Companies are still testing on animals

emogamer · 11-02-2008, 09:50 AM

these companies are still testing on animals:
Alcon Labs
Allergan, Inc.
Alpha Hydrox
Arm & Hammer
ArmorAll
Arrid
Aziza
Bain de Soleil
Ban Roll-on
Banana Boat
Bausch & Lomb
Benckiser
BenGay
Block Drug Co. Inc.
Bounty
Boyle-Midway
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Carpet Fresh
Carter-Wallace
Chesebrough-Ponds
Church & Dwight
Clarion
Clairol
Clear Choice
Clorox
Commerce Drug Co.
Consumer Value Stores
Coppertone
Coty
Cover Girl
Crest
Cutex
Dana Perfumes
Dawn
Del Laboratories
Desitin
Diversey
Dow Brands
Drackett Products Co.
Drano
EcoLab
Eli Lilly & Co.
El Sanofi Inc.
Elizabeth Arden
Erno Laszlo
Faberge
Fantastik
Fendi
Final Net
Finesse
Flame Glow
Giorgio
Givaudan-Roure
Glade
Glass Plus
Helene Curtis Industries
Huggies
ISO
Jhirmack
Johnson & Johnson
S.C. Johnson & Son
Johnson Products Co.
Jovan
Keri
Kimberly-Clark Corp
Kiwi Brands
Kleenex
Lady's Choice
Lancaster
Lava
Lever Brothers
Listerine
Lubriderm
Lysol
Max Factor
Mead
Mop & Glo
Nair
Naturelle
Neotoric Cosmetics
Neutrogena
Neutron Industries, Inc.
Olean
Oscar de la Renta
Pantene
Parfums International
Pearl Drops
Pennex
Pfizer, Inc.
Pine-Sol
Plax
Playtex Corporation
Pledge
Polident
Post-It
Prince Matchabelli
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Quintessence
Raid
Reckitt & Colman
Richardson-Vicks
Sally Beauty Supply
Sally Hansen
Sanofi
SC Johnson & Son
Schering-Plough
Scotch
Scott Paper Co.
Sensodyne
SmithKline Beecham
S.O.S.
Stanhome Inc.
Sterling Drug
Suave
Sun Star
TCB Naturals
Tegrin
3M
Tide
Tilex
Unilever
Vaseline
Vidal Sassoon
Visine
Vivid
Warner-Lambert
Westwood Pharmaceuticals
White Shoulders
Whitehall Laboratories
Windex
Woolite
Yves Saint Laurent
(I couldn't post the link to the site, it wouldn't let me, if you want it email me @ nintendopcgamer82@**********) My friends and me are going to write to these companies to try and get them to stop testing on animals. I would like everyone and anyone to help by writting to them and trying to get them to stop testing on animals. Try and get as many people as you can to help.

JCC · 11-02-2008, 09:59 AM

Writing to them won't stop them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

emogamer · 11-02-2008, 10:14 AM

probably not, but what they're doing to animals is horrible, it's got to stop...

Albert Mond · 11-02-2008, 10:24 AM

Put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig. No harm done.

HumanePain · 11-02-2008, 10:30 AM

Some of the companies mentioned are pharmaceutical companies and health care related industries.

My sister died from leukemia. If killing a few rabbits helps to find a cure I say let it be rabbit season.

MollyMac · 11-02-2008, 10:38 AM

Oh yes. because lapin physiology and human physiology are so totally relevant to each other.

There is no sense in animal testing for any of it, really. There are synthetic scenarios and abilities that provide more reliable results, as well as human testing for human issues and cosmetics for everything from dissection to lipstick, medicines to chemical tests for war.

JCC · 11-02-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HumanePain

My sister died from leukemia. If killing a few rabbits helps to find a cure I say let it be rabbit season.

That's because you think animal life is unimportant.

My grandmother died of pneumonia. If killing a few black people helps to find a cure, I say let it be Ku Klux season.

MollyMac · 11-02-2008, 10:52 AM

Dude.

Harsh.

Good allusion, though.

Godslayer Jillian · 11-02-2008, 11:26 AM

The best way to stop this, after going ALF on their assess of course, is a simple boycott.
See which of these brands you have at home, and find alternatives. It requires a little effort, but it's not that much. After you do that, you can tell your friends not only which brands to avoid, but also which to use instead. That attracts more people because their role is just to choose B instead of A instead of start looking everywhere for B.

Also, remember, millions of animals are still used and tortured b tobacco companies. Only one that doesn't is American Spirits, which is just a branch of Camel (or Malboro? No, I think it was Camel)

Raptor · 11-02-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

That's because you think animal life is unimportant.

Less important, not unimportant.

JCC · 11-02-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor

Less important, not unimportant.

That's still incredibly subjective.

Necrophagist · 11-02-2008, 12:03 PM

I don't use any of these products.

Yes, animals should be slightly less important until human-related issues are solved. I get so annoyed when people don't give a fuck about children dying in third world countries, but are passionate about saving endangered animals. Animals are important, but for now we should be worrying about ourselves.

Godslayer Jillian · 11-02-2008, 12:12 PM

Actually there's a big flaw in that. There's merit to that feeling, but it's blinded to holistic empiricism. By that, I mean that it becomes more and more obvious that the best way to fix something is to fix everything.
For instance, I'm not a vegan, but my knowledge in it has led me to find out that if we followed a vegan diet, we could feed everyone and reduce our magnitude of influence in the environment by 300%

JCC · 11-02-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrophagist

I don't use any of these products.

Yes, animals should be slightly less important until human-related issues are solved. I get so annoyed when people don't give a fuck about children dying in third world countries, but are passionate about saving endangered animals. Animals are important, but for now we should be worrying about ourselves.

No, they shouldn't. Why should I stop caring about monkeys having their eyelids sewn together because there are people dying in third world countries? Shit son, learn to multitask.

Raptor · 11-02-2008, 12:43 PM

I assume he means in the case of an animal being used in some way to help a human and gave a wrong example.

JCC · 11-02-2008, 12:46 PM

Fuck all this humanist bullshit. Why is it heinous torture outside of a lab and then suddenly inside a lab it's scientific progression?

Raptor · 11-02-2008, 12:56 PM

Follows from the "animals are less important than humans" part. Subjective as it may be.

Necrophagist · 11-02-2008, 01:08 PM

JCC - People don't multitask. That's the problem.

Saya · 11-02-2008, 01:23 PM

I care about animals and I care about people. Its not hard.

TheSomnambulist · 11-02-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrophagist

I don't use any of these products.

Yes, animals should be slightly less important until human-related issues are solved. I get so annoyed when people don't give a fuck about children dying in third world countries, but are passionate about saving endangered animals. Animals are important, but for now we should be worrying about ourselves.

What about the fact that animals are being tested on for the production of human cosmetics and mundane household items? These are seen as human-related issues. Don't you find it at all sickening how companies feel the need to improve upon past cosmetics and cleaners, etc., as though it was somehow essential to human life to upgrade these items? Most of these products are not at all essential, and are in fact completely excessive, and animals are being tortured and killed for them. Even companies that make food for household pets are torturing cats and dogs, etc., in laboratories, and though I suppose it's not a human related issue, it shows how nonsensical all of this cruel experimentation is.

And I fail to see why we cannot care about humans and animals at the same time.

Albert Mond · 11-02-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Actually there's a big flaw in that. There's merit to that feeling, but it's blinded to holistic empiricism. By that, I mean that it becomes more and more obvious that the best way to fix something is to fix everything.
For instance, I'm not a vegan, but my knowledge in it has led me to find out that if we followed a vegan diet, we could feed everyone and reduce our magnitude of influence in the environment by 300%

And vegetarianism wouldn't do that?

MollyMac · 11-02-2008, 02:54 PM

Not to the same degree, no. Veganism cuts out all bovine, swine, bee, etc. products and exploitations, not just the muscle and honey.

I just fail to understand how one soul counts less than another simply for it's size or perceived grasp of rational thought.

Albert Mond · 11-02-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Not to the same degree, no. Veganism cuts out all bovine, swine, bee, etc. products and exploitations, not just the muscle and honey.

I just fail to understand how one soul counts less than another simply for it's size or perceived grasp of rational thought.

Honey's meat? O.O

MollyMac · 11-02-2008, 03:14 PM

no, honey is not a form of meat. honey is a product derived from the work of bees.

Albert Mond · 11-02-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MollyMac

no, honey is not a form of meat. honey is a product derived from the work of bees.

Ohhhhh... so by "honey" you were referring to ANY animal byproduct, right? At first I thought you meant it in a what-a-vegetarian-can-eat context and not a what-a-vegan-can-eat context.