CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

o.O A bizarrely ironic ethical quandary came into my mind recently when I picked up a bottle of doggy nail polish at Petsmart and read the label. First off, let me state that while I would be downright giddy to see biological weapons tested on school children (darn brats are too loud anyway) and generally despise humanity except as useful pawns, I happen to be an avid animal lover and only buy non-animal tested products - especially cosmetics. But then it dawned on me... the doggy nail polish makes no such claim. So if I buy it for my pit bull friend... will I be encouraging unethical practices for the sake of making him look kawaii (yes... I said him and I suppose that in of itself opens up a whole 'nother ethical dilemma...)?

XD XD XD that is a delima.

I honestly am not sure o.o You can always call the number that they should have on the bottle and ask them ^^

All I have to say is...

Dog nail polish. LOLWUT.

I didn't see a number on it. o.O No country of origin either... so it's probably best I didn't buy it after the mellamine in pet food scare.

That sounds like a good idea ^^

Is it wrong to test animal products. On animals.

I am going to have to think very carefully on this subje-no.

Hmmm, good point, Fish :-?

Makes more sense then testing it on.. humans o.o;

Edit: Ooops. Ignore. Thought you said "to test it on humans."

Fish and Chips (post: 1232463) wrote:Is it wrong to test animal products. On animals.

I am going to have to think very carefully on this subje-no.

Exactly.

Testing it on animals is kinda the point.

Dogs eat all sorts of vile things. I'm quite sure doggie nail-polish is fine. Though, I'd argue that putting nail-polish on a dog is animal abuse.

Actually no, since animal testing is virtually obsolete. Most everything is run through a computer, as it is far more accurate in any case.

And besides, this isn't pet food. I see no excuse in torturing animals so some bourgeoisie pig can paint the nails of her poodle - vanity is not essential.

I doubt the stuff is much different from people nail polish. I usually end up eating the stuff on my thumbnails...

USSRGirl (post: 1232475) wrote:And besides, this isn't pet food. I see no excuse in torturing animals so some bourgeoisie pig can paint the nails of her poodle - vanity is not essential.

And yet...

... I own no poodle, Fish. And the pit bull is not even mine either - he's county property and in no ways privately owned. u.u;; (But on a serious note - I opted against it for the aforementioned reasons).

Shao, yeah... that's why I get naturals seeing as I'd rather not eat nanotech or rodent blood.

Seeing as how medication for humans are tested on humans...I see nothing wrong with this. Think of it this way Temulin...at least they are testing it. Imagine if they just threw a bunch of chemicals together, put a label that says "Pet Nail Polish" on it and just sent it too the stores...yeah...

1.) I dislike humans... humans are inheritantly evil, therefore I couldn't care less what they test on them. T___T

2.) Vanity doesn't merit testing. Ever.

Shao Feng-Li (post: 1232472) wrote:Though, I'd argue that putting nail-polish on a dog is animal abuse.

I wouldn't go that far. It's not like it's causing them any pain.

Although personally I think it's a really dumb idea. XD Dogs don't need nail polish and people need to stop treating animals like they're human.

And no, testing animal products on animals is not a bad thing.

lol i love reading this stuff XD

USSRGirl (post: 1232492) wrote:1.) I dislike humans... humans are inheritantly evil, therefore I couldn't care less what they test on them. T___T

I always find this comment to be rather funny for rather obvious reasons.

USSRGirl wrote:2.) Vanity doesn't merit testing. Ever.

So would you rather have them not test the pet nail polish at all and just send it to the stores anyway? Computer simulations are expensive and can't cover every possible variable, if your going to produce a product that's used on anything living you have to make sure that it isn't harmful for the living beings. This is why both Pet meds and human meds are tested on living things (Pet meds being tested on animals, human meds on humans) before they are sent out. I know animal testing is almost always inhumane, however I think we can both agree that things would be a lot worse if they didn't test these things at all.

I was being sarcastic...

Meds are a different story - I would not object to medication tested on animals as I've dealt with donor cats that they pump new meds into before. I'd like to see this eventually changed to straight computer testing, for both accuracy and humane treatment (it's not nearly so expensive or unreachable as it used to be and becoming more common place in companies nowadays). Cosmetics of any kind on the other hand...

Simply put, if a frivolous product like nail polish, whether for pets or people, needs to be animal tested it probably shouldn't be on the market period. Your vanity, your risk. Painting a nail isn't worth constant torture of a living creature. The irony is that there is so little FDA regulation on animal-tested human cosmetics, half the stuff like nanotech is not even tested and the amount of carcinogens in the average tube of lipstick is far from healthy so I'd have to doubt that animal tested products have human health to fall back on. It's all about cheap beauty and big corporations. (Another interesting point to note is that animal testing of cosmetics did not become norm until the mid-60's to 70's. Lab testing never included live subjects and cosmetics were a lot more pure back then. The only reason animal testing is big now is due to all the toxic chemicals used to make hair smoother, lips glossier, ect. and larger industry.)

constant torture of a living creature..? :| how does that torture a dog..? or anything...

Nail polish... FOR DOGS!!! *is totally weirded out*

USSRGirl (post: 1232503) wrote:Cosmetics of any kind on the other hand...

Simply put, if a frivolous product like nail polish, whether for pets or people, needs to be animal tested it probably shouldn't be on the market period. Your vanity, your risk.

Yeah, that'll go over great in the lawsuit hearing.

<offtopic>

USSRGirl (post: 1232454) wrote:(yes... I said him and I suppose that in of itself opens up a whole 'nother ethical dilemma...)?

Being a guy that owns 6 different colors of nail polish, I have to say that this discussion/debate/argument can be quite humorous. XD

</offtopic>

Shao_Zeng (post: 1232506) wrote:constant torture of a living creature..? :| how does that torture a dog..? or anything...

I don't think you quite understand what "tested on animals" means... it's not "giving kitty/puppy a manicure." Take fagrance additives (unnecessary and hazardous to humans anyway, yet still used) - one method of testing fagrance is spraying it in the face of cats given that they have sensitive nasal systems akin to humans. Now if you've ever seen a cat back away from a squirt gun, you can imagine what repetitive, often toxic jolts of fagrance additives to the eyes/nose/mouth will do. Pain killers are also withheld while viewing the results of hazardous material on a live subject.

(Fish: ...while snide rebuttals to ironic comments whilst overlooking the larger points definitely makes me see what a strong argument you have... )

Seeing as how this is skirting towards debate closure and the point of this thread was more irony at the weirdness of a cosmetic product for animal lovers tested on animals, I'll cut it there since most of these comments haven't really even been on first base.

Except Churchpunk... who I totally agree with. Nail polish is for manly men I say!

USSRGirl (post: 1232569) wrote:(Fish: ...while snide rebuttals to ironic comments whilst overlooking the larger points definitely makes me see what a strong argument you have... )

Then let me humble myself and ask just what is so difficult with testing animal products on animals. Fairly rational to me, it is about as self-explanatory as an argument can get. The alternative is you paint his claws with untested, unapproved, potentially lethal substances.

USSRGirl (post: 1232569) wrote:Except Churchpunk... who I totally agree with. Nail polish is for manly men I say!

Just as real men wear pink \o.o/

(Yes, I know.. off topic)

... I kinda covered this a thousand times over... read the above. (Most importantly, nail polish on a dog or a human for that matter is about as nonessential as it can get. Me picking up a bottle and thinking 'hey, Meaty can use this' is really not the equivalent to considering real estate. Just because I thought something might have been amusing enough to try if it were not animal tested and made in who knows where, does not mean I consider it a do-or-die necessity such as a perscription drug.)

EDIT: XDDD GAH! That looked like I was replying to Lucky's post. But I agree there too! Nail polish is kinda... cute on guys. XD Well, if it's like manly black or something. Either way, I think I'll give the sharpies and glitter glue sticks left over from the kid's day camp a try.