Oh snap. I never realized I didn't know the actual definition of the word. I thought it was strictly a diet thing. I guess I am not vegan. Hopefully, I'm at least vegetarian, but I feel like it's so much more than that. My wallet and belt are nylon. Most of my shoes are synthetic, it's just that my motorcycle riding gear utilizes leather. Dang it. Should I not even post here now?
|
As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap. It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan. Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan. |
Logic isn't always logical. It makes sense to want to avoid ingredients that were once tested on animals, even if that testing has stopped, and even if the ingredients are combined into a product that itself was never tested on animals. It also serves absolutely no benefit in the present or future. It only helps maintain an air of consistency when looking back at the past. And that's a bit illogical, even though it's perfectly logical.
I oppose all use of animals in medical research, simply because it's immoral, and I can stop right there. But in addition to its immorality, it's also not nearly as beneficial in curing human diseases as research corporations would like us to believe. The benefit of curing cancer in mice or rats whose cancer has been artificially manufactured by scientists who managed to afflict the mice and rats with cancer intentionally hardly ever translates into a viable cure of any sort for humans. That being said, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, some sort of medical breakthrough was achieved as a result of some mad scientist obtaining knowledge through the immoral practice of vivisection. If the testing has stopped, are we obligated to throw away the knowledge obtained and pretend it doesn't exist? Again, it's about looking at the present and future vs. looking at the past. The same is true of animal testing on cosmetics ingredients. If I start manufacturing shampoo for retail sale, I have to conform to regulations that are already in effect. The government will tell me what ingredients have already been approved, and therefore, I can use those ingredients without any further testing trials. Why the government has agreed to allow me to use those particular ingredients is not really of concern to me. I can obtain those ingredients today without harming animals, and I can mix them into a final product without harming animals. Then I can sell it without harming animals. It's a vegan product. As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap. It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan. Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan. |
Logic isn't always logical. It makes sense to want to avoid ingredients that were once tested on animals, even if that testing has stopped, and even if the ingredients are combined into a product that itself was never tested on animals. It also serves absolutely no benefit in the present or future. It only helps maintain an air of consistency when looking back at the past. And that's a bit illogical, even though it's perfectly logical.
I oppose all use of animals in medical research, simply because it's immoral, and I can stop right there. But in addition to its immorality, it's also not nearly as beneficial in curing human diseases as research corporations would like us to believe. The benefit of curing cancer in mice or rats whose cancer has been artificially manufactured by scientists who managed to afflict the mice and rats with cancer intentionally hardly ever translates into a viable cure of any sort for humans. That being said, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, some sort of medical breakthrough was achieved as a result of some mad scientist obtaining knowledge through the immoral practice of vivisection. If the testing has stopped, are we obligated to throw away the knowledge obtained and pretend it doesn't exist? Again, it's about looking at the present and future vs. looking at the past. The same is true of animal testing on cosmetics ingredients. If I start manufacturing shampoo for retail sale, I have to conform to regulations that are already in effect. The government will tell me what ingredients have already been approved, and therefore, I can use those ingredients without any further testing trials. Why the government has agreed to allow me to use those particular ingredients is not really of concern to me. I can obtain those ingredients today without harming animals, and I can mix them into a final product without harming animals. Then I can sell it without harming animals. It's a vegan product. As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap. It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan. Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan. |
That's stupid and redundant. Like 1% of companies do nothing bad to animals, so it goes back to what I said earlier, you basically can't buy **** at the store if you want to make sure everything is completely ethical.
|
Stupid how? Redundant how?
It's not convoluted either. I answered a question in the OP by making an analogy to knowledge obtained unethically in medical research. We are not ethically required to brand every piece of knowledge obtained through torture with a scarlet letter. We are merely obligated to stop the torture. Knowledge isn't representative of torture. It's just information. JHC. |
I was talking about your bit about how you should totally boycott a company if they make other things that exploit animals, even if they make some that don't. That's the redundant part. It does nothing but discourage them from making cruelty-free products and isolates all of us further into our bubble. Hardly any companies are 100% vegan, that's just a fact of living in a world full of predominantly omnivores.
|
That's not exactly what I said. I routinely shop at stores that sell animal products and I routinely buy vegan foods from companies that also sell non-vegan foods. Where I draw the line is with animal testing on non-food products. My freezer is full of Amy's frozen foods, but I won't buy Pringles because P&G tests Gillette razors on rabbits. The distinction and logic to me are clear. When P&G stops all animal testing, I'll be willing to buy whatever Pringles varieties are vegan while avoid the non-vegan varieties and discouraging their production. As long as the company is testing on animals, I will boycott the entire company and hope for them to fail financially.
|
"To the world you may be just one person, but to one life you may be the world."
Thread Tools | |
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
Posting Rules | |