Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Hi Angie > There are shortages of teachers because the job is not considered worth > doing for the salary that is paid and there hasn't been any deliberate > " getting at " the teachers going on. There are shortages of teachers because they do not have enough places for trainee teachers - I know, I tried to become a teacher! It is also noticable amongst the teachers that I know (and there are quite a few) that all those who have tried " ordinary " jobs have been back in teaching within 5 years. > I place kind animals on a higher level than those who are cruel > Rapists /mass murderers/vivisectionists anyone who bullies the weak I regard > as low life so would ot be bothered if they suffered they deserve it I > prefer to give my thoughts to those who suffer who have not deserved it > Young children /elderly people/women in certain countries/ " food " animals > tc.etc I agree with the idea of helping those who are suffering - particularly if they are unable to do anything about their circumstances. But what about animals who are cruel? BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Hi Angie > Not sure if I've explained it well enough Yes you have - I agree with offering support, but I don't think that support should extend to supporting acts which you (generic " you " , not you personally) find ethically unacceptable. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2001 Report Share Posted August 2, 2001 Hi Angie > We had reports of a bomb attack on a van and for 3 days reports said it > looked like animal rights " extremists " and lalked about related AR issues > .When it was found to be an aquaintance with a grudge no retraction was made > so many people will still believe the original information. the man > responsible was not of course called an extremist! I agree completely with not believing everything you read in the papers. However, I do believe there are some people (admittedly a very small minority) who will cause physical harm to humans over animla rights issues. I think with these instances, it is important to disociate " the animal rights movement " (if there is such a thing) from the actions of these individuals. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 I don't know animals who are deliberately cruel I don't think their brains are sufficiently developed to understand that they are causing pain Carnivores have no choice anyway and need to kill this I wouldn't call cruelty Maybe higher primates can be deliberately cruel Has it been studied??People with mental handicaps might also not appreciate the idea of cruelty. - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Thursday, August 02, 2001 5:02 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > I agree with the idea of helping those who are suffering - particularly if > they are unable to do anything about their circumstances. But what about > animals who are cruel? > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 I would support or at least not show open disaproval to anything that keeps the group/the cause united Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Thursday, August 02, 2001 5:04 PM Re: RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Hi Angie > > > Not sure if I've explained it well enough > > Yes you have - I agree with offering support, but I don't think that support > should extend to supporting acts which you (generic " you " , not you > personally) find ethically unacceptable. > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Not if we keep bullying them .I have been told there are always vacancies at HLS and people frequently leave . Only hearsay tho' Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:59 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Hi Angie > > > It is good if they are short staffed they will have to take on less work > > That's a very big if. > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Are these people real AR people or Just thugs out for a " good " time who use our causes as an excuse and our groups as a place to " hide " ? On a march I met a chap who seemed to be against vivisection but still ate animals and his arguments boiled down to his selfishness .At a recent AR camp he turned up and was recognised by the person I was working with Apparently he is a kind of groupie who gets his kicks from the excitement of AR agro with the police and follows AR actions ,but is only an observer Such people exist but are not really true AR people We need to make that clear when we denounce them ,that we are united but that they were never part of the AR movement Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Thursday, August 02, 2001 5:11 PM Re: RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > I agree completely with not believing everything you read in the papers. > However, I do believe there are some people (admittedly a very small > minority) who will cause physical harm to humans over animla rights issues. > I think with these instances, it is important to disociate " the animal > rights movement " (if there is such a thing) from the actions of these > individuals. > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Angie > I don't know animals who are deliberately cruel I don't think their brains > are sufficiently developed to understand that they are causing pain > Carnivores have no choice anyway and need to kill this I wouldn't call > cruelty > Maybe higher primates can be deliberately cruel Has it been studied??People > with mental handicaps might also not appreciate the idea of cruelty. I feel that an animal, or a mentally handicapped person, is aware of pain when it is visited on them. I am sure that the vast majority can make the connection between cause and effect - otherwise 'researchers' wouldn't tease the rats in the mazes! Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Angie > I would support or at least not show open disaproval to anything that keeps > the group/the cause united Angie .... but what if your opinion is that something might risk harming the cause? i.e. criticism. Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Angie This is very interesting. I know a lot of people who are against vivisection but not against animal farming. It doesn't make sense to me, but it seems to, to them. With regard to the chap on the march - I think if he was swelling the numbers at the protest and not bringing discredit on the group then wasn't it a good thing he was there, even if he does eat meat? Jo > On a march I met a chap who seemed to be against vivisection but still ate > animals and his arguments boiled down to his selfishness .At a recent AR > camp he turned up and was recognised by the person I was working with > Apparently he is a kind of groupie who gets his kicks from the excitement of > AR agro with the police and follows AR actions ,but is only an observer > Such people exist but are not really true AR people We need to make that > clear when we denounce them ,that we are united but that they were never > part of the AR movement Angie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Hi Angie > I would support or at least not show open disaproval to anything that keeps > the group/the cause united Angie Thgat depends on what " the cause " is - to me, it's preventing harm - to animals and humans. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Hi Angie > On a march I met a chap who seemed to be against vivisection but still ate > animals and his arguments boiled down to his selfishness. I seem to recall that recent surveys have shown around 60% of the population to be against vivisection - the majority of those still eat meat. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 You mis0understand me. Researchers are intelligent I don't think most animals appreciate the sufferings of others because their brain is less developed than ours. Understanding when you receive pain is not the same as Knowing when you've caused it unless you have a more developed brain to make the connection Anyway I don't think animals deliberately cause pain they{the carnivores] need to hunt or they die Angie - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Friday, August 03, 2001 9:55 AM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > > Angie > > > I don't know animals who are deliberately cruel I don't think their brains > > are sufficiently developed to understand that they are causing pain > > Carnivores have no choice anyway and need to kill this I wouldn't call > > cruelty > > Maybe higher primates can be deliberately cruel Has it been > studied??People > > with mental handicaps might also not appreciate the idea of cruelty. > > I feel that an animal, or a mentally handicapped person, is aware of pain > when it is visited on them. I am sure that the vast majority can make the > connection between cause and effect - otherwise 'researchers' wouldn't tease > the rats in the mazes! > > Jo > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 I have already said that I would Try not to criticise Angie - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Friday, August 03, 2001 9:57 AM Re: RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Angie > > > I would support or at least not show open disaproval to anything that > keeps > > the group/the cause united Angie > > ... but what if your opinion is that something might risk harming the cause? > i.e. criticism. > > Jo > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 Hi Angie > Researchers are intelligent I don't think most animals appreciate the > sufferings of others because their brain is less developed than ours. > Understanding when you receive pain is not the same as Knowing when you've > caused it unless you have a more developed brain to make the connection > Anyway I don't think animals deliberately cause pain they{the carnivores] > need to hunt or they die Angie How about cats? They seem to spend quite a bit of time " playing " with their prey - that has nothing to do with " hunting or dying " . BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 So they haven't thought it thro' Being against vivisection is easy you don't need to proove it Being against animal eating means you have to make sure no one sees you eating it Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Friday, August 03, 2001 6:12 PM Re: RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Hi Angie > > > On a march I met a chap who seemed to be against vivisection but still ate > > animals and his arguments boiled down to his selfishness. > > I seem to recall that recent surveys have shown around 60% of the population > to be against vivisection - the majority of those still eat meat. > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2001 Report Share Posted August 3, 2001 To me as I've said there are good humans and bad ones I have no problems with the suffering of the bad ones they need to be made to leave the " defenceless " alone !!!Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Friday, August 03, 2001 6:10 PM Re: RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Hi Angie > > > I would support or at least not show open disaproval to anything that > keeps > > the group/the cause united Angie > > Thgat depends on what " the cause " is - to me, it's preventing harm - to > animals and humans. > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2001 Report Share Posted August 4, 2001 I have said already that they are not being deliberately cruel they see it in the same way as if they were playing with a leaf because their brain is not as developed as ours Angie - " Peter Kebbell " <Snowbow Friday, August 03, 2001 9:21 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Hi Angie > > > Researchers are intelligent I don't think most animals appreciate the > > sufferings of others because their brain is less developed than ours. > > Understanding when you receive pain is not the same as Knowing when you've > > caused it unless you have a more developed brain to make the connection > > Anyway I don't think animals deliberately cause pain they{the carnivores] > > need to hunt or they die Angie > > How about cats? They seem to spend quite a bit of time " playing " with their > prey - that has nothing to do with " hunting or dying " . > > BB > Peter > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2001 Report Share Posted August 4, 2001 , " Angie Wright " <angiewright@n...> wrote: > So they haven't thought it thro' > Being against vivisection is easy you don't need to proove it > Being against animal eating means you have to make sure no one sees you > eating it Angie Actually I think it is harder to be consistently against vivisection lifestyle-wise, than it is to avoid actual animal-derived products, because it is practically impossible for most of us to avoid all animal-tested medicines all through our lives. I won't commit to refusing all pain relief in labour for instance, I haven't the courage, it hurts a lot, although the main thing I have is gas and air and that is very old and was even popular as a recreational drug (nitrous oxide - laughing gas) over a century ago, so I don't feel too bad about it. Even vegans can get sick and need more modern animal-tested meds sometimes, we can't always avoid it. Nearly everything is animal- tested, so I think it's probably more complicated than trying to be free of animal products. And you do have to only buy non-animal tested toiletries and cosmetics if you are anti-vivisection, so let's hope this anti- vivisection meat-eater is at the very least strict about the shampoo and soap he uses, and washing powder and other household products. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2001 Report Share Posted August 4, 2001 Lesley > Even vegans can get sick and need more modern animal-tested meds > sometimes, we can't always avoid it. Nearly everything is animal- > tested, so I think it's probably more complicated than trying to be > free of animal products. I agree with this. If you refuse life-saving drugs because they are tested on animals then you might not be around to be able to campaign against animal testing in the future. Every small act that people do to avoid harm, even if it looks very tiny to us, is still helping. Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2001 Report Share Posted August 5, 2001 I meant it is easy to be against it because you don't have to prove it any thing you buy has probably been tested and we can't avoid some of them eg water but with food you have to make a conscios decision every meal time so anyone can say they are an antivivisectionist and their life may not be much more difficult [so much stuff is tested and in secret that we don't know the details] But if you are against farming cruelty you have to prove it 3-5 times a day I was refering to people who are anti vivisectionists but who eat animals To many it is just a word and doesn't need any real effort on their part Men have less problem with toiletries/cosmetics and anyone can say they don't know whats tested I never used Body shop once i found that they used the 5 year rolling plan Beauty without cruelty has been taken over and I've heard that they now do this also Luckily I bought up old stock during the change I haven't been able to confirm this tho' Many people will still be using it because of the name Does anyone Know ???? Angie - " Lesley Dove " <Lesley Saturday, August 04, 2001 1:53 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > , " Angie Wright " <angiewright@n...> wrote: > > So they haven't thought it thro' > > Being against vivisection is easy you don't need to proove it > > Being against animal eating means you have to make sure no one sees > you > > eating it Angie > > > Actually I think it is harder to be consistently against vivisection > lifestyle-wise, than it is to avoid actual animal-derived products, > because it is practically impossible for most of us to avoid all > animal-tested medicines all through our lives. > I won't commit to refusing all pain relief in labour for instance, I > haven't the courage, it hurts a lot, although the main thing I have > is gas and air and that is very old and was even popular as a > recreational drug (nitrous oxide - laughing gas) over a century ago, > so I don't feel too bad about it. > Even vegans can get sick and need more modern animal-tested meds > sometimes, we can't always avoid it. Nearly everything is animal- > tested, so I think it's probably more complicated than trying to be > free of animal products. > > And you do have to only buy non-animal tested toiletries and > cosmetics if you are anti-vivisection, so let's hope this anti- > vivisection meat-eater is at the very least strict about the shampoo > and soap he uses, and washing powder and other household products. > > Lesley > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2001 Report Share Posted August 5, 2001 Angie > I never used Body shop once i found that they used the 5 year rolling plan > Beauty without cruelty has been taken over and I've heard that they now do > this also Luckily I bought up old stock during the change I haven't been > able to confirm this tho' Many people will still be using it because of the > name Does anyone Know ???? Beauty Without Cruelty is on a five-year rolling plan. I remember reading it in either the Vegan or the Vegetarian magazine. Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2001 Report Share Posted August 5, 2001 Yes I'd read it somewhere but no one could confirm it and with them still using the name I began to doubt myself thanks for letting me know I shall not buy it again and will spread the word that it is o longer truely without cruelty - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:44 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > > Beauty Without Cruelty is on a five-year rolling plan. I remember reading > it in either the Vegan or the Vegetarian magazine. > > Jo > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2001 Report Share Posted August 5, 2001 What does the five year rolling plan mean? I still have some Body Shop products, and I have some Tesco toiletries which say that neither the product nor the ingredients were tested on animals. Can anyone explain this to me please? Thanks everso much! p.s. I hope some of you checked out the www.helpthedogs.org link that I gave on Friday. Jane - " Heartwork " <Heartwork Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:44 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > Angie > > > I never used Body shop once i found that they used the 5 year rolling plan > > Beauty without cruelty has been taken over and I've heard that they now do > > this also Luckily I bought up old stock during the change I haven't been > > able to confirm this tho' Many people will still be using it because of > the > > name Does anyone Know ???? > > Beauty Without Cruelty is on a five-year rolling plan. I remember reading > it in either the Vegan or the Vegetarian magazine. > > Jo > > > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2001 Report Share Posted August 5, 2001 Companies that are the most ethical will say on their products " product and ingredients not tested by us or our suppliers since 1992 " If nothing is said --- they test If it's a well known company --they probably test or someone does it for them If they say --against animal testing ---that means nothing as they are not saying they don't do it If they say -product not tested -that means the ingredients might be Assume they are guilty until they make it really clear CO-OP and some small ethical companies that supply health stores are OK as long as the wording is like I wrote at the start The 5-year rolling plan I see as a con trick It means that a substance that was tested on animals in 1995and1996 will be used in the products Anything tested in 1997 will not be used yet But it could well be in the year 2002 All they are doing is waiting a few years .Animals have still been used the body shop used to use the 5 yr rolling plan and even tho' they say they have stopped it now I don't trust them they should never have used that system while pretending they were cruelty -free so I still won't use their products Beauty without cruelty was famous for being the 1st [probably] company to produce cruelty -free cosmetics and they were all vegan I believe the new owners are lying to the public because they have not said they are now using the 5 year rolling plan NOR is it possible to get an address to write to at the health store I've asked many times. - " Jane Cuming " <jane.cuming Sunday, August 05, 2001 4:39 PM Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > What does the five year rolling plan mean? I still have some Body Shop > products, and I have some Tesco toiletries which say that neither the > product nor the ingredients were tested on animals. Can anyone explain this > to me please? Thanks everso much! > > p.s. I hope some of you checked out the www.helpthedogs.org link that I > gave on Friday. > > Jane > > > - > " Heartwork " <Heartwork > > Sunday, August 05, 2001 3:44 PM > Re: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss. > > > > Angie > > > > > I never used Body shop once i found that they used the 5 year rolling > plan > > > Beauty without cruelty has been taken over and I've heard that they now > do > > > this also Luckily I bought up old stock during the change I haven't > been > > > able to confirm this tho' Many people will still be using it because of > > the > > > name Does anyone Know ???? > > > > Beauty Without Cruelty is on a five-year rolling plan. I remember reading > > it in either the Vegan or the Vegetarian magazine. > > > > Jo > > > > > > > > > > To send an email to - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.