Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights | >> fewer chemicals = less animal torture | | |
Apr 02, 2008 @ 16:13:43 | #1 | amish
Debater 5037 points


31/M/, Join Date: Feb 2008 | this is a slightly different thread with a slightly different intention than the other one, i'm not suggesting a full boycott that a small percentage of people would participate, i'm suggesting the use of common sense in a way that almost everyone could participate in.
we are slaves to corporate chemical manufacturers. they know it, and you should know it. so this isn't about not being slaves anymore, that's too ambitious. this is about reason.
everytime we use these chemicals, bad s**t happens. it goes into the water, the soil, the air. the process of manufacturing it puts stuff in the water, the soil, and air. the packaging goes into the soil, and then the water. and the chemicals go in our lungs and sit around the house, affecting us and our pets.
and of course, the animal torture. now i know most people (obviously) think, so what, it's necessary. whatever, if you insist it is, i'm not going to try to convince you when your mind is made up.
i won't point out that you can just look for labels that say "no animal testing," because you probably go to a store where most products don't have them, and you can't be bothered, and the stuff is more expensive and you don't like it as much. fine.
but you know, you are probably using more chemicals than you need. i'm not saying don't clean your toilet and counters (although i wouldn't try doing both at the same time) or don't mop the floors, i'm saying, you probably use more chemicals than you need. and more chemicals = more animal torture.
so what you can do about this is simple. don't go out of your way to cut down on using them. don't go crazy, don't become a granola-munching hippie because it just isn't done anymore. all i'm saying is look around. you may find there's a simple way to use a smaller amount of harsh chemical s**t in your home.
me, i'm already thinking more about it because of the animal testing. this week i found an old can of febreze air effects, which is a lot nicer than that glade freshener crap people choke themselves with. so i was happy to find it because you know? it really does wonders for the (aromas) atmosphere around the place. i was thinking of buying a new can of it to try out another scent.
but since it's made by one of these nasty corporations that torture animals, i'm thinking, "you know what? i really don't need it at all." i know some people might, maybe you breed animals, or have a pet ferret, but i don't. so i'm never buying it again. i don't need it it's that simple.
less profit for animal torturers, equals less torture. anything you can do would add up if it was as simple as everyone doing one little thing. you know the american products from lay's are getting healthier and healthier as people think more about things like msg and bht, the latter is banned in the uk anyway.
they're still using gmo's i'm sure, but the idea of eating organic is a lot more popular than it used to be, and it proves that even a percentage increase in awareness affects the coporate reality. the real power is how money is spent, always take the opportunity to vote your will with your dollars (or pounds or euros, etc.) politicians won't change anything against the will of buyers.
 mary matalin <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- 0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> marlee matlin
 | | |
Apr 02, 2008 @ 17:16:40 | #6 | amish
Debater 5037 points


31/M/, Join Date: Feb 2008 | Quote: No one goes to the store and buys individual chemicals. They buy formulations from companies.
i didn't think i would confuse anyone by referring to "formulations" as "chemicals." i'm referring to an entire cleaner (say, pinesol) as "a chemical." i think i would confuse more people with the word "formulations." but it's not a word i normally use anyway.
and i'm not saying "BOYCOTT PINESOL!" i'm saying that unlike many people, you might not need pinesol. or you might use it more often (in some cases, far more often) than you need to. it's an example, i'm sure different people overuse things differently, and there's no size fits all just figure out what you overuse.
the whole idea is based on the premise that people are using much more than they need, i believe this firmly. people juts have a habit of using products. some use is necessary. for instance, i was going to start using more febreze, and decided i would be fine using none, since they torture animals.
Quote: Some do animal testing but most don't.
you might be right, but i suspect you are misinformed. any company that does not use animal testing would be very foolish not to advertise the fact.
Quote: I'm unsure what you're asking or proposing here. Are you saying that people should use more cosmetics from companies that don't do animal testing?
you're just not reading what i'm saying. i understand the first post was long, but in my reply tailored to your own questions before, i said:
Quote: i'm not suggesting people switch to the ones that use no animal testing, if people were going to bother with that they would have already.
i'm suggesting an alternative, realizing there are some chemicals you just don't need at all, or don't need to use as much of.
it was a short reply and each of those points were on their own line. i simply cannot write more clearly than that.
Quote: Is this about the environment, animal testing, personal health, or what?
it's about all of those. basically i'm saying "you're probably overusing chemicals already, if everyone found one tiny way to cut back or even stop overusing one cleaner or fragrance or other formulation, there would be less animal torture in the world." really it could be one, or two or more. i thought it was worth mentioning at the time.
 mary matalin <-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|- 0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-> marlee matlin
 | | 0 Kudos  | Edited: April 02, 2008 @ 17:18 | |
|
Top
|