Welcome to Gaia! ::

But I do love that the author of the article points out the hypocrisies of animal rights people. If only the animal rights people would realize just how hypocritical they are.

Every single product (except for stuff like paper and clothes and electronics, probably) that humans use these days have, at some point, been tested on animals. Even if the label says, "Not animal tested," the components of it were at some point tested on animals to check if it was safe to use on humans. So unless they don't bathe, don't use medicines, and don't wash their hands, they're using animals-tested products.

Besides. Not all animal testing is done for humans' benefit. There's plenty of research for finding innoculations for animals, too. All those nifty vaccines your dog or cat gets at the vet? Animal tested.

Do these people think of these things? Of course not. That would make sense.

I'd like to see people eat their words. =/ Fine, try to stop all animal testing on cosmetics, shampoos, etc. Then don't press charges on a company when said products get in your eye and cause damage. That's why companies are still doing it. People have, can, and will press charges and sue for all they can if a product isn't adequately tested and causes harm to them.

I don't particularly agree with harming animals for cosmetic purposes either, but at the moment all the alternative options just aren't good enough to cover all the bases. Some companies have stopped doing animal testing, yes. But all the ingredients they use in their new products have been tested in the past, either by them or another company. If it hasn't been tested, they can't use it. The government requires it.

For all forms of laboratory testing, there are regulations that have to be followed. A veterinarian is on the committee to approve all tests on animals, to ensure that no animal endures undue pain or suffering. I'm sure some cosmetics companies don't follow them. But that's what inspections are for. Yes, some animals have to endure pain. But they're also reducing the number of those animals--it used to be six, it's now three--and the animals are generally humanely killed after the experiment is done. Better than some slaughter houses. They're also using anesthesia when appropriate, so that they can note the irritancy levels without the animals feeling the pain of it. All the animal rights groups, especially ones like Animal Liberation Foundation (which, by the way, is a recognized terrorist group on the FBI's list), have gotten through to the companies and they're trying to change. Change does take a long time, like anything else worthwhile. Animals are a lot better off now than they were thirty years ago.

I apologize if any of this offends you. I just have strong feelings on the topic.

Fragrances are actually the most common skin irritants in creams and moisturizers.

Animals testing is nowhere near the level of the Holocaust or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You know the terrorist organization that I mentioned before, ALF? They agree with the Animal Welfare Act. The opponents of the Holocaust didn't agree with the government's actions, but this terrorist organization on a crusade against animal testing does. The government's apparently doing something right there.

I never said it was right. I'm not trying to argue the morality of it. But until there's a feasible way that's as good as or better than animal testing that becomes widespread, there's no good alternative. There are alternatives that they use when they can, which I believe I mentioned earlier. They're just not as reliable. Yet.

However; reality is not currently bowing to your beliefs so we have to accept that the world is the way it is, not the way we want it to be. Your personal political beliefs in no way invalidate the reality or the argument NI has used.

I do like how you ignore all the points that I make that you don't have an argument against. neutral Like I said, even the opponents of animal testing agree with the steps the government is currently taking to get away from animal testing. And again like I said, they're trying to find different ways to test things. All things worth doing take time. If you don't like it, become a scientist and find feasible alternatives to animal testing. Nothing like adding your own efforts in to speed things up.

I'm not arguing that point because I agree. Steps are being taken, and this is good. Thus, I don't need to counter it with anything.

But, the fact that steps are being taken doesn't change the now and doesn't change my opinion on the matter. It's still wrong, wether it is legal, illegal or becoming illegal.

I agree with NightIntent that animal testing is wrong. However, I don't think that it is atrociously wrong, and where there is no option other than animal testing, I think it's okay.