RE: Do vivisectors deserve all they get? Discuss.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

>

>

[Guest guest]

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 -

> >

> >