The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Animal rights activists: Does anyone else find it weird how the people who are violently in favour of animal rights tend to have few qualms about infringing someones human rights? Recently, 3 men were questioned in connection with the sound beating dealt out to a Mr Brian Cass who is the head of a pharmaceutical testing company. Yes, it's a case of a group of thugs using the fear of violence as a weapon in their shabby little "war" on behalf of the animals who suffer in the name of research and progress.
Now, I confess that I find it strange that I am so disapproving of the men who carried out the assault on Mr Cass. After all, I am a staunch advocate of animal rights and I anthropomorphosize animals to a ridiculous degree. I would be delighted at the concept of Mr Cass having been brutalised by, say, 3 dozen rabbits with eyes weeping from freshly injected shampoo, or perhaps a score of cats whose exposed brains still have electrodes attached. Hell, I would even have settled for him being fudge-raped by a family of chimpanzees who've undergone major psychological trauma due to the side effects of a drug testing experiment.
But when a bunch of activists take it upon themselves to intimidate not just the people who work at the pharmaceutical company, but their families and friends as well, I'm inclined to think that they've gone rather too far. After all, this is an issue that does generate a huge amount of public sympathy (the mistreatment of animals that is, not the intimidation of people. Actually, that's an issue in itself really; we have more concern for animals than we do for people. I wonder if that is a good or bad thing...) When the activists behave in this way they do not draw attention to the plight of the animals, they take attention away from it. Due to the way that the media reports it, and also due to the fact that the activists are behaving like bullying little thugs, one can find oneself feeling strangely satisfied by the defiance shown by the drugs company when they insist that their work will continue.
This is in my opinion not a good thing. Are there still people out there who genuinely believe that the wanton suffering of animals in the name of science or beauty is a good thing? I deliberately make the distinction between using animals to test drugs and using them to test cosmetics. The former does have it's defenders, the latter has (I hope) been entirely discredited. Frankly, if we're going to rub shampoo into anyone’s eyes, could we not do it to Jennifer Love Hewitt? I'm personally getting pig sick of the whining little tart simpering "Because I'm worth it" during every bloody advert break. If she's really worth it, test the stuff on her! And if we need to find out whether certain cosmetics cause blistering on sensitive skin then strap down a supermodel and smear her with the stuff. Whilst I fail to see how causing a rats skin to scar and blister can tell us more about how it would affect a human, I'm all for seeing an overpaid clothes hanger really *earn* their money.
But as for the testing of drugs on animals...well, this is a somewhat more complicated issue, although I'd like to nail my colours to the mast and state that I am firmly against it. If for no other reason than I resent animals taking drugs when they're so damn hard to get hold of where I live. And what are they going to do with them anyway? Do beagles sit in a lab smoking weed, watching the Star Wars films, and talking complete mouthswamp all night? Are there really rats that are full of pills and listening to bad electronic noise whilst wittering on about what a banging tune this is? And will scientists force cocaine up an orangutan’s nose and be forced to listen to it talking at about 400 words per minute about what a brilliant ape it is whilst it sneezes out lumps of blood encrusted sinus?
I suspect not alas. It is more likely that rows of caged beasts live out their short and unhappy lives being poked, prodded, and dosed with god knows what before being dissected and incinerated along with the rest of the rubbish. We're meant to be a civilised society yet we'll happily heap indignity and suffering on animals in the name of progress. Why the hell is this? If there were absolutely no other alternatives then I would reluctantly accept the necessity of testing on animals. But there is no need for it, not really.
Now, I'm not advocated using people instead of animals (although I confess that in my more right wing days I was all in favour of testing on prisoners in return for remission of their sentence. A small part of me still thinks that would work...) but I know of certain things that can be done instead. Human tissue can be recreated in the lab, so drugs can be tested on this rather than animals. Computer generated models are now so advanced that pretty much anything can be tested here before moving onto human trials (i.e. stuffing students full of experimental drugs in order to fund their beer binges. Who said students never give anything to society?) I'm tempted to mention the advances in cloning as well but as I know next to nothing about the implications of that I shall steer clear. Even so, there are ample other possibilities before we have to carve up animals to find a cure for cancer.
Why do we not take them? Money. Cash. Expense. Animal testing is the cheapest method of testing drugs and as long as this is the case then vivisection will continue. Though I am loath to admit it, the cause of all of this suffering is raw, naked capitalism.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all of the above. The animals (or test subjects to give them their correct name; apparently the testers need to use this sort of doublespeak to assuage their own conscience) may be living in the lap of luxury and be far happier than any of their brethren. It's impossible for us to tell of course because there is such a veil of secrecy surrounding animal testing that no one knows precisely what is going on. With that in mind, it is all too easy to accept the information given by the activists as the absolute truth. There is no transparency and the drugs companies do not feel the need to enlighten us as to what it is they actually do. The sooner they do so, the better. That way it will either cease to be an issue, or we will be so horrified at what they actually do that they may be forced into abandoning animal testing. I live in hope...
Now, I confess that I find it strange that I am so disapproving of the men who carried out the assault on Mr Cass. After all, I am a staunch advocate of animal rights and I anthropomorphosize animals to a ridiculous degree. I would be delighted at the concept of Mr Cass having been brutalised by, say, 3 dozen rabbits with eyes weeping from freshly injected shampoo, or perhaps a score of cats whose exposed brains still have electrodes attached. Hell, I would even have settled for him being fudge-raped by a family of chimpanzees who've undergone major psychological trauma due to the side effects of a drug testing experiment.
But when a bunch of activists take it upon themselves to intimidate not just the people who work at the pharmaceutical company, but their families and friends as well, I'm inclined to think that they've gone rather too far. After all, this is an issue that does generate a huge amount of public sympathy (the mistreatment of animals that is, not the intimidation of people. Actually, that's an issue in itself really; we have more concern for animals than we do for people. I wonder if that is a good or bad thing...) When the activists behave in this way they do not draw attention to the plight of the animals, they take attention away from it. Due to the way that the media reports it, and also due to the fact that the activists are behaving like bullying little thugs, one can find oneself feeling strangely satisfied by the defiance shown by the drugs company when they insist that their work will continue.
This is in my opinion not a good thing. Are there still people out there who genuinely believe that the wanton suffering of animals in the name of science or beauty is a good thing? I deliberately make the distinction between using animals to test drugs and using them to test cosmetics. The former does have it's defenders, the latter has (I hope) been entirely discredited. Frankly, if we're going to rub shampoo into anyone’s eyes, could we not do it to Jennifer Love Hewitt? I'm personally getting pig sick of the whining little tart simpering "Because I'm worth it" during every bloody advert break. If she's really worth it, test the stuff on her! And if we need to find out whether certain cosmetics cause blistering on sensitive skin then strap down a supermodel and smear her with the stuff. Whilst I fail to see how causing a rats skin to scar and blister can tell us more about how it would affect a human, I'm all for seeing an overpaid clothes hanger really *earn* their money.
But as for the testing of drugs on animals...well, this is a somewhat more complicated issue, although I'd like to nail my colours to the mast and state that I am firmly against it. If for no other reason than I resent animals taking drugs when they're so damn hard to get hold of where I live. And what are they going to do with them anyway? Do beagles sit in a lab smoking weed, watching the Star Wars films, and talking complete mouthswamp all night? Are there really rats that are full of pills and listening to bad electronic noise whilst wittering on about what a banging tune this is? And will scientists force cocaine up an orangutan’s nose and be forced to listen to it talking at about 400 words per minute about what a brilliant ape it is whilst it sneezes out lumps of blood encrusted sinus?
I suspect not alas. It is more likely that rows of caged beasts live out their short and unhappy lives being poked, prodded, and dosed with god knows what before being dissected and incinerated along with the rest of the rubbish. We're meant to be a civilised society yet we'll happily heap indignity and suffering on animals in the name of progress. Why the hell is this? If there were absolutely no other alternatives then I would reluctantly accept the necessity of testing on animals. But there is no need for it, not really.
Now, I'm not advocated using people instead of animals (although I confess that in my more right wing days I was all in favour of testing on prisoners in return for remission of their sentence. A small part of me still thinks that would work...) but I know of certain things that can be done instead. Human tissue can be recreated in the lab, so drugs can be tested on this rather than animals. Computer generated models are now so advanced that pretty much anything can be tested here before moving onto human trials (i.e. stuffing students full of experimental drugs in order to fund their beer binges. Who said students never give anything to society?) I'm tempted to mention the advances in cloning as well but as I know next to nothing about the implications of that I shall steer clear. Even so, there are ample other possibilities before we have to carve up animals to find a cure for cancer.
Why do we not take them? Money. Cash. Expense. Animal testing is the cheapest method of testing drugs and as long as this is the case then vivisection will continue. Though I am loath to admit it, the cause of all of this suffering is raw, naked capitalism.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all of the above. The animals (or test subjects to give them their correct name; apparently the testers need to use this sort of doublespeak to assuage their own conscience) may be living in the lap of luxury and be far happier than any of their brethren. It's impossible for us to tell of course because there is such a veil of secrecy surrounding animal testing that no one knows precisely what is going on. With that in mind, it is all too easy to accept the information given by the activists as the absolute truth. There is no transparency and the drugs companies do not feel the need to enlighten us as to what it is they actually do. The sooner they do so, the better. That way it will either cease to be an issue, or we will be so horrified at what they actually do that they may be forced into abandoning animal testing. I live in hope...
Page:
I once made an Otter run the London marathon wearing a string vest made of asbestos and fibreglass. If it tried to stop for refreshments or to scratch itself, I'd set my pack of Jogging Badgers on it.
It finished the race in under 4 hours.
It finished the race in under 4 hours.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Did you know that when they make a new lipstick they force feed it to
> rabbits to see how long it takes them to die from the poison?
--
That's nothing, I force kittens to eat chips, and I rubbed space-dust onto my stupid dog's gums.
It span in circles before leaning against the wall and making "AK! AK!" noises.
> Did you know that when they make a new lipstick they force feed it to
> rabbits to see how long it takes them to die from the poison?
--
That's nothing, I force kittens to eat chips, and I rubbed space-dust onto my stupid dog's gums.
It span in circles before leaning against the wall and making "AK! AK!" noises.
Whitestripes wrote:
> People who do that should be shot.
Shot with lipstick?
For doing their job.
> People who do that should be shot.
Shot with lipstick?
For doing their job.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Did you know that when they make a new lipstick they force feed it to
> rabbits to see how long it takes them to die from the poison?
>
> People who do that should be shot.
What, people who eat lipstick?
> Did you know that when they make a new lipstick they force feed it to
> rabbits to see how long it takes them to die from the poison?
>
> People who do that should be shot.
What, people who eat lipstick?
Did you know that when they make a new lipstick they force feed it to rabbits to see how long it takes them to die from the poison?
People who do that should be shot.
People who do that should be shot.
Wun Wabbit Wun Wabbit Wun Wun Wun.... Elma Fudd
I'll have some Panda fingers, served in ivory bowls.
I fancy some barbeque Tiger balls.
And they smell
" coz there keepin' it real... don't need no capitalist, animal killing shampoo "
I'm away for a Panda burger
" coz there keepin' it real... don't need no capitalist, animal killing shampoo "
I'm away for a Panda burger
We eat them, wear them and have them as pets. We race them for money and make them ride unicycles - why not test cosmetics on them?
Bloody animal-activists. Most are vegan as well.
They remind me of Gollum, all pale and hateful "We hates them tricksy carnivores don'ts we? Yesss, they wants to steal our precious mung beans and pulses"
Poxy crusties. And the ironic thing is, most have dogs on bits of string.
Bloody animal-activists. Most are vegan as well.
They remind me of Gollum, all pale and hateful "We hates them tricksy carnivores don'ts we? Yesss, they wants to steal our precious mung beans and pulses"
Poxy crusties. And the ironic thing is, most have dogs on bits of string.
Page: