Vicky Hall and IAMS

[Christine (Blip)]

How about the notion that if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are?  In any hypothetical company facing consumer protest, I mean...
 

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity  ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.

I think that's anthropomorphising companies. A company is an entity the structure, directors and employees of which change over time; today's cynics may not be there tomorrow.  Also I take a pragmatic view: if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are.

It is absolutely anthropomorphising companies, but it is the only way I could explain what I thought in an non-litigious manner on the board.


 

[Christine (Blip)]

I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity  ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.

I think that's anthropomorphising companies. A company is an entity the structure, directors and employees of which change over time; today's cynics may not be there tomorrow.  Also I take a pragmatic view: if the end result is desirable, it's beside the point what the motives of the current board are.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

J gave her opinion, Catbird at http://www.purrsinourhearts.co.uk/index.php/topic,18833.msg320034.html#msg320034 - did you see that one?

J and I agree on a lot of things, but I take a different view to her on this.  I think that if a company changes its policies, then it should be judged on what it currently does, not what it has done in the past.  It might have completely new management: it might be responding to shareholder pressure.  Either way, if the result is beneficial, then there is no reason to continue to berate it or boycott its products.  If we do, where is the incentive for other companies to clean up their corporate acts?

I actually agree with this for the most part, in so much as if a company changes it's policies I will support them generally, ie, many companies have drastically changed their position on cosmetics and household products testing and I do support them now.

I suppose I apply what I apply to humans ( as corporations are treated as human entities under USA Law I suppose this has some validity  ) - Ie, with regard to human mistakes, I feel if someone has been caught out and is not sorry but just sorry to be caught I react differently to if they are caught out and are genuinely sorry.

[Desley (booktigger)]

i too believe they should be given a second chance, and I dont believe that Iams still test -the majority of websites about it are years old, and I can't see that they would be stupid enough to continue after all the reports. I still wont feed Iams though, but due to the fact I dont think the ingredients are worth the money, nothing else, and that is what i tell people

[Christine (Blip)]

J gave her opinion, Catbird at http://www.purrsinourhearts.co.uk/index.php/topic,18833.msg320034.html#msg320034 - did you see that one?

J and I agree on a lot of things, but I take a different view to her on this.  I think that if a company changes its policies, then it should be judged on what it currently does, not what it has done in the past.  It might have completely new management: it might be responding to shareholder pressure.  Either way, if the result is beneficial, then there is no reason to continue to berate it or boycott its products.  If we do, where is the incentive for other companies to clean up their corporate acts?

[Catbird]

Presumably if a person thus educated sticks around, they are forgiven their old uneducated ways, BUT would this attitude be extended to a corporation such as Iams?  I am genuinely interested in this question - does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?

C.

So, having read Vicky Hall's email, it seems that there is another side to this.  Assuming that what she says is correct (and I have no reason to doubt her) can I ask my question again?  Does the corporate wrongdoer get forgiven?  If not, what is the purpose of continuing to berate them - what is it intended to achieve?

Sorry this is late but I have been away for a few days.

C.

[moiramassey]

but typical of comments made by people who have never tried any of these type of therapies

I believe that many alternative remedies and treatments are effective. It is homeopathy that I think is totally ineffective (except for a placebo effect in humans).

As for finding what I wrote condescending, it was merely a description of what I think, like many other such descriptions in this thread.

I support your right to react to it as much as my right to express it.

[Ela]

  I don't think I ever said dry food causes CRF, there are many factors that contribute to CRF

I appreciate that but thought I would add it for good measure if someone did .

Sorry Ela, I don't mean to be harsh, but dry food never has been and never will be an appropriate food for a cat (so called 'good quality' or otherwise)

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I actually think there are some very good quality dried foods and know often our vets have advised a certain type for a certain problem.

[Gillian Harvey]

I don't think that's fair, Mark.  You may disagree with Moira's remarks, but it's difficult to see them as patronising.

I thought them rather patronising too, but typical of comments made by people who have never tried any of these type of therapies.

I do feed some cats dried food and do not think I have very little awareness. I find that comment a little harsh.  My vet prescribes dried food for certain problems and I will continue to take my vets advice and also feed certain cats  'good quality' dried food that they enjoy. I will also say that many of our cats live into their late teens and twenties and have a happy lifestyle. We also have as many cats with CRF that have only ever been fed on wet food as those that have a mixed diet.

Sorry Ela, I don't mean to be harsh, but dry food never has been and never will be an appropriate food for a cat (so called 'good quality' or otherwise)  thats not just my opnion - it is fact, based on the cat being an obligate carniovre. I do also give my cats some dry food - as a treat, but never consider it the right sort of diet to feed exclusively. As to cats getting CRF,  I don't think I ever said dry food causes CRF, there are many factors that contribute to CRF.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.

Well quite. While I am definitely in the ' generally prefer the company of animals to people ' camp, even I must admit that should my daughter and one of my cats be sat in the road with a very fast very large van approaching, instinct / that pesky selfish gene would drive me to push my daughter out of the way first, despite the fact I could not love my cats more. ( However I wouldn't hold out much hope for certain adult persons <no-one here> should they be sat next to my cat and the van was approaching ).  .

[Mark]

I don't think likening someone's belief in alternative therapy to believing the world is flat is very fair either.

[Christine (Blip)]

Very patronising

I don't think that's fair, Mark.  You may disagree with Moira's remarks, but it's difficult to see them as patronising.

[Mark]

Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.

No, I have never taken a homeopathic remedy. I have never used acupuncture either, but I can rationalise acupunture having an effect by inducing endorphins or a direct response in the nervous system. The idea of serially diluting a toxic substance until it is present in vanishingly small amounts, in all probability not even one molecule present, and the solvent maintaining some effect in an animal (beyond that of the solvent alone) just does not fit with my view of the world (I studied Biochemsitry and taught Chemistry for years). For me, it belong alongside 'the Earth is flat'. However, I respect other people's right to believe in it and, as someone who is committed to a scientific view of the world, I accept that there is always a possibility that I am wrong and that my current view of the world is not correct. There is also a very tiny possibilty that the Earth is flat and my currect reality is being fed into my brain through a wire. It doesn't seem very likely though.

Very patronising


I know nothing about homeopathy but if i was pure mumbo jumbo, why would the NHS approve of it.
http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/trust/tru_nhs.html

[Hannikat]

damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!!

Gee thanks for that 

Awww Den I'm only jesting   

As for likening Mark's suggestion of using criminals it's taking it a bit far likening the jest with extremism don't you think?

I can't even remember what the original topic was about anymore either 

[Ela]

If someone like her supports that company and that type of food - she has very little awareness in my eyes.

While I may  not support the company, I do feed some cats dried food and do not think I have very little awareness. I find that comment a little harsh.  My vet prescribes dried food for certain problems and I will continue to take my vets advice and also feed certain cats  'good quality' dried food that they enjoy. I will also say that many of our cats live into their late teens and twenties and have a happy lifestyle. We also have as many cats with CRF that have only ever been fed on wet food as those that have a mixed diet.

[barney]

Surely all the animal medications that are prescribed by our vets, wether it be flea repellents, worming pills, antibiotics  or whatever must at some stage be tested on an animal in a laboratory somewhere. In an ideal world it would be nice if there were no need for such places. So next time you go and get your furry friends vaccinated, purchase flea treatments or medication treatment for tiddles one of his/hers distant relatives has been tested in a lab and theres no getting away from that.

[moiramassey]

Good point about humans being animals. Correct of course. I should have said that I value human animals' lives over other animal species' lives.

No, I have never taken a homeopathic remedy. I have never used acupuncture either, but I can rationalise acupunture having an effect by inducing endorphins or a direct response in the nervous system. The idea of serially diluting a toxic substance until it is present in vanishingly small amounts, in all probability not even one molecule present, and the solvent maintaining some effect in an animal (beyond that of the solvent alone) just does not fit with my view of the world (I studied Biochemsitry and taught Chemistry for years). For me, it belong alongside 'the Earth is flat'. However, I respect other people's right to believe in it and, as someone who is committed to a scientific view of the world, I accept that there is always a possibility that I am wrong and that my current view of the world is not correct. There is also a very tiny possibilty that the Earth is flat and my currect reality is being fed into my brain through a wire. It doesn't seem very likely though.

[Mark]

I'm not saying people like it but they accept it and think it is justified somehow.

Some things are worse than others ie the article that I linked to that mentioned experiments that were allegedly carried out at Aberdeen University. Completely pointless and cruel beyond belief.

[hOrZa]

I wouldn't say generally as I know of no one that likes it, but it's the coming generations that can stop it as this current climate encourages wealth above all else

[Mark]

I was playing devil's advocate. I knew there would be a response but I find it sad that it is "generally" accepted that it is OK to mutilate animals to help people.

[hOrZa]

Strange that there wasn't such a response when the subjects are innocent animals.

I was not advocting vivisection either. but how is experimenting on people any better than experimenting on animals

[Mark]

Strange that there wasn't such a response when the subjects are innocent animals.

[Den]

I'm just disturbed at the comments advocating extremism and the fact Mengele had to be raised again

You aren't the only one 

[hOrZa]

I'm just disturbed at the comments advocating extremism and the fact Mengele had to be raised again

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start

I understand your concern, hOrZa, but I am sure our members won't be so immature as to indulge in ad hominem attacks, however much they may disagree with one another.  You and I have discussed the subject of censorship before and I'm with you on that issue: I'd hate to stifle debate - even disagreement - because I do believe that people who haven't considered certain things find it interesting and informative to read different views.  I know I do.

But then I'm a woolly liberal and I think it imperative to defend everyone's right to free expression, however repugnant I may find their views.  I find I more than likely agree with them on other matters so attacking their opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking them.

Great post and I couldn't agree more, especially with your last paragraph, the last sentence particularly.

[Christine (Blip)]

yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start

I understand your concern, hOrZa, but I am sure our members won't be so immature as to indulge in ad hominem attacks, however much they may disagree with one another.  You and I have discussed the subject of censorship before and I'm with you on that issue: I'd hate to stifle debate - even disagreement - because I do believe that people who haven't considered certain things find it interesting and informative to read different views.  I know I do.

But then I'm a woolly liberal and I think it imperative to defend everyone's right to free expression, however repugnant I may find their views.  I find I more than likely agree with them on other matters so attacking their opinion doesn't mean I'm attacking them.

[hOrZa]

yea but can't even agree to disagree. its too late if personel attacks start

[Christine (Blip)]

( this subject should be persona non grata now and mods should just lock'em dead, because there is no way agreements are going to be reached

For me, the purpose of debate is to express conflicting opinions, hOrZa, not to reach agreement.  I for one debate not to convince people with the opposite point of view but to ensure that all views are aired so that those who have not considered certain aspects of any issue can develop their own thinking.

I won't censor this by locking it unless one member personally attacks another member, which has not happened so far, I am pleased to say.  If it does, I shall censure the offending poster.

[hOrZa]

It is an interesting idea, that we should perform medical tests on criminals.  But not a new one: those familiar with 20th Century history will be aware that a certain Dr Josef Mengele was responsible for a formidable body of work in this area.

Others who were deemed sub-human by the 'Thousand Year Reich' included of course Jewish people as well as the old, the very young, the mentally or physically disabled, the chronically ill, members of non-white ethnic groups and homosexuals.

I believe - well I certainly hope - that those purporting to support this proposal were doing so in a spirit of extreme irony.

I remember bringing this subject up the last time we all had this conversation but still it is needed to be brought up again this subject should be persona non grata now and mods should just lock'em dead, because there is no way agreements are going to be reached

[Christine (Blip)]

It is an interesting idea, that we should perform medical tests on criminals.  But not a new one: those familiar with 20th Century history will be aware that a certain Dr Josef Mengele was responsible for a formidable body of work in this area.

Others who were deemed sub-human by the 'Thousand Year Reich' included of course Jewish people as well as the old, the very young, the mentally or physically disabled, the chronically ill, members of non-white ethnic groups and homosexuals.

I believe - well I certainly hope - that those purporting to support this proposal were doing so in a spirit of extreme irony.

[Den]

damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!!

Gee thanks for that 

[Hannikat]

damn those dogooders........lets use them too!!!!!

[Mark]

It's not my idea. I think it has been considered but deemed unethical by dogooders.

I saw a quote from 1894 which is true yet to be be realised.

"There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of science as they now do the burning at the stake in the name of religion".
Henry J. Bigelow, MD, Surgical Anaesthesia:
Addresses, and other papers (1894)

From this American anti-vivisection society http://www.neavs.org/index.htm

[bunglycat]

Thats right , plenty of murderers , rapists and paedophiles to test on !

[Hannikat]

oooooo yes a like that idea Mark!!!! round up the really bad ones and test on them instead

[Mark]

Well there are plenty of convicted criminals - there's a good place to start.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

I don't think I am the right person to answer that question as I have no dealings with children.

What I meant was, why should it make any difference if it's "a poor child" or "a poor old person" - age is irrelevant.

My question had nothing to do with children or old people !  .

I would like to know what you would consider the right course of action should some terrible disease suddenly appear that started to wipe out the cat population and all our cats started to die, and it was evident that the entire feline population was about to be wiped out.

I respect your choice not to answer of course.  .

[Mark]

I don't think I am the right person to answer that question as I have no dealings with children.

What I meant was, why should it make any difference if it's "a poor child" or "a poor old person" - age is irrelevant.

[J (Indoorcatsuk)]

I amended my answer as it was meant tongue in cheek but I really don't get all the "what if a poor child" stuff. It makes no difference to me.

Ah right. OK.
I would have really liked an answer, because I think it's an interesting dilemma, and one I battled with myself when I held a position similar to yours many years ago.

I love cats and my child. Our children are the cat lovers and caretakers of the future.