Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fashion... In Depth' started by HeatherAnne, Mar 10, 2018.
LOL. California is such a sh*thole.
Hang on, why? Lol. thought they'd get everyone's stamp of approval on this!
I understand the fur debate is divisive, but surely there aren't actually people out there who condone animal testing? I know there are other equally pressing issues in your state, but can we applaud them for this move, specifically?
I do need to know more about 'enforcement' and what will happen to all the products currently on the shelves which were tested on animals. How will they get rid of it?
^^Clearly, the state legislature puts animal welfare weellllllll above human welfare.
Sure, the state is rotting, cities are falling apart, housing prices skyrocket, traffic is getting worse by the day, roads are potholed to crumbles, trash and litter are everywhere, homeless are taking over the streets and subsequent health crises arises because of said homeless, crime is being decriminalized, gotta spend an entire day in DMV hell to get REAL IDs, exorbitant sales taxes, etc, etc, etc...you name it.
But, YES!! NO MORE FUR AND NO MORE ANIMAL TESTED COSMETICS! I can finally sleep at night and only now can I say I am proud, PROUD, to be a Californian!!
^^^ But your real life issues are so boring and don’t trend well with the kidzzzzzzzzzzz
I don't want to start a debate on this but the animals that the law are protecting now have nothing to do with problems such as poverty or homelessness
^^When your house is on fire, it’s not the time to fix the leaky sink.
Enforcing this new law cuts into the state's budget.
I’m not familiar with the protocols of California’s individual city council procedures and operations, but it’s not a blind supposition to conclude that legislations require dedicated enforcement by the state’s official personnel (otherwise it’s just a hollow gimmicky slogan on an expensive tee by Maria Grazia). Personnel that are on the payroll of the state. A payroll that cuts into the resources of the state’s (city) budget. Fundings that will be (further) cut from the overwhelming and immediate needs that dior outlined.
As far as I’m concerned, stricter legislations need to be enforced and imposed on the beauty industry— which is a luxury and privilege and not a necessity. But when it comes to the needs and rights of people to the needs and rights of animals, I’m putting people as a top priority.
But that's a moral opinion, Phuel. Your moral opinion, which yes, of course, you're entitled to. But the state of California clearly doesn't agree with that and has decided to take this minor step to ensure some degree of quality life for these animals. This is not in aid of people because products tested don't actually harm people in any way, but it does harm animals. Can't you grant animals this one measly right?
I do agree that stricter laws need to be enforced in the beauty industry.
^^So, here in LA...if you had to choose between giving your attention to a human being literally rotting on the street, and a lab rat, you’d pick the lab rat to save first.
It’s no longer a personal moral issue.
The state of California passed the legislation and that absolutely makes it a legal— which means it needs to be enforced… which will cut into state/city funding; unless the legislation is going to be upheld and enforced by volunteers and donations LOOOL It’s not a morality issue anymore, Benn. It’s a state /city issue. And California is already proposing federal funding from the government, despite it being one of the most insanely taxed states— with a huge poverty/homeless epidemic.
Ah.. I have to remind myself this is a fashion forum and can't really push for a lot of critical thinking in politics and I also already repeated this in the previous page but, both things matter, it's not one or the other, that's not how a government works... ever. Anywhere. Or a democracy for that matter. I also know there's a certain age in life in which, if wired from early on to the thought process of fallacies informed through ordinary visuals as opposed to research and scrutinized data ('is a dumpster on fire and is the tap card machine not working and making me waste my precious time? this city is therefore getting worse and losing sight of what's important!'), there really isn't much to debate and you might as well find some consolation back in Breitbart, but, as I said in the previous page and from my experience having lived/worked in Central LA/Westside, people do care about these issues and these people donate money and vote with the expectation their issues (as invalid or laughable as they may seem to others) will be addressed, and the ruling party makes sure of that because, you guess..
There are also the duties of the government and then the duties of a [hopefully] politicized citizen. One of them is information. The homeless crisis is complex. It's not just housing or gentrification. Take the pharmaceutical/health care variable out of the equation and it will decline, or perhaps disappear altogether, pretty sure that's the dependable variable. I have been to some pretty poor areas of this planet, have seen lack of housing affordability and their usual consequences (migration and illegal settlements), but never seen people removed so immediately and aggressively from all dignity as a human being as I have while I lived in the US and it's having turned everything (from essential things like food to human "mistakes" such as catching bronchitis) into a commodity and if you can't afford it, it strangles you and drugs you and throws you onto a sidewalk all within days. You can blame California for that, but any life experience outside the US or maybe some traveling will tell you: it's the country. You can try fixing that by informing your vote. But if you can't wait for that and it makes you so grumpy you do care more about rats at this point, then maybe move out like I did lol.
^^^ It’s absolutely too complex an issue with poverty/homelessness (and that’s not going into the alarming population of abandoned dogs and cats)— and the horrifyingly deteriorating state of healthcare for those unfortunate to not be able to afford premium health insurance, not just in California, but in the US: You’re not kidding when you stated that a case of bronchitis will wipe out someone’s savings. I have a lot to complain about with Canada (and it’s almost mostly to do with it being a barren wasteland when it comes to the fashion industry because we are on a fashion forum), but thank god for Canada's healthcare system's dignified accessibility to every citizen that needs it (thus far…).
(BTW, it may be easier for you and me to leave a place when we no longer find it worthy of our growth potential/livelihood. Unfortunately for many, it’s not even an option. Another complex issue that hasn’t a convenient solution. Sorry We Missed You is a great film that deals with the issue of a family desperate to escape living from meager paycheque to paycheque. They cannot even afford £1,000 for the downpayment for the essential vehicle that’s needed to kickstart the potential for a better life. It’s a very real dilemma that is sadly just another obstacle of life for countless families in our First World Nations. In a Third World Country, the entire family, kids included, would be working tirelessly to contribute to the family’s survival [hello sweatshop…]. Once again, too complex an issue to make simple judgement on the horrendous existence of sweatshops, as it provides a readily available income for the survival of many families in these countries.)
But I just cannot understand why a law in aid of animal rights (who btw, cannot fend for themselves and have no agency - ugh, damn you for making me sound like a Peta nut!) is deemed fluffy and unnecessary and therefore cannot coexist next to all the other priorities. I also think people don't seem to realise why they've made this decision? The law involves animal testing in the cosmetic industry, a sector that needs to be pulled into line. Cosmetics are not a necessity. The entire situation becomes magnified by the fact that most beauty products are not considered safe to use after a year, and you cannot imagine the number of unsold items removed from the shelves and being disposed of in one way or the other. So why must animals bear the brunt and go through physical torture just because you want a body wash or an eye cream that ticks all the boxes, or worst-case scenario, for a bunch of products which will end up in a landfill?
Furthermore, I may not live in LA but I refuse to believe the state is doing absolutely nothing about the social issues or letting people rot on the street while rushing to save a lab rat. As it is, there's a laundry list of new legislation being passed this month, especially the housing ones which would impact the homeless situation directly. Now you can pull those apart or pick holes in them, but you can't say lawmakers are passive. Dealing with those who have fallen onto hard times is not as practical as one may think. You need to focus on the contributing factors....education, wages, benefits, housing and so forth.
Also, a few posts back in this thread someone alluded to people being dropped off at bus stops. Whether that is a greater conspiracy to cripple the 'Golden State's' social system and ultimately make them look bad or just a sort of craftiness to pass your own troubles onto someone else, I don't know. But, try this for size. What if it's actually out of people's own free will to move about and rather head to LA because according to them the city is more prosperous and promising, the weather is better, and so you would have a greater chance at luck or at best, survival?
Listen...I’m not for animal cruelty.
The truth of the matter is California, and LA and SF in particular, are progressive bastions with total political hegemony.
Because of their complete and uncontested political control - of which they’ve had for many decades - they have no one to blame for the disasters but themselves. And unfortunately no one will face that ugly truth that they’ve let these cities fall apart on their own watches. If they wanted to solve the problem, they would. Because the problem is entirely solvable with conviction. It just requires tough decisions to be made. It’s not a matter of it taking time to resolve because it’s incomprehensibly complex...it’s gotten severely worse of the last 30 years...that’s a lot of time that the problem could have been solved in. No excuse is adequate at this point in my eyes.
They come up with a million ridiculous reasons here in California why nothing has been done, and somehow always have someone else to blame...but the problems continue to get worse. I see it every day.
I know he’s a controversial figure currently, but what California needs is a Rudy Giuliani - who transformed overnight New York City from the seediest, most drug infested, rotting, crime addled, mugging and murder capitol of America into an entirely livable and safe, clean city.
This is my home...I’m a fourth generation Californian. I don’t want to leave, but at a certain point, what is one to do?
So, when I see the misery and destruction on the streets in real time, it really is so puzzling how anyone can consciously argue the old “walk and chew gum”...because so far, all I’ve experienced is the banning of plastic straws and plastic grocery bags while simultaneously the litter on the streets has become exponentially more aggressive and fur and animal testing banned while simultaneously the homeless rot on the streets, naked and covered in lesions and open sores. No one is “walking and chewing gum,” here. Believe me.
It’s like I said before...when your house is on fire, it’s not the time to fix the leaky sink.