Beauty is in the Photoshop of the Beholder
I surrender, ads can be beneficial to society. Here’s an ad campaign, designed to make women realise that they are put to unfair standarts by the other advertisers and are brainwashed to buy diets, fitness utensils, cosmetics and so on in order to compensate for their non-fashionable looks, hair color, body structure, etc. Funny thought, it seems that on the other hand the company behind the campaign also wants the said women to buys their cosmetics.
While pondering who are the good and the bad guys in the realms of selling cheap chemicals in expensive wrappings, just enjoy the message of the campaign, at least it is true.
http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/
Beauty is also blood and suffering. Here’s an another campaign, this time by a Czech animal rights organisation . If you think these images are disgusting, go and browse a bit their site for images of real lab animals. The photoshop work was too mild.
The numbers in those posters, 300000, refer to hurt animals only in the Czech republic! Think of what happens with lab animals on a global scale. I’m not saying that animals should not be used for biology studies or drug testing or work force or food. But I damned well put the line at cosmetics. Here’s a list of subhuman companies according to the organisation.
Nasty, huh:/
I agree on drawing the line on cosmetics. However, it’s a fuzzy line because ‘white cosmetics’ (night creams, lotions, etc.) may be said to be health products.
Off: I would like to be made photoshop beautiful, at least once:D
Comment by haz — 26 October 2006, Thursday @ 16:54
As I understood how cosmetic testing is done, animal testing can be (oversimplifying here) replaced by human work over the microscope. There is no reason this shouldn’t be done with whatever color cosmetics as well.
Animals are being replaced as a research item in other areas as well, there are several “virtual animals” available for dissection studies on a computer. Also, testing medicine on animals is maybe not very viable, as they have different biochemical mechanisms than a human patient. I don’t think that leaves many valid non-food related uses of animals.
> I would like to be made photoshop beautiful, at least once:D
No you don’t, that’s just your social programming speaking :)
Comment by Mordred — 27 October 2006, Friday @ 10:22
And here’s PETA’s list of companies that do/don’t test on animals:
http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp
Comment by Mordred — 27 October 2006, Friday @ 11:58
How teh fok can they do this to animals! cheeky priks!
Comment by Hannah — 24 April 2007, Tuesday @ 11:43
errrrr dat is fucking minging what they are doing to those poor animals its distgusting their hould be a betta way of testing costmetics than doin it too poor animals
Comment by EMMA — 24 April 2007, Tuesday @ 11:45
plus offering extras which can announce this kind of the main benefit of the skepticism.
Comment by James — 12 March 2018, Monday @ 08:27