I’m afraid that I’m the cite for it. One of the product lines that I sell is EA, and I use the “No Animal Testing/By-Products” as a sales point. I do this because the trainer from the company has said that this is a point they want to stress to customers.
We used to, but now we DON’T. I’m guessing that the legal types at EA are savy enough to know that if the sales force is making claims like that, it better be true or they’re going to have themselves a world of trouble.
As I said in my previous post, Pamela has been involved with PETA since at least 2000, but her implants were replaced by larger ones in 2002, and she still has them. This, to me, shows blatant hypocrisy in that she chooses to ignore the issue of animal cruelty when it benefits her directly.
As for these inconsistencies being irrelevant to her message, I am not arguing her message, just that she is a poor messenger for it because she does not practice what she preaches. And I do find it ironic.
To the issue at hand:
This page details the cosmetics that were used on her for a recent cover shoot. To break it down:
17 companies were represented by products used for the shoot.
2 American companies unknown (whether they test)- BeneFit, Senna
4 foreign-based companies unknown (likely to test, IMO, but I will say unknown)- Remede of France, Natura Bisse of Spain, Caudalie of France, She Uemura of Japan
7 companies claiming no animal testing- Christian Dior, Alexis Vogel, MAC, Chanel, BioElement, LeClerc, Sebastian
4 companies known to test on animals- Lancome, Yves St. Laurent, L’Oreal, Maybelline
Three of those four are on PETA’s own list of companies that do animal testing. (Yves St. Laurent is not as far as I can see, but is listed elsewhere as an animal testing company.) I hope you will accept this as evidence that she does use cosmetics from companies that have tested on animals.
Thinking, apparently, DOES have nothing to do with it. What, are you going to tell me that chicken don’t have teeth, either? :rolleyes:
Knock it off with the condescending crap, especially when you’re so poorly missing the point. Happiness is not, in any meaningful sense, a product of reasoning.
Or do you deny that there is such a thing as a happy infant?
What is happiness, if not the satisfaction of desires? A workable dictionary.com definition is “Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy.” Do you deny that chickens can experience pleasure? Do you deny that they can experience satisfaction? If so, on what basis?
On what real basis, mind you. Telling me that claymation movies aren’t reality is not exactly a compelling argument.
Daniel
A slight nitpick/
I don’t know Pam’s bra size or IQ, but I’ll be ther former is under 40 and the latter over 50. So I’m thinking her IQ is biigger than her bra size, if not by much.
I don’t think she’s claiming to be the perfect vegan. She’s just using her celebrity to call KFC out on their practices.
And I don’t know about the animal testing/implant thing. They are made of saline. I’m sure they’re tested somehow, but I can’t imagine what kind of testing you do on a bag of salt water. They were probably done testing them way before she had them put in.
She relies on her breasts to make a living. If she didn’t have them, she’d be out of a job. I’d say she does what she can for the animals, but ultimately she has to look out for number one. Hypocritical? Maybe, but no more so than anyone else.
The skin of the chicken is innervated with pain transducers, and chickens show behavioural responses consistent with pain. Chickens hurt too (man)! AFAIK Lobsters do not show behavioural responses that indicate they feel pain per se.
Yeah, no-one here’s saying that eating chicken is wrong. Hell, one of my arguments for free range chickens is that they taste better. Idiot.
What you apparently fail to appreciate is that almost every human being on earth has to live with some level of inconsistency in his or her set of values and beliefs. Unless one is able to retire from society altogether and live on the proverbial desert island, certain compromises are often necessary, whether in order to spare the feelings of others, or simply as an acknowledgement that certain things cannot be avoided.
I’ll use myself as an example of what i mean. I’m a vegetarian. I don’t eat meat for a variety of reasons, some of which pertain to health, some of which pertain to the treatment of animals, and some of which are related to issues surrounding the politics of meat production and global food distribution. I won’t bore you with the details right now; suffice to say that no one issue dominated my decision to become a vegetarian.
Now, within my vegetarianism, i suffer some contradictions and quandaries, which some not-so-kind people might label hypocrisy. For example, while i don’t eat meat or fish, i do consume dairy products such as cheese, milk and eggs. Now, given that part of my reason for being a vegetarian is that farm animals are poorly treated, i should really refrain from eating dairy also, because battery hens and dairy cows are, on many farms, some of the worst-treated of all farm animals.
When i buy dairy products, i do my best to get products from companies known to have more animal-friendly production processes. But i’m not naive enough to believe that all is happiness and light for the chickens and cows that produce what i consume. If i were stronger-willed, i’d probably give up those foods. But i like milk in my tea and on my cereal, i like eggs for breakfast, and i love cheese too much. Does this make me a hypocrite? Well, i’ll leave you to decide that for yourself, but at least i live in full knowledge of my own inconsistencies which, it seems to me, is better than denying that they exist.
I also own one leather belt, and quite a few pairs of leather shoes. Again, for a vegetarian whose habits are based partly on an opposition to the treatment of animals, this is not an ideal situation. The problem is that i need to keep my pants up, and i need something to wear on my feet. I guess i could use a piece of string for the former, but people at job interviews and academic conferences tend to notice if you’ve got baling twine holding up your trousers.
As far as shoes go, i run into another problem. I need footwear of some sort, so i have to have shoes. I could, theoretically, give up leather shoes and wear synthetic ones. But making a decision like this often brings with it a whole new sets of moral conundrums. For example, if i buy sneakers of some sort, chances are they’ve been put together by some poor bastasrd in a third-world sweatshop making a couple of bucks a day. Also, the processes used for making the rubbers and synthetics are often very bad for the environment. These are other situations that prefer to avoid.
I could go the whole hog and buy some “vegetarian” leather shoes, which look like leather but are made from a special synthetic material. But this runs me up against another dilemma. Those shoes are (or were, last time i checked) a lot more expensive to buy, and as a grad student on a very limited income i can’t afford to spend all my money on vege leather shoes.
I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for me here. All i’m trying to do is point out that, in the modern world, it is almost impossible to avoid giving money to some company or process that i find problematic. Jesus, even one of my breakfast cereals is made by a tobacco company (Post -> Kraft -> Philip Morris). Anyone who wants to avoid supporting tyranny or cruelty either directly or indirectly has a huge task ahead of them. I think that, for most of us, the best we can do is decide how much we can do with the resources at our disposal, and set our priorities accordingly. There will be times where we have to compromise on certain issues in order to m aintain integrity on other ones. In my opinion, this isn’t hypocrisy, it’s just part of being human.
What part of what I said isn’t a fact? “We’re allowed to insult you because we know what’s best” isn’t patronizing, or “shocking people is necessary to get their attention” can be used to justify anything?
Granted it’s my interpretation of their views, but it’s hardly a stretch.
Well, i’m afraid you’ll have to direct me to where anyone actually said that.
Maybe it can. The measure of what things are important enough to shock people over is a rather subjective one. There is, as far as i’m aware, no infallible, objective measure of what constitutes an issue worthy of other people’s attention. And, given the lack of such a measure, and of any laws against getting people’s attention in unorthodox ways, i’m happy to let the marketplace of ideas decide the case.
You’re perfectly free to bitch and moan about PETA. I’ve made quite clear in other posts and in other threads that i don’t like all their tactics either. But i understand that unorthodox tactics can also be effective, and so i won’t offer a blanket condemnation of them.
Thank you for telling me about your life. I agree with you that you are making your best efforts towards being ethical about animal cruelty. The difference between you and Pamela Anderson, however, is that she is a hypocrite. I would like to refer you to my original statement:
Certain things cannot be avoided, but I believe that all of these things can. She doesn’t need to do any of those things in order to survive, and in fact some of them could easily be avoided by a woman with her resources, as in my example above of using cosmetics from companies known to test on animals. But yet, she continues with them while decrying the animal cruelty practices of other industries. However barbaric the conditions of the chickens are in processing plants, at least they are used for food which is needed for survival. The same cannot be said for her lipstick. Or her fake hair color, or her fake nails, or her fake tan, or her enormous fake breasts. That is a level of inconsistency that is so absurd it would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
I understand that you have a dog in the breast implant fight, but I think it is barking up the wrong tree. She’s using her celebrity to call out one industry on it’s animal cruelty practices while taking full advantage of the animal cruelty based practices of another. That is a bit more hypocritical than most people.
As far as not knowing about testing implants, and not imagining what kind of testing is done on them, it would be an easy matter for you to look up information on it. Since you didn’t bother before trying to give your opinion on it anyway I think it’s safe to assume you don’t want to know.
I guess we got off on the wrong foot there. I’m not saying you said that.
I’m not saying that their actions are a problem because the issue is unimportant. I just dislike the approach.
I think the definition of “terrorist” has gotten extremely loose these days. A terroristic act is one which aims to kill people and terrify the masses. Breaking into a lab and stealing the animals is breaking and entering-- not “terrorism.” Torching said lab is arson-- not terrorism.
(Under Senate Bill 584, a person who “enters a site where animals are kept and disrupts the farm operation, causing damages, would be subject to a felony charge, jail time and a $10,000 fine.” Cite.)
Even violent members of groups like ALF or ELF aren’t really “terrorists.” Call them by their real names: arsonists, thieves, vandals, etc. They have never harmed anyone, to my knowledge, or tried to force idealistic changes on society as a whole with the threat of physical harm to the masses as inducement. They’re not trying to bring a nation to its knees-- they’re trying to shut down particular facilities.
Over-using the word “terrorist” lessens its impact and strips it of all meaning.
I was unaware of that.
Killing is not required. These people are terrorists because they use violence and threats of violence - ask someone who works in an animal research facility how safe they feel with the ALF around - to get what they want. It’s true that they haven’t killed anyone, though they’ve put people in danger. They don’t need to kill people at the moment; they have enough mainstream popularity because people support the cause (and naive celebrities sign on) instead of looking deeper. If membership or funding declines, or the cause becomes less popular, I think they could very well start killing people.
If you feel I was condescending I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that many people tend to anthropomorphize animals, giving them characteristics that can only be ascribed to intelligence. As far as I know, the brain of a chicken is fairly rudimentary and in no way capable of emotions in the human sense of the word. Reactions, certainly, but not emotions.
I disagree.
Of course I would not. But an infant at birth is vastly more intelligent than a chicken.
You can’t be serious. Desires? In a chicken? A chicken may be unaroused to fight or flight in circumstances that are not threatening or painful, but when it is threatened or in pain I seriously doubt that it thinks, “Gee, this isn’t as pleasant as I would have desired.” It requires intelligence to make the necessary comparisons to form a desire in the first place.
Although it doesn’t say so directly, when the dictionary refers to an emotion, I take it that is with reference to humans.
Of course I deny it, on the basis I have just stated above. Pleasure and satisfaction are emotions I believe are reserved to much higher orders of animals.
You’re right, and again, I apologize. I don’t think you’re stupid, Daniel. I just think you are mistaken in this case. I expressed above the basis for my belief - that chickens merely react to momentary stimuli but do not reason, and consequently are incapable of emotion. If you can provide scientific proof that chickens can think, however, I will be willing to listen.
This is not going to be a rigorous proof, however,
From here
Some more information relating specificaly to chickens here
I would be interested **DessertGeezer ** if you could provide any cites, as opposed to opinion, that demonstrated that chickens are not sentient beings.
Let me get this straight, DesertGeezer. Your reason for battery farming being acceptable is that chickens don’t feel pain and can’t possibly have natural desires (however simple) that can be satisfied? And this is all because you think their brains are too small.
And you are lecturing us on using thought?
Fortunately, as demonstrated by InvidiousCourgette, you are in a very small minority in your beliefs. I do not know what convoluted logic lead you to conclude that higher brain functionality is a pre-requesite for contentedness and suffering and nor do I particularly care.
And for the record, most of your life consists of reactions to stimuli and genetic compulsions too. Even that which is left tends to be made up of environmental imprinting. Fortunately for you, we don’t conclude that this allows us to treat you in analgous ways to the ways you are happy to treat chickens.
pan
I appreciate the apology, and will back off the snark myself :).
When I say “relevantly similar,” I mean just that. Emotions in human beings are, ultimately, the product of neurochemical reactions. We’re all just great big bags of nutrients waddling around, whether we’re humans or fowl.
I categorically reject the idea that “happiness” means the same thing as “human happiness.” THere is no reason, as far as I can see, to restrict the word in that sense, and that is not how people use it. People call their dogs happy, refer to apes as being happy, and so forth, and they are not anthropomorphizing: people genuinely believe that these animals experience happiness and sadness.
We believe this for multiple reasons. These animals have nervous systems that work in basically the same way as ours. They demonstrate behaviorally many of the same desires that we experience: the desire for food, shelter, sex, companionship, shelter. When they have their desires met, they behave in a way similar to how we behave when we are feeling happy. When their desires are thwarted, they behave in a way similar to how we behave when we are feeling unhappy.
To assign one explanation for human behaviors, and another explanation for nonhuman behaviors, is to multiply entities beyond necessity. It is to flout Occam’s razor.
If you can explain why we should assign such different explanations, that’s one thing. But given the relevant similarities, the onus is on you to provide such an explanation.
Again, I am not saying that a chicken can experience an existential crisis, that a chicken can experience the fierce triumph of seeing a plan laid over the course of years come to fruition. Although chickens can learn, their ability to learn, to reason, to hold concepts in their brains over extended periods, is rudimentary at best. Certain copmlicated emotions are beyond their grasp. But basic emotions–happiness at breathing sweet-smelling air, sadness at having an upset tummy–seem entirely within their abilities.
Finally, where do you get the idea that a newborn infant is smarter than an adult chicken? You may be right, but I’d be surprised: chickens are pretty dumb, but newborn humans are damn near mindless. I’ve watched chickens figure out where a food source is, seen them discover good hiding places for their eggs, heard of them establishing social hierarchies; I’ve never heard of a newborn human doing anything beyond eating, pissing, shitting, crying, and sleeping.
Daniel