Contentious

I was talking to my SO the other day in the supermarket

We were buying toothpaste, and he said he didnt want a particular brand becuase they test on animals, so he grabbed the other brand, fair enough.

But it got me wondering, if the 'safe' brand dont test, but have the same igredients as the testing one, arent they still benefiting from animal testing just as the 'bad' company are, they just dont have to pay for it.

So technically, wouldnt they both be just as bad becuase the 'safe' brand couldnt exist without the work of the 'bad' one

 

So if someone kills an animal to provide information ...

Should everybody but the person who killed the animal be disallowed access to that information?

Yes, of course they benefit from that information.

It doesn't mean they support the extortion of such, or cruelty to animals.

But what's been done is done and you had best learn from it and move on.

 

oddly enough there are some brands that dont "test" on animals but then their products contain animal ingrediants........

 

Go with a toothpaste from thehealth food store. Or just use baking soda and essentuial oil. It will taste awful butit's cheap

 

First of all, just because they use the same ingredients doesn't mean one begat the other, or that the non-tested toothpaste wouldn't exist if the tested one didn't get there first. Second, a lot of toothpastes that aren't animal tested (especially if you go to health food stores and health food sections, like TheRealPamela said) don't have the same toxic ingredients as mainstream animal-tested toothpaste. But on the actual issue of using the results of animal tests that you didn't fund or support, I think a note is necessary.

This reminds me of something that happened a while ago. I was reading something where somebody was attempting to debunk what various Animal Rights and Welfare groups were saying (actually he was just ranting, but in his mind he was debunking). One of his major arguments against Animal Rights was a "hypocrisy" argument.

A couple groups have used a study where irritating substances were injected into fish to prove that fish do, in fact, feel pain.

This person was complaining that, if they're so against animal testing, they shouldn't be using animal tests to prove their point.

Now... was this such a bad thing for them to do? They did not fund the test, and it is highly likely that if they were asked about it they would say "no." But the test did conclude that fish feel pain, so wouldn't it be beneficial to cite it? You could even use the study both for the benefit of fish, -and- to the benefit of test animals.

The point is, if a company does not fund testing on animals for their products, they are a far better choice than companies that -do.-

 

I dont have a gripe about it guys, I was just pondering the issue is all.

I buy "no testing" when available

 

If we all want to live off this cushey lifestyle our society thrives off of, we're going to have to deal with someone testing on an animal or human at some given point in time. not to say i'm pro animal testing....not one bit. But in general, if we want all the luxuries that are deemed necessary by the media, (which way too many of us do) testing is going to have to be done on something, and i don't think a plant is going to cut it when a cure for aids is being developped.