Save Ralph

[HugDoggy]

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, so if it should be elsewhere could someone please move it for me.

So for anyone who hasn't heard about this new video about Ralph I thought I would link it here. I think it was well made and doesn't overwhelm the viewer with the true horror of the animals involved, partly because it is animated and they try to keep it light despite the very heavy subject matter. But they still get the point across in no uncertain terms by the end that using animals to test cosmetics and toiletries should be ended once and for all. It is however designed to make people stop and think about the subject, so it is thought provoking and may be uncomfortable to view, but it is that fact that will hopefully make it work to save animals.

 

[pes]

But we would have to test on people and that would be unethical. Or women would have to wear their own faces which would be unbearable for a lot of them. I would have no problem using products that are not tested on animals even if they were less effective.
The problem with this is that there is a lot of money involved and in my opinion practically no chance of changing that.

 

[HugDoggy]

But we would have to test on people and that would be unethical. Or women would have to wear their own faces which would be unbearable for a lot of them. I would have no problem using products that are not tested on animals even if they were less effective.
The problem with this is that there is a lot of money involved and in my opinion practically no chance of changing that.

Unethical to do the testing on humans instead? Do I detect more than a little sarcasm there.

I have absolutely no problem testing products on people, for one main reason. They can consent to the test and talk in a language that the people doing the testing can understand. Even if that language contains a lot of four letter words conveying that the latest batch stings and makes them feel like their skin is going to fall off. One of the reason injecting into the eye is done is that if a reaction is going to happen it happens very fast and is obvious. But if the person being tested upon can give verbal feed back such extreme means of testing are less necessary.
Now I am not saying forced testing on humans as I think the key in live testing is the testee (um not the ball variety though ) signs up for it, being given the knowledge of the risk involved. And they are financially reimbursed well, if bad things happen, so they can seek medical help.

Yes a lot of money is involved, but if enough actual customers stop buying products that are tested on animals (who can't say no to the tests) then would not the big pile of money get smaller and the companies involved encouraged to find alternative ways of doing things, such as computer modeling. I mean it's not like we don't have sufficient knowledge of biology, chemistry and the sheer computing power needed to run the models in a timely manner these days.

 

[pes]

Do I detect more than a little sarcasm there.

Yep.

To be honest I think a lot of the products which are tested on animal or even in general are unnecessary and nothing would happen if they just were not there.
There is also a lot of children in Africa and other parts of the less developed world who die because of various diseases every year. Something like 300 000 of them. Now if they are going to die anyway, why not sign them up for testing so their families would make about 5 bucks for each.
Yeah I know this is super dark.

On a more serious note. It turns out various countries require different tests. For example China demands animal testing. And there are known companies who say they are not testing on animals but because they want to sell in China, they secretly do test on animals. So it is quite hard for a customer to know the truth.

 

[dartel]

There is also a lot of children in Africa and other parts of the less developed world who die because of various diseases every year. Something like 300 000 of them. Now if they are going to die anyway, why not sign them up for testing so their families would make about 5 bucks for each.

You're forgetting the massive stockpile of worthless husks generously called humans rotting away in prisons. Chain em up, file them in, shoot em up, watch the results, march them back to their cell. Don't even have compensate them or get consent.

 

[nekdoneco123]

yeah, i'm not clicking that. last documentary i've seen on this topic ended on a shot of a poor dog who just gave up and was waiting to die in a room filled with his blood after some sort of drug test on him.

how is doing stuff like that to any living creature (and for what? a "better" mascara or whatever?) while "we" are the monsters of society is beyond me....

 

[pes]

yeah, i'm not clicking that.

It is a stop motion animated short. Not live animals there, very little blood.

 

[Jewelry Fish]

Even if it’s just animation, that fucking hurt to watch.

Just makes me even more relieved I grew up not caring about how I looked. I’d feel sick contributing to that kind of agony

 

[Wasbitchpolly]

I’m beyond all cosmetic help

 

[dartel]

Just makes me even more relieved I grew up not caring about how I looked. I’d feel sick contributing to that kind of agony

Unfortunately it's not just beauty cosmetics. Everything including as simple as soaps and shampoos are tested. How do they know it's "no more tears"? Inject it into animals eyes.

 

[HugDoggy]

To be honest I think a lot of the products which are tested on animal or even in general are unnecessary and nothing would happen if they just were not there.

Agreed! I once heard lipstick was supposed to make many think of another set of lips on the female body which is why they usually come in pinks and reds. I don't know if it works or not no bitch has ever donned some lippy on her jowls to make me think of her fortune cookie. Usually they are a bit more direct and just flag a tail in my direction, to make me think of that.

There is also a lot of children in Africa and other parts of the less developed world who die because of various diseases every year. Something like 300 000 of them. Now if they are going to die anyway, why not sign them up for testing so their families would make about 5 bucks for each.
Yeah I know this is super dark.

Given some of the test they do on the animals I suspect the people involved may not have any moral objection to using such people in the testing if they thought they could get away with it. However perhaps when a body is in such bad condition the test would not work properly anyway. They always start with healthy animals. Someone who is skin and bone probably doesn't have normal amounts of what ever in their skin etc anyway.

On a more serious note. It turns out various countries require different tests. For example China demands animal testing. And there are known companies who say they are not testing on animals but because they want to sell in China, they secretly do test on animals. So it is quite hard for a customer to know the truth.

Any country that controls the media and their population's access to the internet are always going to be an issue since it is hard to change peoples opinions and habits if they are never made aware of the issue. Mind you we are probably not much better, how much of what we think we know, is filtered through OOgle colour glasses.

 

[HugDoggy]

You're forgetting the massive stockpile of worthless husks generously called humans rotting away in prisons. Chain em up, file them in, shoot em up, watch the results, march them back to their cell. Don't even have compensate them or get consent.

I did actually think of using people in jail, but how is it any better if they have no choice, but to have the tests done on them. That's the main reason I added the bit about consent by the person being test upon in my earlier message. It is us and them thinking where "them" is perceived as lesser, that has started so many wars and conquests throughout human history.

 

[HugDoggy]

Even if it’s just animation, that fucking hurt to watch.

Just makes me even more relieved I grew up not caring about how I looked. I’d feel sick contributing to that kind of agony

I am sorry if it upset you, but if it didn't hurt at all to watch, then I don't think it would work at making people think about how wrong animal testing is.
If it contained real animals people would go into shock and turn off so the message would be less effective.

I have expanded the description at the start to try and give people more info from which to decide if they watch it or not. Do you think I should do anything else. I myself have only watched it twice, it is not something I want to watch over and over, but it is a tool for change that sadly has to exist.

 

[pes]

I am sorry if it upset you, but if it didn't hurt at all to watch, then I don't think it would work at making people think about how wrong animal testing is.

There is far worse stuff than this video. Plague dogs is one of those things with similar message but I know that if I watched it I would probably not sleep for a week. Interestingly animals get hurt even in normal movies where you would not expect that. For example a dog nearly drowned during making of the Dog's purpose. That video is fucking painful to watch and that dog was fighting for his life. But it is interesting to see that the same money -> result principle applies even outside of porn.

 

[HugDoggy]

There is far worse stuff than this video. Plague dogs is one of those things with similar message but I know that if I watched it I would probably not sleep for a week. Interestingly animals get hurt even in normal movies. For example a dog nearly drowned during making of the Dog's purpose.

Really? I would have thought dogs in movies, would be pretty well taken care of, shows how much I know then.

 

[dartel]

Interestingly animals get hurt even in normal movies where you would not expect that. For example a dog nearly drowned during making of the Dog's purpose. That video is fucking painful to watch and that dog was fighting for his life. But it is interesting to see that the same money -> result principle applies even outside of porn.

Thankfully CGI has gotten to the point animals can be replaced with CGI without telling the difference, but only if the producer is willing to pay the CGI (and pay properly to not put the CGI studio out of business).

For the filming of Life of Pi there were 2 tigers used, a real life one for about 40% of the shots and a CGI one for the rest. During one CGI test screening session with the director even the director couldn't tell the difference which parts were the CGI and which were the real. Unfortunately the production studio massively underpaid the CGI studio for the work and the very same day that the movie won the academy aware for best special effects (thanks to the CGI tiger) the CGI studio declared bankruptcy. Within the CGI industry it's known as the Day of Pi.

 

[HugDoggy]

Thankfully CGI has gotten to the point animals can be replaced with CGI without telling the difference, but only if the producer is willing to pay the CGI (and pay properly to not put the CGI studio out of business).

For the filming of Life of Pi there were 2 tigers used, a real life one for about 40% of the shots and a CGI one for the rest. During one CGI test screening session with the director even the director couldn't tell the difference which parts were the CGI and which were the real. Unfortunately the production studio massively underpaid the CGI studio for the work and the very same day that the movie won the academy aware for best special effects (thanks to the CGI tiger) the CGI studio declared bankruptcy. Within the CGI industry it's known as the Day of Pi.

That's a real shame; the CGI quality in that movie was amazing, but the rich have to get richer somehow, and not paying your suppliers a fair rate because your a big company has been going on for a very long time indeed.

 

[Jewelry Fish]

I am sorry if it upset you, but if it didn't hurt at all to watch, then I don't think it would work at making people think about how wrong animal testing is.
If it contained real animals people would go into shock and turn off so the message would be less effective.

I have expanded the description at the start to try and give people more info from which to decide if they watch it or not. Do you think I should do anything else. I myself have only watched it twice, it is not something I want to watch over and over, but it is a tool for change that sadly has to exist.

Aw, that was very sweet of you, but you didn’t have to do that. I actually quite enjoyed diving blindly into the raw, uncensored experience. Yes, it was painful and it got me emotional, but that’s what it was supposed to do, and I acknowledge that. It wouldn’t have had the same effect on me if I knew what I was getting into.

If you want to give others a head’s up, that’s fine, but I’m good either way.

 

[HugDoggy]

Aw, that was very sweet of you, but you didn’t have to do that. I actually quite enjoyed diving blindly into the raw, uncensored experience. Yes, it was painful and it got me emotional, but that’s what it was supposed to do, and I acknowledge that. It wouldn’t have had the same effect on me if I knew what I was getting into.

If you want to give others a head’s up, that’s fine, but I’m good either way.

It is a fine line, between letting the film make that impact it was intended to do, verses not causing people distress by being exposed to material that evokes strong potentially very negative emotions. However I think we all need reminding from time to time to be aware of what we are actually buying when we go shopping so we can try and make more educated decisions.

 

[Deleted member]

CBC had a short lived documentary series called "Exposure". The last episode they did was on the animal testing in the cosmetics industry.
They hit some nerves.
Exposure soon disappeared and the episode was removed from the archives.... and Google.
The Digital Content Editor resigned in fury. Apparently there was a full gag order issued.
I was a CBC comment moderator at the time and any references to Exposure or that episode were to be verboten and to be removed immediately.
Taking on animal testing is as dangerous as taking on big oil.

 

[HugDoggy]

CBC had a short lived documentary series called "Exposure". The last episode they did was on the animal testing in the cosmetics industry.
They hit some nerves.
Exposure soon disappeared and the episode was removed from the archives.... and Google.
The Digital Content Editor resigned in fury. Apparently there was a full gag order issued.
I was a CBC comment moderator at the time and any references to Exposure or that episode were to be verboten and to be removed immediately.
Taking on animal testing is as dangerous as taking on big oil.

I don't know what CBC is, but I'm assuming it's a US TV channel. So I guess freedom of speech only applies if you don't have lots of money and can just buy silence.
I would like to think that Australia is different, but I suspect such things happen here as well. Money seems to be a strong motivator to throw ethics out the window.

I think so much of this thread could be summed up in two words "Stupid Humans!"

 

[dartel]

I don't know what CBC is, but I'm assuming it's a US TV channel.

Canadian, Canada Broadcast Channel.

 

[Deleted member]

Close...

I don't know what CBC is, but I'm assuming it's a US TV channel.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

 

[HugDoggy]

Close...

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Missed it by, that much chief... Nope I don't think maxwell smart impersinations work so well in text.
Probably should have known that since we have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but I'm just so used to everything being American slanted on the internet.