Animal Cruelty/Testing A Balance?
PETA was recently at USF in Tampa FL, additionally I have come across groups again lately that will claim vegetarian or similar due to cruety to animals, global warming, etc. So many of the pictures and videos neglect to mention that there are laws that do not get enforced properly, that have images/videos/statistics that are often more than five years old, and/or will quickly say there is no middle line or balance and everything MUST be stopped. Though if you mention testing bug killers they don't seem to hesitate as quickly - uhm sure!!
Regardless though of the degree of commitment/religiosity to the cause, of level of heretic in preaching but not practicing, and countless other areas of problem somethings do need to be done.. and I wonder.
Why cant we simply have laws that:
Prevent any testing of beauty products on living creatures (not just against primates, but ALL living creatures)
Prevent testing of already 'known' carcinogens on living creatures
And enforce these laws stringently with heavy fines, community service requirements, and similar.
During this also go through and with enacting programs such as:
HealthCare Program: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=17598090&blogId=515137266
Food Program: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=17598090&blogId=515259749
Where there is an emphasis on eating healthy by cutting back on meats but not eliminating them. Rather than be extreme why not teach about moderation - plus every person is different to a degree and some people with allergies, different blood types, different ancestry or where they live now, lifestyles will benefit at times from some animal protein over a strict vegan or vegetarian diet.
There is no reason why we can't have and teach areas of moderation when it comes to eating.
When it comes to testing, sorry but I still think there are roles that mice, primates, and other animals can play in helping us to live healthier. Yes, cut down, limit research, have more guidelines that are readily enforced, but do not promote a complete ban. Compromises ought to be able to be reached, but when one goes into a discussion "hell bent" (literally in a sense as their ties to the religious-like convictions are so strong) that any view but their own is wrong then it promotes more negativity and less benefit then if middle grounds can not only be included but also a perspective of compromise embraced.