Sachet costing 7p prevents water deaths - from The Independe

[mentalbunny]

Sachet costing 7p prevents water deaths
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
21 June 2003


A small sachet of powder added to a bucket of contaminated water can make it drinkable and save the lives of some of the 5,000 children who die in developing countries every day, scientists said yesterday.


Full Story (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=417497)

This is great news, I'm sure you'll all agree, except the sachets are made my Procter and Gamble who are well known for their animal testijng, which worries me slightly, and I'm also concerned about the none-too-small matter of profit in this enterprise, but maybe I'm just being paranoid...

[Eastside Revolt]

Paranoid?

Nah, your just being reasonable.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You do realise bunny that certain advancements in technology cannot be performed without animal testing.
It is very unfortuante but it is a fact of life. These tests are not done on any animals that that are considered endangered. We cannot simply remain stagnate technologically because we are afraid to test on animals that are not self aware in the first place. I'm an animal lover myself, but the human race comes first.

[Ian]

Who cares about Animal Testing if this will save thousands of lives, what' s more precious a few hundred rodents or 5000 children per day?

[mentalbunny]

Well it's not so much the testing, as at least this is helpful rather than testing toothpaste by coating some rodent's eyeball with the stuff, but I am concerned that it could end up a little like Monsanto and their seeds, if you know what I'm talking about. It's a brilliant invention but we need to keep an eye on P&G to make sure they behave themselves.

[Kez]

this is good, but if there wasnt the profit in there would P&G do this? wud they fuck.
they arent a charity, they are a capitalist company, and therefore should still not hide away the fact that as a capitalist company the use resources in a most inefficient manner, exploit the earth, harm the environment and animals, and exploit our own brothers and sisters.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Kamo, despite the truth in your point, if it's going to save that many people then you shouldn't be thinking like that.

As for the bit on animal testing. This is just human intelligence. We are animals, just the most intelligent in terms of science etc. We are intelligent enough to farm animals so we don't need to hunt. It's natural that we, as animals, must sacrifice other animals for our benefit.

[Kez]

of course we shud be thinking like, that
these people shudnt be dying in the first motherfuckin place anyway!!
we shudnt capitulate to the capitalists coz theyre making a profit and doing some good, fuck that

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

We may be able to afford to think like that.

But do you think these people have time for cynicism towards capitalism? No.

They need to survive. And if it's capitalists helping them survive, or if it's Lenin himself, I couldn't care either way.

[mentalbunny]

I have to say I'm more enclined to agree with Kamo on this one, but we may as well use them for the moment, I can't think of any other way if getting the stuff made, I can't think of any non-profit organisation that would actually make the stuff, or I'd consider handing it over to the UN, but they'd rather encourage companies I think.

As for the crap about sacrificing animals, how far does that go? People say that about drugs, and ok I'd agree with that to a certain extent, but not about anything else. Just because we're animals ti does not mean we have to be selfish, etc, communism, at least for me, means overcoming that. Ok, so you guys will say I'm just a hippy or whatever, but for me communism is about more than just sorting stuff out for humans at the possible expense of the environment. We need the environment, we need animals. I think exploiting animals in this way, simply because they cannot do anything about it, isn't right.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What chance does a Deer have when being chased by a Cheetah? It's the same thing.

Some animals are more powerful and intelligent than others. It goes all the way back to the idea of "Survival of the Fittest".

[mentalbunny]

Socialsmo o Muerte, I don't think you understand me. To become truly civilised, etc, we have to transcend this idea of "survival of the fittest", yeah it's a great observation but it should not be a way of life for the human popuation, bascially capitalism is survival of the fittest (well, richest), so do you support that?

I accept that we eat meat, but I think there are limits and I don't think we should inflict pain on weaker animals when there is a way of avoiding that pain.

[Kez]

Muerto, ur argument of the cheetah is flawed

i'd like to think i as a human am more advanced than a cat, and have a bigger brain and therefore have a greater level of understanding than a cheetah

Bunny, u say u dont know of any other alternative, of course you do! The socialist alternative, only though planned economy can we help ALL of society, and this means revolution

[mentalbunny]

Ah well that alternative. Yes, I wish I could believe that it will happen soon, but we need to mobilise so many people :sad:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

5,000 people could be saved every day, and yet you still want to wait and let "socialists" solve the problem in stead of allowing what you call "capitalist" companies to do so.

If that's how you feel, then I question whether you are indeed more advanced than a cat.

mentalbunny, what you say is true. But I suppose it depends upon what is really "civilised". An argument I think neither of us, or anyone else for that matter, wants to get in to!

[Severian]

I don't think a socialist society would hesitate for a second to do a bit of animal testing to develop a technology that would save thousands of human lives.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly.


But that's not a bad thing.

[Kez]

wtf u on about, i never sed we shudnt support these capitalists. And thats what they are, they arent a charity so i dunno why you put inverted commas on capitalists
And i wouldnt WAIT for no fucker, id be doing the organising myself

Of course a socialist body wud hesitate to test on animals, as it is maded up of workers, and if workers dont want animal testign (as most workers today dont) then it wudnt happen, simple democracy

[mentalbunny]

You do realise that procter and Gamble test comsmetics and toiletries on animals (everything made by Clairol, Cover Girl, Crest, Giorgio, Iams, Max Factor, Noxell, Oil of Olay, Pantene, Physique, Tide, Vidal Sassoon and Richardson-Vicks could have been tested on animals). I can agree with drugs but not toiletries and cosmetics.

However for the greater good of course it's ok to use their miricle water purifyers, it's jkust that there should be a better way.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 3:42 pm on June 23, 2003


And i wouldnt WAIT for no fucker, id be doing the organising myself



So where is the TavareeshKamo-Socialist-Non-Animal-Testing Party then? It doesn't seem to be up and running, or maybe I'm mistaken and I'm just not well-read enough on party politics yet.
I'd also like to know your source of information which told you that "most workers" don't want animal testing. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but that seems like a completely uninformed statement. I am open to proof though.


Indeed, mentalbunny, some means of animal testing to seem wrong. I don't know the way in which they do it, but testing for such purposes does seem wrong.

SmithKline-Beecham also test on animals. But they make various drugs. They also make health benefiting products like Lucozade. I suppose this is justified. However people may disagree with things like Lucozade etc.

[Kez]

when did i say party? wtf are u on about? when did i say i was for or against animal testing? stop bullshitting please.

you go and ask the avg person in the street and they will be against animal testing.

"seem wrong"? squirting acidic cream into a fuckin rabbits eyes is fuckin twisted

and i still dont understand y u put inverted commas on the word capitalist when u were describing the shitniks who were selling these sachets

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

and i still dont understand y u put inverted commas on the word capitalist when u were describing the shitniks who were selling these

I did so because I am unaware of this company and their business intentions and policies. I therefore cannot judge for myself if they are a capitalist organisation so am going on the labels that you lot have put on them.

Also, these "shitniks" are contributing a lot more to the welfare of the world, it seems, than you are, based solely on this water powder.

"seem wrong"? squirting acidic cream into a fuckin rabbits eyes is fuckin twisted

Like I said, I know not what goes on.

they are a capitalist company, and therefore should still not hide away the fact that as a capitalist company the use resources in a most inefficient manner, exploit the earth, harm the environment and animals

Forgive me for intepreting this as you criticising the way animals are tested on.

when did i say party?

Ok, I will change it to "So where is the TavareeshKamo-Socialist-Non-Animal-Testing ORGANISATION then?"

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 9:09 pm on June 23, 2003)

[Kez]

what the fuck, do you have any understanding of the shit you say???

do you even know what a capitalist is?? a capitalist is someone who owns the means of production, ie ANY COMPANY!

i dont understand ur last point, i think its coz ur being a bit of a penarse to be honest with u....my organisation is the movement, and thats it...

[Moskitto]

"seem wrong"? squirting acidic cream into a fuckin rabbits eyes is fuckin twisted

letting 70 million people (the current WHO estimated total death toll post pandemic) die of AIDS is cruel, but what's even crueler is letting 6 poor cute little bunnyrabbits have nasty HIV vaccines injected into them, just save those 70 million people.

[Kez]

ay ay ay, its not one or the other, with socialism you do both, its not a trade off

just because a by product of one capitalist is minutely balancing out the effects of another capitalist doesnt make it a "nice company", if friggin koalas made money these motherfuckers wud do it

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Thank you for your definiton of what a capitalist company is.

However, if you'd read my post properly, you'd realise I was saying that I did not know anything about the company. I am not going to judge them and determine a label for them as I know absolutly nothing about them.

I am not questioning whether this company is capitalist, just saying that I have no idea either way.

As for your point about the great "equality" in socialism...I'm afriad there is no proof of that as yet. Yes, I know the theory, don't re-write the socilalist ideal world. But without evidence, it means nothing.

[Kez]

you do know something about them:
they exploit workers
they exploit resources
they manipulate minds to sell

is this not enuf?

and your 2nd part about evidence, u fuckin lost me there mate

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

"you do know something about them:
they exploit workers
they exploit resources
they manipulate minds to sell

is this not enuf?"

No, I don't know that. You are telling me that. I probably should not take information from such a biased source as complete fact.

I know absolutly nothing about the company.

[mentalbunny]

Moskitto, you got completely the wrong end of the stick. I'm all for drugs testing, but not for cosmetics, etc.

[Lenin lives]

We are the dominant species on this earth, and therefore, at the top of the food chain. So i do not see why it is we should value animals well-being over any aspect of human well-being. If we are to take this view with animals, then could it not be applied to other aspects of life? For example, it is 'wrong' or 'immoral' for us to breed animals just to provide food, as it is playing god. As for cosmetics in particular, i see no need for them, and as such wasting resources on them would be wrong. but toothpaste, which i believe has been mentioned here, i would not have a problem on it being tested on animals. It is an item that does benefit humans, and so if it can be improved and made more safe for us, i would prefer research into it be done on animals, as opposed to humans.

[Kez]

the whole purpose of communism is to end exploitation and for a just earth. This contradicts the view that we shud ram shit into a rabbits eye for human benefit. We can analyse toothpaste in labs and see if they are ok, we dont need rabbit eyes to see if they do

Breeding animals is different, as they are not put thru torture like animal testing, if their death is quick and humane as is the case in most instances, then is ok

[Lenin lives]

the whole purpose of communism is to end exploitation and for a just earth. This contradicts the view that we shud ram shit into a rabbits eye for human benefit.
It is for equality between humans, not equality between all species. It certainly is not communism to not make use of lessar animals, when doing so would benefit ourselves. One of the goals of communism is to get the best conditions for us as possible. So to turn down the opportunity to improve our living standard would be inneficcient and therefore counter-revolutionairy.

Breeding animals is different, as they are not put thru torture like animal testing
They are held and controlled for our benefits. It is bound to be that they would be more content if given freedom. And how about plants? These are living organisms too, what is your position on how we should treat plants?



(Edited by Lenin lives at 9:03 pm on June 28, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 9:25 pm on June 27, 2003
Moskitto, you got completely the wrong end of the stick. I'm all for drugs testing, but not for cosmetics, etc.


That is a view we both share, "animal rights" groups such as PETA do not share this view.

60% of animal testing is for vetinarry science anyway.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Kamo, as Lenin lives began to point out, what you said is a complete contradiction.

Do you know the conditions that animals are kept in during "farming". This is something I do know about as my girlfriend is a vegetarian for the reason that animals are treasted so appalingly in "farms". Chickens are injected with some genetic shit to make their breasts bigger. They are then selectively bred so that we get the best, most tender meat.

Cows are kept in tiny little compartments untill they eventually are sent for their transformation into our food.

Turkeys, in time for Christmas, are force fed this shit so that their breasts become huge, completely disporportionate to the rest of their body and making them physically ill.

But, Kamo, this of course is all made up for by their "humane" deaths. Would that be the death in which, in the case of poultry, they are shocked, suffering something like what we would feel if electrocuted, for around 30 seconds untill numb so they can eventually be slaughtered.

Now I'm not complaining. I am not a vegatarian, I eat meat and, although I'd prefer to eat the meat of a bird who has been treated better than the bird next to her on the shelf, I accept that we are the dominant species and this is human intelligence.

I am making these points because you are saying it's ok to do what they do in "farms", but not what they do in animal testing. I can tell you for a fact, what they are put through on farms IS torture. You are indeed wrong to say their deaths are "quick and humane in most cases" because the vast majority of farms use the shock method which I described.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 12:21 am on June 29, 2003)

[Kez]

wtf....i dont even give a shit....except for bigger breasts...mmmmm

what i give a shit about is ppl thinking this sachet company is somehow good, and thats its the answer to all our problems in africa...fuck knows how we got to animal testing

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ahhh, the delights of someone avoiding the issue as soon as they realise they have fallensubject to ignorance.

I love it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They should distribute the recipe for making that sachet, if it costs 7p it can't cost more than 2p to make yourself (Because companies jack up prices anyway)

But I doubt they will.

About the animal treatment, I think all cosmetic testing for animals should be banned, particurlarly the Draize Eye Test which is horrible.

As for meat we should find more humane ways of killing and keeping animals, and generally eat less meat so that not so many animals have top be grown and slaughtered.

[mentalbunny]

I know about the awful conditions of factory farming and I'm against that as well but I accept free range and organic meat. However at school I don't have much of a choice as you basically starve if you turn veggie, believe me, I've tried, and at home I feel guilty if I inconvenience my mum too much, I can't wait to be self-sufficient!

We got onto animal testing because Prcoter and Gamble who produce the sachet are well known for their animal testing. And SoM, I disagree with that last statement and its sentiment. I wish people on this board could let go of petty rivalries! OK, so he didn't know so much, but Kamo, you should give a shit. Being more pwoerful, etc, gives us responsibilites which we are currently neglecting and the consequences will catch up with us sooner or later.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

mentalbunny, I used to feel good about myself for buying "free range meat" too, but don't believe that crap. "Free range" basically means they get about 3 inches extra space in their cells.

Again, I'm not preaching that you are in the wrong, because I eat meat also, in abundance, but just don't believe their bullshit.

[Kez]

avoiding the issue?

listen, the issue is about sachets for water, just coz u went off on a tangent doesnt mean everyone has to follow, not everyone follows the likes of Khomeini the guy you love so much, despite the fact he was the biggest butcher of the workers in iran.

[mentalbunny]

kamo I feel I have to mention that your last comment was uncalled for, but I agree with the one before that.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You seem to forget, my friend, time and time again, that people are human beings before they are workers.

They have lives, feelings, liberties and rights before they have a job.

Your continuous preachings on how Khomeini betrayed Iran's workers make me physically sick as you, just like the big capitalist giants, appear to see people as WORKERS before seeing them as HUMAN BEINGS.

I think you catch my drift with reference to the Ayatollah's revolution.

Back to the original debate;

I only went "off on a tangent" because the other people in the debate began to raise animal testing as a whole as an issue within the debate. I was simply going along the lines of the debate.

[Kez]

aww, aint that nice SoM, as humans we'll all hold hands and start dancing in a ring and kiss each other on the cheek and forget our differences.....fuck that and the rest of the bullshit dreams

[mentalbunny]

SoM I don't have a clue what you are talking abuot, would you please elaborate?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Khomeini liberated the Iranian people. He didn't liberate them as workers or bourgeousie or prostitutes or gays or priests...he liberated the PEOPLE.

He didn't give a toss about status, just wanted to free the Iranian people from the shackles of Western Imperialism and the people agreed with him that it would be with an Islamic state that they would be free.

Kamo thinks of people in terms of their status and function to the economy and the state. Khomeini thought of the people in terms of them being human beings witht he right to be free from imperialism.

That was my point. Again, I do not want to go into this here as it's completely not this debate.

[Kez]

ah yes liberated...

thats why women have to wear veils when they go out, even when its 40 degrees in the filthy polluted air, now thats liberation

thats why girls and boys cant go to the same classes and be taught the same lessons, they are in segregated classes, now thats liberation

thats why Schools dont teach sex education, instead they live in ignorance, now thats liberation

My cousin was caught by the militia men (on the payroll of the liberating govt) for wearing a micheal jackson shirt, now thats liberation

Iran earns £150m a day from oil, you know what the "people" get? nothing. All of it goes straight into mullah bank accounts in switzerland. Now thats liberation

There is 40% unemployment rate and the younger workers turn to opium. Now thats liberation

Homosexuals are executed. Now thats liberation

Prostitues are tortured, unless of course theyre serving the mullahs. Now thats liberation

However, the most funnyest part of your ignorance is shown here:
"just wanted to free the Iranian people from the shackles of Western Imperialism and the people agreed with him that it would be with an Islamic state that they would be free."
Western Imperialism PUT Khomeini in power, as they feared workers power in Iran!!

Now, if you dont mind, go fuck yourself you ignorant little twat

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

First of all, many of your points are referring to today's system in Iran.

I'm afraid much has changed since the days when Khomeini started in power so these statments are completely irrelevant.

Second, a few more of your accusations are entailed in the Shariah system of the Islamic Republic. This is what the people agreed to, they backed Khomeini's republic and knew what the system would entail. So yes, this is liberation as it was making the people free to choose what they wanted.

As for your final statement, I would ove to hear your inevitably ludicrous explanation for how the Western powers put Khomeini in power. They backed the Shah's decision to send Khomeini into exile, they released their propaganda against Islamism which still exists today, they supported Saddam's effort defeat the Ayatollah and the Mullahs...if this is what you consider as them giving their backing, then so be it.

As for your statement about the treatment of women; I laugh at the fact that you use the ever typical western explanation for the "evilness" of Islamism. "Oh, but look at how they treat women.". The vast majority of Islamic women are proud to wear the clothing. It gives them their identity as Moslems.

I suggest you look over your label of "ignorant" which you have placed on me.

Again, I also suggest that this not be discussed here. As it is not the debate.

[mentalbunny]

SoM, since I startdd the thread I don't mind a cheange in topic, it often cocurs and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Very generous of you mentalbunny.

You'd be too late even if you didn't want it anyway!

Anyway, Ive said all I need to say. It's just that Kamo is blinded by Marxist interpretations of history. Which is basically, if it's not Communist, then it's shit.

[Kez]

cud b worse, i cud take the bourgeoise's word and the Quaran also, 2 very good sources

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Or the Iranian people's word.

Even better again...


AND, before you start giving examples of interviews you have conducted or whatever, I'm on about the people at the time of Khomeini.