Animal Testing

[(MOR)]

nice, ave mor

Ave MVPE

Fued I am a Moroccan and I do not speak English, but I try to discuss, communicate with you then try to understand me.
The difference you see my sentences with a more direct, then to understand just trying to see the sentence of many side..

I understand that, but try to understand where I am coming from in the matter. What you are saying (as in the words that you are writing) do not make any sense. You may be using English words, but the manner in which you are using them doesn't make any sense.

When not a single native English speaker has any idea what you are talking about, maybe you should consider that the problem isn't on our end.

Yes, the way that I speak is not clear, and I use metaphors to give the sentences an avriable meaningful but as you say I use it with a false way.

Sorry about that, and my goal is to participate on the subject with my views, not to make trouble..

But any subject fate of our existence, then to understand the reality of a thing we must first understand the root, the source of this thing.

[xander]

Yes, the way that I speak is not clear, and I use metaphors to give the sentences an avriable meaningful but as you say I use it with a false way.

Metaphors translate poorly. Don't use them if you are not comfortable with the language. Say things as simply as you can, with as few words as possible. It is much harder to miss the meaning if you do so.

xander

[(MOR)]

Yes, the way that I speak is not clear, and I use metaphors to give the sentences an avriable meaningful but as you say I use it with a false way.

Metaphors translate poorly. Don't use them if you are not comfortable with the language. Say things as simply as you can, with as few words as possible. It is much harder to miss the meaning if you do so.

xander

You are right Xander, I think I will subscribe in a center for learning English, as that way you will not worry to understand me

Sorry again and thanks to everyone.

[wwarnick]

You're fine.

wwarnick

[All American Mobster]

One might say that's a double post, but they're different. If it was intentional, I'm curious why one would do that. If it was accidental, I'm curious how.

wwarnick

No, i just figured out how to quote. Before, i copied and pasted in the Quotes. But I already posted the first one, and then i fugured out how to do it, so I posted a second, and I wanted to delete the first one, but i couldnt, so I didnt know what to post there. Sorry about that



-$tanley

[wwarnick]

No problem. I was just confused why the quotes were different. Besides, it amused me.

wwarnick

[All American Mobster]

It amuses you to see people do stupid stuff?



-$tanley

[wwarnick]

No, it was the oddity of seeing two almost-identical posts with only one tiny difference. It was like one of those "Can you spot 5 differences between the two pictures?", only it was a post in a forum.

wwarnick

[walrus47]

Ok, well obviously the majority of people on here are pro testing for medical reasons. What does anyone think about testing for cosmetic reasons?

[Rkiver]

I'd be against that. Animals will not be wearing them by choice. If people want the latest and greatest, test it on them.

[MikeTheWookiee]

This may be controversial.

We'd all like to know, if we got some of that deodorant in our eye, or accidentally swallowed some of that shampoo, what the chances of losing the eye are / how lethal it may be / should I induce vomiting or not? 'Cause let's face it, they put all kinds of crap into cosmetics these days without really knowing what they do.

For instance *grabs deodorant can* WTF is 'corn starch modified' doing in there? Aside from that and the propane / butane accelerants, the health effects of the vast array of weird and wonderful chemicals in the can (I counted 25 different things) were at some point in time, unknown. Someone has at some point had to test all those ingredients, singly and combined, for lethality, risk of permanent damage to various organs etc, risk of irritation of membranes, combination with other external substances, etc.

Also remember that whenever they change the formulation (say if the price of an ingredient went sky high, or if they wanted a new colour / smell, or if the EU decided to ban ingredient X, etc), you'd have to conduct all the tests again, just to be on the safe side.

Now that's a lot of testing. If you're going to trot out the standard Daily Mail retort, we'd have to convict an awful lot of murderers, rapists, and paedophiles to get enough test subjects. Animals are the only alternative, really. Or smelling, of course.

[wwarnick]

...should I induce vomiting or not?

No. You should not.

wwarnick