You have not yet responded to the forum.

Here you will find the last 3 forum topics
you have posted a comment on.
+ add shout
Private
 Shiitake was the first mushroom to be cultivated, about 1,000 years ago in China
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
0%
To react to the daily news you need to be logged in.

Click here to register your own account for free and I will personally explain to you how you can start getting your own fans and, making popdollars.
> Close
Helper
Game statistics
Daily news
Competitions
Game Explanation
FAQ page
23 of the 24 stars earned
Daily news
Animal Testing (by Rosalie )

Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. This is called animal testing, and I want today to inform you guys about some brands that are testing on animals and some brands that aren't - in that way maybe you will look out for some brands that aren't testing on animals in the future! I also want to thank Baileyyrosee for this layout! (:
- MAC Cosmetics
- Estée Lauder
- L'Oréal Paris
- Maybelline
- Revlon
- Stila
- Bobbi Brown
- Covergirl
- Benefit
- Chanel
- Clinique
- Clarins
- Dior
- Guerlain
- Lancome
- Laura Mercier
- Max Factor
- Yves Saint Laurent
- Marc Jacobs
- Tom Ford
- Dove
- Vaseline
- Nivea
- EOS
- Too Faced
- theBalm
- Anastasia Beverly Hills
- BH Cosmetics
- Becca
- Jeffree Star
- Kat Von D
- ColourPop Cosmetics
- Makeup geek
- EcoTools
- elf Cosmetics
- Lime Crime
- Lush
- NYX
- Milani
- Sigma
Poll: Do you buy products from brands that are testing on animals?
Show results


Place reaction

Comment on the article Animal Testing.
Place message
Report | Quote | X
Aphex wrote on 28-09 19:57:
Aphex wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Aphex wrote:
Euforia wrote:
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison

agree
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.

testing on other living beings, who want to be happy like humans, is already quite crazy isn't it? And if scientists think it's too expensive for them to test without harming any living beings then they may as well use serial killers etc.
Report | Quote | X
Aphex wrote on 28-09 19:42:
Aphex wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Aphex wrote:
Euforia wrote:
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison

agree
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.

testing on other living beings, who want to be happy like humans, is already quite crazy isn't it? And if scientists think it's too expensive for them to test without harming any living beings then they may as well use serial killers etc.
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 28-09 19:34:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Euforia wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.
i can't call them ppl if they killed some1 srry not sorry
peo·pleˈpēpəl/noun1.human beings in general or considered collectively."the earthquake killed 30,000 people"[table]synonyms:human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages,men, women, and children; informalfolks"crowds of people"[/table][table][/table][table][/table][table][/table]2.the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
Basically, by definition, they are people. If you refuse to call them that, it is at your own ignorance of the English language.
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 28-09 19:34:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Euforia wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Aphex wrote:

agree
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.
i can't call them ppl if they killed some1 srry not sorry
peo·pleˈpēpəl/noun1.human beings in general or considered collectively."the earthquake killed 30,000 people"[table]synonyms:human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages,men, women, and children; informalfolks"crowds of people"[/table][table][/table][table][/table][table][/table]2.the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 28-09 05:15:
JennaLove12 wrote:
 And some other  stuff mac is very rare for me XD
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 28-09 05:12:
JennaLove12 wrote:
 I use too faced
Report | Quote | X
Euforia wrote on 27-09 17:29:
Euforia wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Aphex wrote:
Euforia wrote:
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison

agree
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.
i can't call them ppl if they killed some1 srry not sorry :)
Report | Quote | X
Kaitlin wrote on 26-09 21:25:
Kaitlin wrote:
 This is really good. Although, NYX is owned by L'Oreal I believe or some other company that tests. I'm pretty sure it's L'Oreal though. I know there's a big discussion on whether or not you should still support those brands owned by companies that test. 
Cosmetic companies that test on animals make me so angry. It's more expensive for them to test on animals anyway, but people are fucking stupid so
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 26-09 21:11:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Aphex wrote:
Euforia wrote:
Noon wrote:

but if we didn't have anything to test it on then we could risk our own lives and to our own minds we are the highest evolution and supposedly the smartest so why waste human life when we can test on animals which have much more population than us so we could end up killing our race ( at extreme rates) if we test it on our self but animals are kept in special facilities where disease cant spread so I think this should be allowed
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison

agree
Y'all are actually freaking crazy if you think that testing on people with rights should ever be allowed.
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 21:03:
Rosalie wrote:
Noon wrote:

but if we didn't have anything to test it on then we could risk our own lives and to our own minds we are the highest evolution and supposedly the smartest so why waste human life when we can test on animals which have much more population than us so we could end up killing our race ( at extreme rates) if we test it on our self but animals are kept in special facilities where disease cant spread so I think this should be allowed
well It’s bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans - so that means that all the suffering was for nothing and alternative testing technologies exist so we actually have no reasons for testing on animals other than its cheaper and we humans simply doesn't care for other creatures when it comes to money (:
Report | Quote | X
Aphex wrote on 26-09 20:23:
Aphex wrote:
Euforia wrote:
Noon wrote:

but if we didn't have anything to test it on then we could risk our own lives and to our own minds we are the highest evolution and supposedly the smartest so why waste human life when we can test on animals which have much more population than us so we could end up killing our race ( at extreme rates) if we test it on our self but animals are kept in special facilities where disease cant spread so I think this should be allowed
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison

agree
Report | Quote | X
Euforia wrote on 26-09 20:19:
Euforia wrote:
Noon wrote:

but if we didn't have anything to test it on then we could risk our own lives and to our own minds we are the highest evolution and supposedly the smartest so why waste human life when we can test on animals which have much more population than us so we could end up killing our race ( at extreme rates) if we test it on our self but animals are kept in special facilities where disease cant spread so I think this should be allowed
they can try on criminals or person witch are in prison :)
Report | Quote | X
Aphex wrote on 26-09 19:10:
Aphex wrote:
 I love this, leave animals alone.
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 26-09 18:59:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Samra wrote:
Rosalie wrote:
Samra wrote:
If the animals are treated well it's okay for me.
thats the thing tho, they aren't at all treated well /:
I know... that's just too bad. You should make an article about the fur industry - gosh I'm so against that too
Eh, I might be a vegeterian but I have to have my fur. 
Report | Quote | X
Noon wrote on 26-09 18:47:
Noon wrote:
but if we didn't have anything to test it on then we could risk our own lives and to our own minds we are the highest evolution and supposedly the smartest so why waste human life when we can test on animals which have much more population than us so we could end up killing our race ( at extreme rates) if we test it on our self but animals are kept in special facilities where disease cant spread so I think this should be allowed
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 16:25:
Rosalie wrote:
Tonyx wrote:
fuck jeffree star tho
i dont like him, but i like the fact that his products are vegan and aren't testing on animals
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 16:24:
Rosalie wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:
Rosalie wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:
isn't the body shop supposed to be there like
they're so international too
OBSOBS: the body shop has started to sell in China! This means that they have to test on animals, because you aren't allowed to sell something in China without testing on animals. 
wtf
does that mean like
they test it on animals no matter where they sell it?
that means that they test on animals for the products that also are selling in china. for example: if they are coming with a new mascara they also are launching in china - they have to test it on animals to be able to launch it in china together with all the other countries 
Report | Quote | X
Tonyx wrote on 26-09 16:03:
Tonyx wrote:
 fuck jeffree star tho
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 16:00:
Rosalie wrote:
Vodkalight wrote:
Millions? Do you have a source on that?
of course! every year more than 100 million animals are tested on, you can check for yourself on every website that writes about animal testing (I recommend peta.org)
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 15:58:
Rosalie wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:
isn't the body shop supposed to be there like
they're so international too
OBSOBS: the body shop has started to sell in China! This means that they have to test on animals, because you aren't allowed to sell something in China without testing on animals. 
Report | Quote | X
Pliopi wrote on 26-09 15:51:
Pliopi wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:
Pliopi wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:

thebodyshop.fi/fi/
www.lush.fi/

you can get elf makeups from the pharmacy
so
yeah
Yeah I knew about those two :'D
But body shop is way too expensive for me, and Lush is way too far away (I live in Tampere, and the only(?) lush shop is in Hlesinki, right?)

But hey thanks for the elf information c:

(Btw I said they don't sell that many no-animal-testing makeup brands. I didn't say that they don't sell any of those here)
omg i read any, not many
anteeksi lukihärö
Aah yeah that's understandable :d (Eipä mitää c: )
But hey there was something good too: now I know that elf is sold here in Finland too c:
Report | Quote | X
Pliopi wrote on 26-09 15:48:
Pliopi wrote:
Mmimousa wrote:
Pliopi wrote:
How funny that last week I searched on internet what brand test on animals and what don't, and now this   (Tho this is better than any of those lists I found)

The only problem is that they don't sell many of those no-animal-testing makeup brands here in Finland :/  (But then again, I don't really use makeup so yay for me)

thebodyshop.fi/fi/
www.lush.fi/

you can get elf makeups from the pharmacy
so
yeah
Yeah I knew about those two :'D
But body shop is way too expensive for me, and Lush is way too far away (I live in Tampere, and the only(?) lush shop is in Hlesinki, right?)

But hey thanks for the elf information c:

(Btw I said they don't sell that many no-animal-testing makeup brands. I didn't say that they don't sell any of those here)
Report | Quote | X
Vodkalight wrote on 26-09 15:39:
Vodkalight wrote:
 Millions? Do you have a source on that?
Report | Quote | X
ChoiSooyoung wrote on 26-09 15:37:
ChoiSooyoung wrote:
 A very informative article 😊
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 26-09 15:17:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
Rosalie wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
maybe we should actually be worried about the people who actually kill animals to eat them instead ??
im a vegan myself, so I really wanted to focus on that too - but I thought I could start with animal testing and then move on to animal cruelty later (:
GOOD YOU
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 15:12:
Rosalie wrote:
Samra wrote:
If the animals are treated well it's okay for me.
thats the thing tho, they aren't at all treated well /:
Report | Quote | X
Rosalie wrote on 26-09 15:11:
Rosalie wrote:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
maybe we should actually be worried about the people who actually kill animals to eat them instead ??
im a vegan myself, so I really wanted to focus on that too - but I thought I could start with animal testing and then move on to animal cruelty later (:
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 26-09 14:57:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
 maybe we should actually be worried about the people who actually kill animals to eat them instead ??
Report | Quote | X
Fjant wrote on 26-09 14:54:
Fjant wrote:
 i dont use makeup bc its rather annoying to keep up with every single day
Report | Quote | X
INFECTIOUS wrote on 26-09 14:44:
INFECTIOUS wrote:
 of course i don't wear makeup
i'm a boy
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 26-09 14:42:
Nanami wrote:
 I use makeup that is not tested on animals. But then make up, I almost never. Just when I was going away, party or so.I can not stand makeup. My eyes water and itch, so can not have make-up so long.
Report | Quote | X
Pliopi wrote on 26-09 14:40:
Pliopi wrote:
 How funny that last week I searched on internet what brand test on animals and what don't, and now this :d  (Tho this is better than any of those lists I found)

The only problem is that they don't sell many of those no-animal-testing makeup brands here in Finland :/  (But then again, I don't really use makeup so yay for me)
Report | Quote | X
Private wrote on 26-09 14:37:
Masami wrote:
 This is good


News archive
NT Magazine: September30-09-2021 17:00
The 5th Thule Expedition25-09-2021 15:00
Cuisine Around The World20-09-2021 17:00
DA: Annie15-09-2021 18:00
History of Fashion: VP Trends05-09-2021 15:00
NT Magazine: August31-08-2021 17:30
DA: Talent25-08-2021 16:00
The Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games20-08-2021 14:30
India Independence Day15-08-2021 13:00
Tokyo Olympics 202010-08-2021 16:00
Young Royals05-08-2021 14:00
NT Magazine: July31-07-2021 18:00
NT: WEBTOON 25-07-2021 23:30
DA: Bug20-07-2021 16:00
Le Tour de France15-07-2021 17:00
The Swedish Royal Family10-07-2021 18:00
The Indiana Bell Building05-07-2021 17:00
NT Magazine: June30-06-2021 17:00
The History of Sunglasses25-06-2021 15:00
DA: DUCKBOY20-06-2021 16:00
LGBTQ+ icons throughout history15-06-2021 23:59
Hatshepsut: The Queen who became a King10-06-2021 18:00
World Environment Day05-06-2021 22:00
NT Magazine: May31-05-2021 18:00
Meet The New NT Members25-05-2021 17:00
Previous | Page: | Next
© 2024 Terms of Use