Purrs In Our Hearts - Cat Forum UK
Cat General => General Cat Chat => Topic started by: Dawn F on October 13, 2008, 17:05:28 PM
-
in your cat magazine this month they have an article about how great dry food is with input from IAMS it states that Vicky Halls is a spokes person for IAMS, anyone know if its true?
-
She could be - Vicky thinks dry food is very useful with regards to the natural grazing behaviour of a lot of cats. Can't guarantee it though!
-
I hope not! - I would hope she is more enlightened than that - but if that really is the case, we all have a duty to not support her in the future.
-
I am going to email her and find out.
-
Mark, I find on the whole Vickys advice is sensible and I would continue to support her. One difference of opinion doesn't generally make me feel every other bit of advice is null and void. Good idea, MM.
-
I always vote with my feet. She isn't the only behaviourist out there. That would be a real setback when other people have worked so hard to have Iams removed from vets etc.
That up to you JS but some of us have principles.
-
Ummm....are you saying I don't have principles? That's a little harsh for someone expressing their opinion.
Anyway, I think we should wait to hear Vickys response before you put me in the stocks and start pelting me with rotten fruit. :evillaugh:
-
Anyway, I think we should wait to hear Vickys response before you put me in the stocks and start pelting me with rotten fruit. :evillaugh:
Lol :evillaugh:
I would be very disappointed if its true, she betters many cats lives with behavioural help but then supports a brand made by the worst animal testing company in the world >:(
-
Ahhh, now not supporting someone any more and feeling disappointed in a decision they've made - that's two different things to me. ;)
-
People who work in animal welfare have to be very careful who they associate themselves with ;) - I know a woman who works in animal welfare in London who told local vets that she wouldn't use them or put any business their way if they stocked Iams. She has principles and had very good reasons - she was standing up for all the cats that were tortured and died. The kind of person I respect.
-
I would be disapointed and stop supporting :evillaugh: I expect people with such a job not to advertise such a disgraceful company, as mark says theres plenty of other equally good behaviourists out there who wont associate themselves with people who needlessly mutilates cats just to sell more food.
-
Here you go >:(
I think any rescues should decline talks from her in future as Iams chief propagandist.
http://www.iamsmulticat.co.uk/pages/productinfo.php
http://www.petlibrary.co.uk/cat-care/is-my-feline-friend-a-fat-cat.html?Itemid=25
http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=3&aid=425&vid=1&npage=2&PHPSESSID=76c1d851c8702ea5398c2a4088d51889
" I am delighted to leave my nine year old cat Bink's dietary needs to Iams by feeding her Active Maturity 7+" >:( - sellout! >:(
-
Thanks Mark, wont be buying the new book
-
Same here. I will pass on going to any of her talks. She lives round my way and I had planned to go to one but not now.
I wonder if she really hadn't seen the websites or heard any of the stuff? - I doubt it somehow. Maybe the lure of cash was stronger than her morals.
I can't find the exact reference but on Amazon, the was a reference to Iams in one of ther books (probably the new one).
Sadly sheep will take her feeding advice - apart from anything else, I have heard loads of times that cats with UTIs turn out to be fed on it.
-
And its not only the despicable animal testing that Iams carries out - but the whole aspect of supporting a dry food. Another part of her quote in that link 'A bit of extra awareness about diet, healthcare and lifestyle will ensure our cats remain happy and healthy for many years to come'. If someone like her supports that company and that type of food - she has very little awareness in my eyes.
-
Have now emailed Vicky and will let you know what she says
-
I really don't think there is anything she can say to justify what she has done.
-
Have now emailed Vicky and will let you know what she says
Will be interested to hear the response, MM.
-
Its a shame if it turns out to be the case!
-
Oh! What a shame :(
Like many others i would be interested to find out the response to this
-
Their adverts just make me want to scream at the TV.
Vicky Halls may not be aware of the situation regarding IAMS, we assume she should be but that doesn't mean she is.
I doubt very much that with full knowledge of why people have strong feelings about IAMS she would continue to back them, it would be at this point I would judge her with disdain, and not before.
-
opps, wasn't trying to cause a fight! I will be a bit disappointed if its true - did anyone else see the article maybe I misread it
-
RESPONSE email from Vicky
In my email I asked her was she a spokesperson for IAMS as there was a lot of controversy surrounding them....
[content removed - please PM Maddiesmum for more info]
-
she should contact your cat magazine, it definately said she was spokes person so they are misrepresenting her
-
Maddiesmum - I'm not sure you should publish her full response on Purrs, maybe if you could PM anyone that is interested. I'm just worried about the legal implications especially as this part of the site is accesible to non members.
-
You know what, I wondered that myself. Can it be removed and I will let anyone who is interested see it?
-
Done ;)
-
MM could you pls PM me the response? I'd be interested to know. Thanks
-
Me too please MM, I've been peeping in here today :thanks:
-
It's a long response so I am suggesting if you want to see it you PM me your email addy and I will forward it
-
I do not condemn people for having opinions different to mine or making decisions I would not make. I disagree with them but I do not condemn them.
I endeavour not to be swift to judge and try to look at evidence from all sources. I do not only value information that supports my point of view. I do not dismiss information that supports an alternative position.
Lack of tolerance is a major problem in our society.
Those are my principles.
-
Well said, Moira. :)
The response actually indicates that although Vicky has said she has worked with Iams from time to time, the information regarding testing was inaccurate - she looked into it before voicing her opinions on their product.
-
From Uncaged website
"Uncaged first exposed IAMS/Eukanuba's painful, invasive and lethal tests on cats, dogs and other animals to the world in 2001 after extensive research through dozens of scientific journals."
What is happening here - this isn't a difference of opinion - maybe some people choose to be blind to it or are plain stupid!! >:(
I refuse to sit back and read all this soppy nonsense about different opinions etc when cats have died and been tortured just to test cat food.
The cats are what is important and that is that.
If it was just PETA that made the allegations, I think there would be room to argue but Uncaged and the Sunday Express did their own research. At the time, the RSPCA severed ties with the company.
I'm sure if people had made false claims, they would have been taken to court.
-
It is interesting how spin can be used on both sides.
I am absolutely no fan of PETA, however IAMS DID use a company that was cited for many alleged violations under the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, and it was PETAs research that uncovered it. IAMS cut ties with the company afterwards. The company paid a fine.
USDA fines Sinclair Research:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/mar/20070324News023.asp
The RSPCA has never acknowledged they ever cut ties with the company btw, they had some kind of temporary joint promotion thing going on that ended. But that doesn't come as a surprise to many here eh. :P.
-
I wonder if Iams still do test after all the controversy and reports on them, especially as the uncaged report was 7 years ago - but I dont buy it cos I think it is too expensive for what it is, there are better dry foods out there for a better price.
Out of interest Mark, does your CP branch give out the Buddy packs?
MM, can you pm me the response please?
-
Out of interest Mark, does your CP branch give out the Buddy packs?
No - probably just as well as when I got Kylie from CP, they gave me a box of Go-cat but made it clear they didn't recommend it but only fed it because it was supplied free. These days Purina just give a discount on Felix pouches which is OK but not as good as the supermarket offers really.
They do donate boxes of pouches to CP headquarters that are close to sell-by.
It would be good if CP arranged RC buddy packs or something like that?
-
I would be good if CP arranged RC buddy packs or something like that?
Be even better if it was packs of appropriate wet food don't ya think? ;D
IAMS DID use a company that was cited for many alleged violations under the Animal Welfare Act in 2006, and it was PETAs research that uncovered it. IAMS cut ties with the company afterwards. The company paid a fine.
There is no excuse for Iams not keeping tabs on their suppliers - its a very worrying situation if they had no knowledge - I mean you don't just hire a supplier and then leave them to get on with it do you? Iams must have quality control inspectors or suchlike - so what they hell were they doing? Who's to say that the same thing isnt happening all over again with other companies/suppliers they use?
-
But that could be happening with other companies Gillian, and it just hasnt' been discovered.
I do agree re the Buddy packs though, I still wouldnt like RC ones, but slightly better than this years, which are IAms - last years were good, you got 4 packs of Whiskas wet and a bag of Whiskas dry, now you just get two small bags of Iams.
-
Just because something is on website does not make it true.
I am sure that the response to the accusations on the Iams website is spun to be favourable to them. They are a company and companies do that. I am sure that the information on the Uncaged website paints the worst possible picture it can manage, not worrying too much if some of the experiments it described weren't actually commissioned by Iams. Uncaged is a pressure group and pressure groups do that.
And, no, Mark, I am neither blind or stupid.
I think that Iams is a company that cares much more about money than about cats. It decided that getting its products scientific (or pseudoscientific) credibility was important, so that it could get vets to recommend and sell its products, therefore justifying the high prices it wished to charge. I have no doubt that they will have reversed their policy now that they think they are danger of losing their customers.
I do not know the detail of the campaigns that Uncaged has run over the years, so I cannot comment on its record.
I disagree strongly with animal rights activists that break the law, particularly the ones that think that it is OK to terrorise people and release animals like mink into the environment to wipe out our native wildlife, for example water voles. I therefore never give money to any animal rights organisation because some of those organisations harbour such activists.
I do give to cat and other animal rescure organisations. I would give to the RSPCA.
I do not buy Iams.
-
Moira,
I agree with both of your posts, first impressions are rarely totally accurate. For objections to be taken seriously, it's necessary to present opinons in a reasonable and well-informed way. I too would never support the various animal rights organisations - if they want mass support, they will need to moderate their approach (big-time), which is what I mean by the previous sentence. I haven't read Vicky Hall's response but am PMing now.
What would be the response in the event that Iams appears to have learnt its lesson and no longer uses animal testing? Would they be OK then (ie they've learnt their lesson)? I ask because it has often been said that this forum can be used to educate people - this is quite justified and I think it is a great resource for this purpose. Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams? I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?
C.
( Am not blind, am plain, am not stoopid)
-
Moira,
I agree with both of your posts, first impressions are rarely totally accurate. For objections to be taken seriously, it's necessary to present opinons in a reasonable and well-informed way. I too would never support the various animal rights organisations - if they want mass support, they will need to moderate their approach (big-time), which is what I mean by the previous sentence. I haven't read Vicky Hall's response but am PMing now.
What would be the response in the event that Iams appears to have learnt its lesson and no longer uses animal testing? Would they be OK then (ie they've learnt their lesson)? I ask because it has often been said that this forum can be used to educate people - this is quite justified and I think it is a great resource for this purpose. Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams? I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?
C.
( Am not blind, am plain, am not stoopid)
An interesting question Catbird isn't it !
Personally, while I would apply this to people as a general principle, I am more reluctant to apply it to corporate organisations, the ethos matters to me also. Would IAMS police their external contractors more as a result of a sense of corporate responsibility ( what us humans call being humane ) or would they do it for marketing and sales purposes. The cynic in me thinks the latter is the case. While individuals within the company may care passionately about ( in our case ) cats, I cannot support a company that evidence has suggested has auditing practices I consider wanting. I would rather use a company that has not been shown to have such failings. If other companies are to discovered to have similiar previous failings I would not support them. It is not a risk my conscience can sit happily with.
As someone who has very strict personal policies with regard to purchasing vanity and cleaning products, I am very appreciative of the work and research of some animal rights organisations, such as BUAV. I am very grateful for their work in this area for the consumer, and of the work they do with large external organisations to promote a cruelty free stance on non-medical related products.
-
I think there is an argument for rewarding good behaviour as otherwise they have no incentive to change their ways. What annoys me is they want to rewrite history and pretend it never happened. There is documentary evidence to prove otherwise.
I do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.
I see Aberdeen University have been in trouble - I hope they are being watched :shify: http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/aberdeen-university-promises-to-reduce.html
Before I started my course, I checked that no animal experiements are done at the uni. They assured me that the only creatures that are cut up are dead crabs that are caught in the nets in scotland. They are preserved and sent down. She told me they could throw them back but they would be dead anyway.
-
I have been monitoring this thread for the last few days and trying not to post TBH. I think that everyone deserves to be able to have their say and not be slapped down for it. There are a lot of judgemental comments in this thread which is actually detracting from the issue. Rather than insulting people I think it would be fairer to just discuss the issue at hand and accept that not everyone has the same view.
Extreemism only breeds hate and doesn't solve anything, it just makes the problem bigger and often, innocents get hurt. Personally, I don't buy Iams as I don't think it's a good quality food and also because I try not to buy anything that has been tested on animals but would be lying if I said I had never done that because I'm sure I have accidentally, without realising. I don't personally believe (quite passionately in fact) that anything should be tested on innocent animals for non-medical purposes but can understand why testing is in place for medical products whether I like it or not. I certainly don't condone anyone using violence to prove a point. The problem with people getting irate about something is that they don't usually know all the facts and latch onto something that they do not in fact understand. Extreem activists are as bad as the people doing the testing and should not be condoned or encouraged. This is my opinion and while I believe what I think is right, I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.
Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?
I think all these things need to be put in perspective. I spend everyday of my life dealing with mixed up children who are so angry because of the hand that society has delath them, I come home to my CP role and speak to people who see animals as a commodity and this is all because of the hateful society which we have created. Extreemism is NOT going to solve this, just make it worse.
-
Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?
Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.
I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.
-
I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.
-
Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?
Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.
I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.
I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also - ;) ;D :P I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself. :hug:.
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.
-
I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.
There is less need now than ever before to test on animals but they will continue to do it as long people support them. My conscience will not allow me to support them. As for accepting treatment. I am currently on two drugs that were probably tested on animals at some point. If I refuse to take them, it won't save the animals that died but I certainly wouldn't support any more drugs being tested this way. Maybe I prefer animals to people and I don't have any empathy with children so none of that stuff washes with me.There are other cancer charities that don't test and I would happily support them. There has to be a cut off point but whilst it is given the false respectability, it will continue.
As they say "Not in my name"
-
Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?
Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.
I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.
I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also - ;) ;D :P I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself. :hug:.
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.
I don't take drugs and yes I do drink a bit of wine but there is no need to test it on animals. What I am saying is animal testing should be outlawed. I am certainly not going to contribute towards experiments as some do by going on "fun runs" etc.
-
I agree 100%
My niece walked part of the Great Wall of China last year for Breast Cancer Research - she knew better than to ask Auntie for sponsorship!!!
-
A collegue and good friend of mine is battling breast cancer at the moment and would probably be dead (along with thousands/millions of other people) if it were not for the great work that has been done. I can only assume that anyone who thinks it's wrong to enhance treatment for people through research will not be accepting treatment if they ever develop a life threatening disease because that would be reather hypocritical. I completely understand why people feel the way they do BUT as I said earlier, there is a much bigger picture. I also urge people to actually find out a lot more information before they make such 'set in stone' judgements.
-
I am not here for a slanging match, we need to agree to disagree. Everyone has the right to their opinion.
-
I
Does this also count for scientists trying to find a cure for a child who is dying of cancer?
Yes it does - I don't accept that animals should be subjected to horrendous torture to save humans. Most of the experiments are pointless and lead nowhere anyway. I admire the Dr Hadwen trust. I do not support any charities that experiment on animals eg Cancer Research UK.
I have Mark Twain's quote as my signature and I stand by it.
I hope you don't take recreational drugs or drink alcohol then because they are regularly tested on animals in cruel ways.
I am not having a dig, just pointing it out.
also - ;) ;D :P I am not implying that you may take drugs, or that if you did that would be a bad thing in itself. :hug:.
No judgements here. Just questioning your logic in a very friendly non-confrontational sort of way.
I don't take drugs and yes I do drink a bit of wine but there is no need to test it on animals. What I am saying is animal testing should be outlawed. I am certainly not going to contribute towards experiments as some do by going on "fun runs" etc.
do believe in extremism depending on the circumstances. I would like to chop off the hands that experiment on animals. "Scientists" that harm animals deserve severe punishment.
.
Have to say - i agree entirely with Mark on this !
I will also refuse HRT when the time comes too ( not too long off i imagine !) as i know there are natural and homopathic remedies .
I do not think that animals bodies are in any way the same as ours regarding testing human drugs on -its pointless and just cruel .
If i had to choose between losing someone and the offchance that killing a cat by testing drugs on them just might help ( and might not either - which would most likely be the case ) i would say no to the treatment !
Sorry to also say -that Cancer research is one of the worst for doing these experiments and i would Never help or contribute to them in any way and yes i have lost a friend at 29 to cancer a good few years back .
I do not support or give to any charity thay agrees with animal testing and i think some animal activists have a good point in a lot what they do !
Anyone remember Hillgrove farm !? and the :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: that ran that - he deserved everything he got !
-
Yes, there will be many different opinions on this one.
I eat meat, so saying that it is OK to kill animals to feed me but not to save lives by testing drugs would be hypocritical of me. I am sure that animals reared for food, transported to abattoir and killed there suffer as much (or more) than many animals in labs (depending on the experiment). I do know that farmers, abbattoir operators and scientists have legally imposed reponsibilities to minimise cruelty to animals; I am sure some carry that responsibily through more than others.
Having studied biological sciences at degree and PhD level I can tell you that other mammals (and even other non mammalian animals') biochemistry and physiology is very, very like a human's. The argument that they are 'too different to be useful' is just not valid.
Tissue culture (cells grown in bottles) has meant that a lot of scientific research no longer uses animals. However, there is a legal requirement to test drugs that will be used in humans. As the notion of using untested drugs is not a runner, animal testing will be used until we have either human organs grown in vitro (probably even more ethical problems with that one) or we have a detailed computer model of a human (a long way off).
As for no drugs and no modern medicine, I am not willing to take society in that direction. It is bad enough that enough children are no receiving the measles vaccination that we are risking a measles epidemic which means that some children will end up with their sight reduced or other neuralogical damage. If they found a vaccine for HIV or malaria that would stop millions of Africans dying in the future I will accept animal testing to get it.
As for alternative remedies and homeopathy, I agree that many alternative remedies (e.g. herbal remedies, acupunture) work but nothing will ever convinve me that homeopathy is more than a placebo affect (or in the eyes of beholder if the 'patient' is an animal).
For me a human life is worth more than an animal life. (I think that is pretty obvious as I eat meat!) However, I know that a minority of people do not share that belief.
-
To me a human life is more important that that of an animal. I'm not a fan on animal testing but if it's for a medical reason that cannot be avoided - say testing life saving cancer drugs etc then I dont have a problem. Testing on animals for say cosmetics is a different matter though!
In an ideal world I would buy organic food, live on green energy and only use products that are not tested on animals - however my bank balance doesn't agree :)
-
I assume that you won't accept any medication or treatment then? (for anything as any medicine prescribed to the public will ahve been tested at some point) I really don't want to be personal but I think that there's a bigger picture to look at. Saying that cancer reasearch and amazing charities that save lives every day are wrong is not really a fair or true statement. I love animals and their welfare is incredibly important to me BUT I honestly think that there is a need for prospective.
There is less need now than ever before to test on animals but they will continue to do it as long people support them. My conscience will not allow me to support them. As for accepting treatment. I am currently on two drugs that were probably tested on animals at some point. If I refuse to take them, it won't save the animals that died but I certainly wouldn't support any more drugs being tested this way. Maybe I prefer animals to people and I don't have any empathy with children so none of that stuff washes with me.There are other cancer charities that don't test and I would happily support them. There has to be a cut off point but whilst it is given the false respectability, it will continue.
As they say "Not in my name"
I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.
Moiramassey - Great post. I absolutely agree with you on the point of homeopathy too btw.
However, I do not see us as necessarily as more important than others animals, I see us all as animals.
-
As for alternative remedies and homeopathy, I agree that many alternative remedies (e.g. herbal remedies, acupunture) work but nothing will ever convinve me that homeopathy is more than a placebo affect (or in the eyes of beholder if the 'patient' is an animal).
I'm sorry, but have you ever used homeopathic remedies? Most people that slate it have never tried it so how can you comment? Many people who have tried it have picked a remedy out of the air - thinking this sounds like it will treat my cat - without consulting a homeopathic vet - and when it doesnt work they decide homeopathy per se doesnt work. If all the veterinary convential drugs were available without a prescription, you wouldnt just go an pick one that you think might do the trick would you? No, of course not - you would consult a vet, the same goes for homeopathic remedies.
-
I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.
Start testing drugs on children :evillaugh:
Seriously, I think Debsy had the right idea when she said we should agree to disagree. You have your opinion and I have mine and that is that.
-
I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.
Start testing drugs on children.
Interesting. Does the human animal not have the same rights as the other animals you wish to protect ?
-
I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.
-
As the late and great Groucho Marx once said : "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." ;D
Another couple of my favourite Groucho quotes :
“Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”
and, perhaps, my favourite:
“I intend to live forever, or die trying.” ;D
Cheers
Leigh
-
I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.
Snap - or all the stuff about people/kids in Africa ??
Thats nothing to do with me either and i personally think the UK has pumped millions into Africa on this subject and the situation is still the same !
Dont understand this "children in need " thing they do every year - Why don''t they ever do a Animals in need ???
-
I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.
you may not be a lover of children but without them where would the human race be? and we need to educate tomorrows children because this generation is lost as a whole
I also believe humans are just another animal but by being at the top of the pyramid there comes a level of responseability
-
I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads 'Cats not Kids' as you can tell I'm not a fan! although I respect other peoples right to populate......within reason!!! ;)
-
I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.
Ah right. OK.
I would have really liked an answer, because I think it's an interesting dilemma, and one I battled with myself when I held a position similar to yours many years ago.
I love cats and my child. Our children are the cat lovers and caretakers of the future.
-
I don't think I am the right person to answer that question as I have no dealings with children.
What I meant was, why should it make any difference if it's "a poor child" or "a poor old person" - age is irrelevant.
-
I don't think I am the right person to answer that question as I have no dealings with children.
What I meant was, why should it make any difference if it's "a poor child" or "a poor old person" - age is irrelevant.
My question had nothing to do with children or old people ! ;).
I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.
I respect your choice not to answer of course. ;).
-
Well there are plenty of convicted criminals - there's a good place to start.
-
oooooo yes a like that idea Mark!!!! round up the really bad ones and test on them instead
-
Thats right , plenty of murderers , rapists and paedophiles to test on !
-
It's not my idea. I think it has been considered but deemed unethical by dogooders.
I saw a quote from 1894 which is true yet to be be realised.
"There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they now do the burning at the stake in the name of religion".
Henry J. Bigelow, MD, Surgical Anaesthesia:
Addresses, and other papers (1894)
From this American anti-vivisection society http://www.neavs.org/index.htm
-
damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!! :innocent:
-
damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!! :innocent:
Gee thanks for that :(
-
It is an interesting idea, that we should perform medical tests on criminals. But not a new one: those familiar with 20th Century history will be aware that a certain Dr Josef Mengele was responsible for a formidable body of work in this area.
Others who were deemed sub-human by the 'Thousand Year Reich' included of course Jewish people as well as the old, the very young, the mentally or physically disabled, the chronically ill, members of non-white ethnic groups and homosexuals.
I believe - well I certainly hope - that those purporting to support this proposal were doing so in a spirit of extreme irony.
-
It is an interesting idea, that we should perform medical tests on criminals. But not a new one: those familiar with 20th Century history will be aware that a certain Dr Josef Mengele was responsible for a formidable body of work in this area.
Others who were deemed sub-human by the 'Thousand Year Reich' included of course Jewish people as well as the old, the very young, the mentally or physically disabled, the chronically ill, members of non-white ethnic groups and homosexuals.
I believe - well I certainly hope - that those purporting to support this proposal were doing so in a spirit of extreme irony.
I remember bringing this subject up the last time we all had this conversation but still it is needed to be brought up again :( this subject should be persona non grata now and mods should just lock'em dead, because there is no way agreements are going to be reached :(
-
( this subject should be persona non grata now and mods should just lock'em dead, because there is no way agreements are going to be reached :(
For me, the purpose of debate is to express conflicting opinions, hOrZa, not to reach agreement. I for one debate not to convince people with the opposite point of view but to ensure that all views are aired so that those who have not considered certain aspects of any issue can develop their own thinking.
I won't censor this by locking it unless one member personally attacks another member, which has not happened so far, I am pleased to say. If it does, I shall censure the offending poster.
-
yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start :(
-
yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start :(
I understand your concern, hOrZa, but I am sure our members won't be so immature as to indulge in ad hominem attacks, however much they may disagree with one another. You and I have discussed the subject of censorship before and I'm with you on that issue: I'd hate to stifle debate - even disagreement - because I do believe that people who haven't considered certain things find it interesting and informative to read different views. I know I do.
But then I'm a woolly liberal and I think it imperative to defend everyone's right to free expression, however repugnant I may find their views. I find I more than likely agree with them on other matters so attacking their opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking them.
-
yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start :(
I understand your concern, hOrZa, but I am sure our members won't be so immature as to indulge in ad hominem attacks, however much they may disagree with one another. You and I have discussed the subject of censorship before and I'm with you on that issue: I'd hate to stifle debate - even disagreement - because I do believe that people who haven't considered certain things find it interesting and informative to read different views. I know I do.
But then I'm a woolly liberal and I think it imperative to defend everyone's right to free expression, however repugnant I may find their views. I find I more than likely agree with them on other matters so attacking their opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking them.
Great post and I couldn't agree more, especially with your last paragraph, the last sentence particularly.
-
I'm just disturbed at the comments advocating extremism and the fact Mengele had to be raised again :(
-
I'm just disturbed at the comments advocating extremism and the fact Mengele had to be raised again :(
You aren't the only one :hug:
-
Strange that there wasn't such a response when the subjects are innocent animals.
-
Strange that there wasn't such a response when the subjects are innocent animals.
I was not advocting vivisection either. but how is experimenting on people any better than experimenting on animals
-
I was playing devil's advocate. I knew there would be a response but I find it sad that it is "generally" accepted that it is OK to mutilate animals to help people.
-
I wouldn't say generally as I know of no one that likes it, but it's the coming generations that can stop it as this current climate encourages wealth above all else
-
I'm not saying people like it but they accept it and think it is justified somehow.
Some things are worse than others ie the article that I linked to that mentioned experiments that were allegedly carried out at Aberdeen University. Completely pointless and cruel beyond belief.
-
Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.
No, I have never taken a homeopathic remedy. I have never used acupuncture either, but I can rationalise acupunture having an effect by inducing endorphins or a direct response in the nervous system. The idea of serially diluting a toxic substance until it is present in vanishingly small amounts, in all probability not even one molecule present, and the solvent maintaining some effect in an animal (beyond that of the solvent alone) just does not fit with my view of the world (I studied Biochemsitry and taught Chemistry for years). For me, it belong alongside 'the Earth is flat'. However, I respect other people's right to believe in it and, as someone who is committed to a scientific view of the world, I accept that there is always a possibility that I am wrong and that my current view of the world is not correct. There is also a very tiny possibilty that the Earth is flat and my currect reality is being fed into my brain through a wire. It doesn't seem very likely though.
-
Surely all the animal medications that are prescribed by our vets, wether it be flea repellents, worming pills, antibiotics or whatever must at some stage be tested on an animal in a laboratory somewhere. In an ideal world it would be nice if there were no need for such places. So next time you go and get your furry friends vaccinated, purchase flea treatments or medication treatment for tiddles one of his/hers distant relatives has been tested in a lab and theres no getting away from that.
-
If someone like her supports that company and that type of food - she has very little awareness in my eyes.
While I may not support the company, I do feed some cats dried food and do not think I have very little awareness. I find that comment a little harsh. My vet prescribes dried food for certain problems and I will continue to take my vets advice and also feed certain cats 'good quality' dried food that they enjoy. I will also say that many of our cats live into their late teens and twenties and have a happy lifestyle. We also have as many cats with CRF that have only ever been fed on wet food as those that have a mixed diet.
-
damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!! :innocent:
Gee thanks for that :(
Awww Den I'm only jesting :)
As for likening Mark's suggestion of using criminals it's taking it a bit far likening the jest with extremism don't you think?
I can't even remember what the original topic was about anymore either :-:
-
Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.
No, I have never taken a homeopathic remedy. I have never used acupuncture either, but I can rationalise acupunture having an effect by inducing endorphins or a direct response in the nervous system. The idea of serially diluting a toxic substance until it is present in vanishingly small amounts, in all probability not even one molecule present, and the solvent maintaining some effect in an animal (beyond that of the solvent alone) just does not fit with my view of the world (I studied Biochemsitry and taught Chemistry for years). For me, it belong alongside 'the Earth is flat'. However, I respect other people's right to believe in it and, as someone who is committed to a scientific view of the world, I accept that there is always a possibility that I am wrong and that my current view of the world is not correct. There is also a very tiny possibilty that the Earth is flat and my currect reality is being fed into my brain through a wire. It doesn't seem very likely though.
Very patronising
I know nothing about homeopathy but if i was pure mumbo jumbo, why would the NHS approve of it.
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/trust/tru_nhs.html
-
Very patronising
I don't think that's fair, Mark. You may disagree with Moira's remarks, but it's difficult to see them as patronising.
-
I don't think likening someone's belief in alternative therapy to believing the world is flat is very fair either.
-
Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.
Well quite. While I am definitely in the ' generally prefer the company of animals to people ' camp, even I must admit that should my daughter and one of my cats be sat in the road with a very fast very large van approaching, instinct / that pesky selfish gene would drive me to push my daughter out of the way first, despite the fact I could not love my cats more. ( However I wouldn't hold out much hope for certain adult persons <no-one here> should they be sat next to my cat and the van was approaching ). ;).
-
I don't think that's fair, Mark. You may disagree with Moira's remarks, but it's difficult to see them as patronising.
I thought them rather patronising too, but typical of comments made by people who have never tried any of these type of therapies.
I do feed some cats dried food and do not think I have very little awareness. I find that comment a little harsh. My vet prescribes dried food for certain problems and I will continue to take my vets advice and also feed certain cats 'good quality' dried food that they enjoy. I will also say that many of our cats live into their late teens and twenties and have a happy lifestyle. We also have as many cats with CRF that have only ever been fed on wet food as those that have a mixed diet.
Sorry Ela, I don't mean to be harsh, but dry food never has been and never will be an appropriate food for a cat (so called 'good quality' or otherwise) thats not just my opnion - it is fact, based on the cat being an obligate carniovre. I do also give my cats some dry food - as a treat, but never consider it the right sort of diet to feed exclusively. As to cats getting CRF, I don't think I ever said dry food causes CRF, there are many factors that contribute to CRF.
-
I don't think I ever said dry food causes CRF, there are many factors that contribute to CRF
I appreciate that but thought I would add it for good measure if someone did ;D.
Sorry Ela, I don't mean to be harsh, but dry food never has been and never will be an appropriate food for a cat (so called 'good quality' or otherwise)
We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I actually think there are some very good quality dried foods and know often our vets have advised a certain type for a certain problem.
-
but typical of comments made by people who have never tried any of these type of therapies
I believe that many alternative remedies and treatments are effective. It is homeopathy that I think is totally ineffective (except for a placebo effect in humans).
As for finding what I wrote condescending, it was merely a description of what I think, like many other such descriptions in this thread.
I support your right to react to it as much as my right to express it.
-
Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams? I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?
C.
So, having read Vicky Hall's email, it seems that there is another side to this. Assuming that what she says is correct (and I have no reason to doubt her) can I ask my question again? Does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven? If not, what is the purpose of continuing to berate them - what is it intended to achieve?
Sorry this is late but I have been away for a few days.
C.
-
J gave her opinion, Catbird at http://www.purrsinourhearts.co.uk/index.php/topic,18833.msg320034.html#msg320034 - did you see that one?
J and I agree on a lot of things, but I take a different view to her on this. I think that if a company changes its policies, then it should be judged on what it currently does, not what it has done in the past. It might have completely new management: it might be responding to shareholder pressure. Either way, if the result is beneficial, then there is no reason to continue to berate it or boycott its products. If we do, where is the incentive for other companies to clean up their corporate acts?
-
i too believe they should be given a second chance, and I dont believe that Iams still test -the majority of websites about it are years old, and I can't see that they would be stupid enough to continue after all the reports. I still wont feed Iams though, but due to the fact I dont think the ingredients are worth the money, nothing else, and that is what i tell people
-
J gave her opinion, Catbird at http://www.purrsinourhearts.co.uk/index.php/topic,18833.msg320034.html#msg320034 - did you see that one?
J and I agree on a lot of things, but I take a different view to her on this. I think that if a company changes its policies, then it should be judged on what it currently does, not what it has done in the past. It might have completely new management: it might be responding to shareholder pressure. Either way, if the result is beneficial, then there is no reason to continue to berate it or boycott its products. If we do, where is the incentive for other companies to clean up their corporate acts?
I actually agree with this for the most part, in so much as if a company changes it's policies I will support them generally, ie, many companies have drastically changed their position on cosmetics and household products testing and I do support them now.
I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity ;) ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.
-
I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity ;) ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.
I think that's anthropomorphising companies. A company is an entity the structure, directors and employees of which change over time; today's cynics may not be there tomorrow. Also I take a pragmatic view: if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are.
-
I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity ;) ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.
I think that's anthropomorphising companies. A company is an entity the structure, directors and employees of which change over time; today's cynics may not be there tomorrow. Also I take a pragmatic view: if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are.
It is absolutely anthropomorphising companies, but it is the only way I could explain what I thought in an non-litigious manner on the board.
-
How about the notion that if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are? In any hypothetical company facing consumer protest, I mean...