Any Fishermen/women?

Hear Hear.

I would also like to say how impressed I am that you can articulate your views without resorting to flamebaiting and other such non-tactics. You have actually caused me to consider my views regarding these issues. I can’t say that you have changed them- but you have made me consider my views more closely.

So thank you for this thread, it has been most enlightening.

BARNOWL

Heslop

I go flyfishing for trout quite often, and eat meat most days but I still understand your stance and respect your viewpoints. You’ve come on here and put them across in a sensible manner which I appreciate. I just wish other PETA/animal rights folk behaved in a similar fashion.

This may not make any sense to you or indeed any non-angler…but anglers care more about fish, their wellbeing and habitat than most. We spend a lot of money trying to look after them and ensure they are around for future generations. Without anglers the Atlantic Salmon would truly be on the verge of extinction.It’s a bit sick really, but without us spending money and badgering politicians to look after fish so we can use them as sport, they’d be in a much worse state!

Go figure, as the Americans say!!

Too much information, Viper01!

Far too much information…….. 😮

Regardless whether the nature of the threat is foreign or domestic; they are/were still terrorists in my opinion.

Oh by all means I agree with you, they were definitely terrorists. My point is that it’s interesting that you don’t see any international pro-Western terrorist groups acting as polar opposites to Islamic extremists.

Labels can be deceptive

Heslop01,

Why haven’t you answered the point Grey Area raised – I.e. are you sure that none of the ingredients used by your beloved Body Shop (before they sold out to L’Oreal) were ever tested on animals?

As someone with some technical knowledge of many of the ingredients involved, by virtue of my background and employment, I can tell you that many of those ingredients used by B-S (and many other companies who still seem to claim their ingredients qnd products are not tested on animals) WERE indeed tested on animals, and as a result were confirmed as safe for human use, prior to a certain cut off-date which I cannot remember.

So, with use of clever wording of claims on labels, such as “None of our ingredients or products are tested on animals” it leads people to believe they are using ingredients and products which have never been rubbed into a rabbit’s eyes or skin. The clever bit is the use of the word “are” and “our products” in the statement.

No, none of the ingredients used have been tested since the cut-off date, or at the request of the company itself, but most of the ingredients were widely tested on animals before that date. Similarly, the specific ingredient lists and percentage weight/weight composition used by the company may not have been tested on animals, but there are onlya finite number of sensibel combinations of ingredeints that produce a practiacl sahmpoo (or moisturising cream, or whatever), and most sensible combinations probably have bene tetsed on animals, albeit for other brands and prior to the cut-off date.

Thus people are effectively being duped into thinking that the product they are using today has never been tested on animals, when in reality, it, or something very like it, or it’s ingredients, has been. Okay, it’s splitting hairs, but I think it’s a case of where the letter of the law is being applied by businesses in order to make them appear whiter than white, rather than the true “Spirit” of the law, which they would find hard to follow.

In a case where a company takes the moral high-ground, as did B-S, I think it should be careful to apply both the letter of the law and the Spirit of the law too.

– I also presume you never use a single medicinal product developed in the last twenty or thirty years, and that even if you are ever unlucky enough to be struck down with a serious illness than you will stick to your principles and not resort to using medication that has been tested on animals.

While I do not like to see animal suffer unnecessarily – i.e. smoking beagles (I never could get mine to stay alight 😀 ), I see no problem with testing medicines on animals so long as it is done as humanely as possible. I accept that animal testing is not a foolproof guide to safety or efficacy- witness the case of the blokes who sufferred an unexpected and near-fatal recation to anew mmedicinal compound here in UK a few month back, but at least the testing is being done to try to develop something with the aim of reducing human suffering. I personally think a human life is worth more than pretty much any animal life.

Testing of beauty products on animals is another matter, and I think that it is easier to argue that this is not a legitimate use of animals, as cosmetics do not reduce human suffering, but simply pander to the vanity of those with sufficent disposable income to afford them. However, as I have stated above, most of the widely used ingredients, and workable combinations of them have alreday been tested on animals, so it is not too difficult ofr the cosmetics industry to avoid future animal testing.

Well, that’s my two-penneth….

Paul F

Sounds like game, set and match to me…

Indeed, it was also quite hilarious :D.

Speaking of PETA, check this out:

http://www.zippyvideos.com/9679762012931896/penn_and_teller_bull****_peta/

When the **** appears, you will need to replace it with the relevant four-letter-word (it’s not my fault, it’s the title of the show 😀 ).

Sounds like game, set and match to me…

fluffy and cuddly…it can fool you, spend some times with my rotwailer and you know what i mean 😉

No, no, Gollevainen. You have it all wrong!

Nature is always fluffly and cuddly, didn’t you know? :rolleyes:

Fur Farms are DISGUSTING! Faux is just as good but it less painful! I suggest you watch this if you support fur farms –

I never said I support fur farms, but I’m very much against attacking on them and destroy some guys living…You see the guys doing it (keeping the farms) are poor farmers just trying to get along in this clruel realism-capitalism that were we have ventured in the these following decades. They hardly make their living out of it and then some spoiled rich bratts with nothing better to do come and destroy your life work…just pisses me off…And all top of it, several times after these attacks some rare bird population is destroyed as the newly freed minks and foxes makes rapid changes to the existing ekosystem…

Yes… but are we talking about ingredients that have never been tested on animals, or are we not?

PETA wouldnt do that!

Well normally all the ingredients are made naturally, and the all of their products state ” Against Animal Testing ” me and my mates went last week and looked at our usual products and it didnt say that it had L’oreals adrss on, i’m afraid it’s the end of an era, the body shop is no more 🙁

Speaking of PETA, check this out:

http://www.zippyvideos.com/9679762012931896/penn_and_teller_bull****_peta/

When the **** appears, you will need to replace it with the relevant four-letter-word (it’s not my fault, it’s the title of the show 😀 ).

But you haven’t answered my question, young man! 🙂

Thats why were trying out best * peta2 street teamers * to save the body shop.

But do they only use ingredients that have never been tested on animals at any time?

It’s a bit of a cop-out otherwise, isn’t it?

You wouldn’t like the Co-op, Sean. It’s Socialism in action. :diablo:

The Body Shop is the most famous vegan bodycare stoe in the UK they use ALL products from NATURAL sources – too bad L’oreals taking over. – there going to start testing on animals. 🙁

As this thread develops, let’s give heslop01 the respect he is due for being true to his principles.

GA

What’re the body shop and the co op?