Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Proctor and Gamble still

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:26 PM
Original message
Proctor and Gamble still
being attacked by right wing Christian groups for their support of gay rights legislation. Come on gay DUers, let's get their back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Moral dillemma
I don't know if I can back P&G. They perform frightening amounts of animal testing.
Please convince me otherwise, as I would love to start using crest again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeveneightyWhoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Who would you prefer they test on?
People?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes
Many other companies test their products without using animals. There are many studies showing the uselessness of testing products on non-humans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Not true.
Animal testing is very much required. No company would be spending money doing it if it wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Then what about...
Aveda
Paul Mitchell
Estee Lauder
and many many others?
I can't complain about P&G testing products that are required by law, but in many of their product lines, they test on animals because it is CHEAPER. That is what I have a problem with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Cheaper than what?
What's the alternative to animal testing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasev Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. they don't have to test
If they spent some effort in doing simulations and more research then they wouldn't need to test but they want to save money.

- P&G are also republican contributors from what I understand.
- IBM also provides benefits to gay employees and their partners and they are one of the biggest GOP contributors.

But most of these corporations are Paleo/Neo Cons and not Christo Cons so they aren't as concerned with the issue of morality they just want no government regulation of their business and no taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Simulations?
you can't simulate animal testing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Include your concerns about animals with your support.
Supporting them on this issue is not the same as supporting everything they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. True.
I was thinking on the perspective of supporting through buying products, but I can definitely support some of their views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. They're not on OUR side either.
P/G not a good company to patronize. Other DUers have mentioned it before.

FSC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It isnt about a blanket endorsement.
Contact P&G, support them on this issue. Feel free to throw in problems you have with thier policies to. Say you are encouraged by thier policy on this and encourage them to work towards the right policies, and say that when you shop, you are careful about which companies you give your business.

You dont need to sell out to encourage a company on one issue. We cant afford to ignore these battles, even if the battlefield isnt one we'd prefer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-08-04 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Read this!
Chapter -III- Race Hygiene: Three Bush Family Alliances

Snip>

Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir to the Proctor and Gamble soap fortune, was the sterilizers' national field operations chief.

The experiment worked as follows. All children enrolled in the school district of Winston-Salem, N.C., were given a special `` intelligence test. '' Those children who scored below a certain arbitrary low mark were then cut open and surgically sterilized.

We quote now from the official story of the project


In Winston-Salem and in Orange County, North Carolina, the field committee had participated in testing projects to identify school age children who should be considered for sterilization. The project in Orange County was conducted by the University of North Carolina and was financed by a `Mr. Hanes,' a friend of Clarence Gamble and supporter of the field work project in North Carolina. The Winston-Salem project was also financed by Hanes. '' <`` Hanes '' was underwear mogul James Gordon Hanes, a trustee of Bowman Gray Medical School and treasurer of Alice Gray's group>....

The medical school had a long history of interest in eugenics and had compiled extensive histories of families carrying inheritable disease. In 1946, Dr. C. Nash Herndon ... made a statement to the press on the use of sterilization to prevent the spread of inheritable diseases.... MORE

http://www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm

Go read the entire thing and wonder what these monsters might have made some of their soap out of! Did they use their Buddy Adolf's secret recipe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC