They've properly pissed me off to be honest. In all honesty I think it's completely self serving. It's their speciality to "shock" I'm not thinking about animal testing, they've not raised my awareness of that, what they've done is raise the awareness of Lush. Obv only can speak for myself but thats how I see it.
When they did the same kind of stunt over sharks a few years ago it was utterly disgusting and showed absolutely no awareness or sensitivity to anyone really and the same goes this time, those who are squeamish wont' stop to be educated they'll be walking off as fast as they can. Those with children will spend god knows how long trying to explain a concept a small child should never have to be aware of in order to try and compensate the horror they've seen.
Whilst it has created some awareness of the issue, I really feel the shock tactic isn't that effective since so many people will refuse to look for fear of fainting. And why the hell should anyone have to deal with that whilst popping into the high street for a bag of Thorntons fudge.
The ignorant will choose to remain ignorant whatever horrors the egos at Lush choose to throw out next.
Urgh. Poor show Lush.
Oh and last point, I watched a bit live yesterday, it was for all the world like watching porn for the duration I watched. A friend even said to me "I've got that gag"....
I utterly agree with your stance on this. No issue at all with them raising awareness, but I made exactly the same point this morning about young children seeing this being inappropriate. In fact I emailed Lush to ask if they had considered this when they planned it. No answer yet.......
Charlie: did you see what I did there though? Not a single mention of a LUSH product. Can't stand the smell. I support the sentiment though but no self-serving on my blog!
I'm kind of the opposite, I like some Lush products, I dislike a lot of Lush products, am indifferent about the vast majority of items and I absolutely love a few things.
I don't want this kind of crap served up with my soap.
I agree with the above that a line was crossed. Did they ever think of the trigger this may have caused on sexual abuse victims who may have been passing.
Theres a difference between making awareness of a touchy subject and then performing a shop window display nothing more than a horror show. Lush pot rays itself as a family friendly run business but to subject young children to this is absolutely ludicrous. How is a mother to explain this to her children I ask? Lush crossed the line, yes they gained publicity but not in a good way they have damaged their image completely and I for one have lost a lot of respect.
The difference is that the woman consents to have these cruelties perpetrated upon her. I think it's an excellent campaign and I only hope it leads people to question their purchasing more carefully. Inform your children. These horrors are happening now. Your children (and my grandchildren) don't live in a Disney fantasy.
I'm afraid I believe that children ought to be protected to a certain degree. And sitting down and explaining to a five year old about animal testing is one thing...for them to see this? Nah, it ought to be at least a 12 rating.
A 5 year old should be busy being a child. Not subjected to the realities of the world. That will come all too soon anyway.
When I initially heard about this, but hadn't seen the pictures, I was a bit hesitant about what they were doing. Having now seen the pictures I think whoever did this needs firing- quickly! This is something that couldn't be shown on the TV or at least not pre-watershed or they would be absolutely hammered by Ofcom. Yet they have been allowed to put something like this in the window without any regulation or restriction? That isn't right.
So, since animal testing is already banned here where we live and vote then I guess Lush has a plan to challenge it in countries where it still exists like China? I mean what would be the point of raising awareness without an expectation that the people whose awareness you are raising could actually influence change? If they don't have a credible plan with realistic expected outcomes the this is just a publicity stunt. I've certainly crossed them off my list as a company I will ever purchase from again.
All day I have been wondering what would be your stance on it as I really value your opinion on all matters makeup and more than ever on big things like these (excuse my simple english here). It was lovely to read your balanced view for a company for products you don't actually like and it really shows that animal testing is an issue deep down to your heart. I am so glad you thought that the shop window display was a bit too far. I give it to Lush that they got people thinking but did they have to go that far, in a country where cosmetic testing is already banned? (thank you for educating us about the facts, I am so clueless about this) I feel that if you must shock like that {although I can't for the life of me ever condone such dramatic measures} I would have thought the better of Lush to have the balls to do it in a country like China, where animal practices are not only allowed but made compulsory.
I must know what Lush's petition was for and if their petition was for 'stop buying products which are animal tested' (since it can't be for 'make england stop testing on animals, since it's already banned here) then it needs to be taken with the big heads who allow the 'bad products' to be sold here.
If banning the commercialisation of products which are tested on animals is not happening, I can think of other tactiques which would work for me. Imagine you divided your typical superdrug/boots in 2: sections which would be clearly marked 'animal friendly' and the other section. This would definitely make people think, education to happen, parents to talk about with their loved ones, and most of all the shopper to make better shopping decisions.
There is a lot to be done on this issue, some decisions which need to be taken at the very top and I think that not only Lush's display is NOT going to help achieve that but worst: they are shotting themselves in the foot and turning people who are still learning about it all against the cause. If it had been my cause, there is no way I would have gone about it that way. I already feel bad when I fight for something which is dear to me on twitter (unimportant silly awareness issues like gfc button disappearing) in case that would could turn people off the issue completely by going too strongly about it. So there is no way I could live with playing with an important issue like animal testing like thst and take the risks of turning people off.
I hope I am not shocking my friends with my views but I am really am of a sensitive nature and for me this campaign was really a step too far. liloo/@tsunimee
Whole-heartedly agree with the above comment that shops could be sectioned off into 'animal-tested' and 'non-animal-tested' products; something like this would definately make me think twice. Wheras a shock-campaign as discussed would make me run a mile with my fingers stuck in my ears and my eyes screwed tight!
I like this post a lot, and I like your balanced view a lot. I disagree with many of the comments regarding women and sexual connotations... I really don't think that that was what Lush had in mind when they created a campaign against animal testing. I think it's a pity that people turn a positive campaign into something negative - it makes me wonder precisely what they do feel about cosmetic animal testing. As for it being a publicity stunt, well so what? Lush is cruelty-free, I am all for people buying their products. And I think that, as you highlighted so correctly in your post, people seem to live in a hazy dreamland where the UK doesn't sell anything that contains any animal-tested ingredients which makes this a publicity stunt/waste of time. And I am in two minds about children seeing this display - I think that children should be aware of the reality of animal testing, however I do agree that it would be disturbing for a child to witness such a display. Equally the campaign has done more for 'cruelty-free' than any non-shock campaign in my memory has - look how many people are talking about it! And to the people who found the display distasteful - a quick search of YouTube and you will find that far more horrific things happen to animals every day. And if applying that to a human-being (who, let us not forget, volunteered for the job!!!)is what makes people turn around and think twice, then so be it!!! I'm glad to have read your post, I have agreed with many of your opinions lately and this is something very close to my heart. xxx
Well they have certainly succeeded in getting the brand name and the issue on everyone's lips.
Whether or not I agree with it, is more difficult to say and I do sympathise with those who say they do not want their children witnessing this.
I remember waaaaay back in the 1980s there was an animal testing campaign where they released the photos of vivisection labs featuring rabbits with their skin removed and eyes held open so that product could be tested on them. I can't remember how I saw it, probably a magazine, but I did find it very upsetting so it is true that stunts like this can traumatise children.
However, that experience made me staunchly opposed to animal testing from an early age and the image has stayed with me indelibly. Therefore it was a campaign that totally succeeded in is's objectives and proves that shock creates an impact that outlasts many other tactics.
I am pretty sure that this campaign that started in the 80s was run by a charity, whose only objective was to help animals. Therefore I think that if anything leaves a bad taste, it is the fact that could be perceived as a successful commercial enterprise hiding self-promotion behind a veneer of hand-wringing morality. This allows Lush to use imagery and tactics which would never be permissible in a straight-forward commercial message after all.
On a more positive note, someone above suggested clearly labelling products that are tested on animals in shopping aisles I think this is a good idea as it would make it easy to purchase responsibly even in a hurry.
I was going to do a post of my own but I don't think that I can handle the tirade of opinions right now!
Firstly, I see no connetations to rape, domestic and sexual violence and degradation of woman. None at all. The woman, who chose to be there, represents an animal. She is not an animal, she represents one. I do not take a casual attitude to rape and violence against women, but I also do not see how this has relevance.
Secondly, I might have missed something but has someone actually complained that their child had seen the display? While I understand the concern, I haven't seen someone actually complain their child saw it and has had problems with it. And this seems to be the lead of most people's arguments.
Thirdly, more horrific than any of those images are the comments and opinions of certain people, not just on this specific post but on the plethora of comments I have read on a variety of blogs and news sites. I saw someone say they didn't care that cosmetics were tested on animals. In all my life I have never heard or read ANYONE say that. I have read many that continue to buy them as they don't want to stop but they always acknowledge that the actual act of animal testing is cruel and in many cases unecessary. I would also point out, this is an issue of cosmetic testing, medical testing is a whole different kettle of fish. Fish that are irrelevent on this topic.
Fourthly, animal testing is not a simple practice. It is not as simple as saying a brand do or do not test and that a country do or do not test. Therefore, although I understand the idea of seperating them in shops, this is not a viable option. Also, it's like saying "buy me" and "don't buy me" do you really think compaies and governments would go for this?! Animal testing is such a complex issue and on paper a company can look squeaky clean but delve a little deeper and you will find links to animal testing. Not in every case but what I am trying to say is it is not a simple option.
Finally, for those that think it's all part of some ploy and bandwagon and publicity stunt, think about it. From day one they have been anti animal teting, they have been around years, hardly jumping on a bandwagon. As for a publicity stunt, I suppose it is but only to get their voice heard, not so much to drive their sales. And even if it was to drive sales, every brand uses tools to drive sales be it shock tactics like this or the use of celebrity endorsement. I can be as cynical as the next person but really, spend your whole life so cynical it will wear you down!
In my personal oinion I love everything Lush stand for, I love them as a brand and I love many of their products. I think it is good that they are not afraid to stand up and speak. I would also say though, I think this campaign was maybe a step too far. The scenes were clearly equatable to those of a rated 18 horror and that is not an acceptable thing to have on view to the public where there is the potential for younger audiences to see. While I don't think an apology is wholly necessary I do hope Lush think twice before doing a similar campaign and perhaps rein it in a little.
Animal testing may be banned in the EU, but the SALE of animal tested ingredients an products is not. It renders the ban on testing completely ineffective as animal tested products still flood our market, with companies simple testing outside of eu and selling to an European market who think they aren't tested because 'the finished product' isn't. To get the cosmetics directive legislation passed, which is what the Lush campaign is all about would be a massive step in stopping a cruel practise. Yes it was a hard hitting campaign but I believe that's what it was supposed to be. It's horrible to watch because it IS horrible, but this IS what happens to millions of animals every day for the sake of a new lipstick? For a lot of the public ignorance seems to be bliss, which I get because it's a horrible thing to see and think about. But the reality is that is DOES happen. We are a hugely powerful tool if we fight against something together and I absolutely applaud Lush and the Humane society for standing out and saying "this is wrong, this has to stop!" Things can only change if we fight for them too. Wouldnt it be amazing to go into a beauty shop and buy whatever you liked and you wouldn't even have to think twice about the cruelty behind it? Sometimes you have to push boundaries and show uncomfortable things to really make people see whats happening and what we can do to change it. I'd rather be the person who did that and dealt with the backlash, than be the person who say by and did nothing.
Hi Rebecca: I have to agree that I didn't see any connection with violence to women. I think I can see how the connection is made but didn't make it myself. My thought is that is a question of degrees; that campaign could equally have taken place in front of an invited audience; maybe bloggers, journos etc who could all then get the word out there. I think the thing is, that whether you wanted to or not, if you were passing the store you would have seen it and that is where I think the line was crossed. Someone made the point (I forget where) that if those procedures were being done live to an animal rther than a human representation of an animal, can you image the outcry? Oddly, because we are subjected to human violence on TV SO regularly, it didn't have the same absolute shock that it would have done had it been an animal. NOT that I am suggesting in any way that it should have been of course. I don't think anyone has complained about their child seeing it that I aqm aware of, but any kid can look on the dailymail website where the imagery was - kids don't have the same ability to assimilate information as grown ups do, and if you are explaining about animal cruelty I think you should, as a parent, have the right to do it in a way that is age appropriate and not casually come across something so powerful that might be hard to understand, let alone rationalise.
I agree with Rebecca. I think Lush have done a brave and necessary thing by bringing this out into the open. Cosmetic testing and ingredient testing on animals IS horrible and cruel and unnecessary and we shouldn't just pretend it doesn't exist. Animals suffer horribly and whether or not we choose to ignore it is our choice to make but we should be aware of what we are ignoring and aware that the animals have no choice.
20 comments:
I'm sorry, I cannot agree. This campaign says than animal testing is like sexual violence to women. Ergo, women are animals.
I'm horrified that any woman, and person in fact, would ever think this level of demeaning and misogynistic advertising is warranted.
They've properly pissed me off to be honest. In all honesty I think it's completely self serving. It's their speciality to "shock" I'm not thinking about animal testing, they've not raised my awareness of that, what they've done is raise the awareness of Lush. Obv only can speak for myself but thats how I see it.
When they did the same kind of stunt over sharks a few years ago it was utterly disgusting and showed absolutely no awareness or sensitivity to anyone really and the same goes this time, those who are squeamish wont' stop to be educated they'll be walking off as fast as they can. Those with children will spend god knows how long trying to explain a concept a small child should never have to be aware of in order to try and compensate the horror they've seen.
Whilst it has created some awareness of the issue, I really feel the shock tactic isn't that effective since so many people will refuse to look for fear of fainting. And why the hell should anyone have to deal with that whilst popping into the high street for a bag of Thorntons fudge.
The ignorant will choose to remain ignorant whatever horrors the egos at Lush choose to throw out next.
Urgh. Poor show Lush.
Oh and last point, I watched a bit live yesterday, it was for all the world like watching porn for the duration I watched. A friend even said to me "I've got that gag"....
I utterly agree with your stance on this. No issue at all with them raising awareness, but I made exactly the same point this morning about young children seeing this being inappropriate. In fact I emailed Lush to ask if they had considered this when they planned it. No answer yet.......
Charlie: did you see what I did there though? Not a single mention of a LUSH product. Can't stand the smell. I support the sentiment though but no self-serving on my blog!
I'm kind of the opposite, I like some Lush products, I dislike a lot of Lush products, am indifferent about the vast majority of items and I absolutely love a few things.
I don't want this kind of crap served up with my soap.
And yes, duly noted and bravo!
I agree with the above that a line was crossed. Did they ever think of the trigger this may have caused on sexual abuse victims who may have been passing.
Theres a difference between making awareness of a touchy subject and then performing a shop window display nothing more than a horror show. Lush pot rays itself as a family friendly run business but to subject young children to this is absolutely ludicrous. How is a mother to explain this to her children I ask? Lush crossed the line, yes they gained publicity but not in a good way they have damaged their image completely and I for one have lost a lot of respect.
Becky
Beckys Makeup and Beauty
The difference is that the woman consents to have these cruelties perpetrated upon her. I think it's an excellent campaign and I only hope it leads people to question their purchasing more carefully.
Inform your children. These horrors are happening now. Your children (and my grandchildren) don't live in a Disney fantasy.
I'm afraid I believe that children ought to be protected to a certain degree. And sitting down and explaining to a five year old about animal testing is one thing...for them to see this? Nah, it ought to be at least a 12 rating.
A 5 year old should be busy being a child. Not subjected to the realities of the world. That will come all too soon anyway.
When I initially heard about this, but hadn't seen the pictures, I was a bit hesitant about what they were doing. Having now seen the pictures I think whoever did this needs firing- quickly! This is something that couldn't be shown on the TV or at least not pre-watershed or they would be absolutely hammered by Ofcom. Yet they have been allowed to put something like this in the window without any regulation or restriction? That isn't right.
So, since animal testing is already banned here where we live and vote then I guess Lush has a plan to challenge it in countries where it still exists like China? I mean what would be the point of raising awareness without an expectation that the people whose awareness you are raising could actually influence change? If they don't have a credible plan with realistic expected outcomes the this is just a publicity stunt.
I've certainly crossed them off my list as a company I will ever purchase from again.
All day I have been wondering what would be your stance on it as I really value your opinion on all matters makeup and more than ever on big things like these (excuse my simple english here). It was lovely to read your balanced view for a company for products you don't actually like and it really shows that animal testing is an issue deep down to your heart. I am so glad you thought that the shop window display was a bit too far. I give it to Lush that they got people thinking but did they have to go that far, in a country where cosmetic testing is already banned? (thank you for educating us about the facts, I am so clueless about this) I feel that if you must shock like that {although I can't for the life of me ever condone such dramatic measures} I would have thought the better of Lush to have the balls to do it in a country like China, where animal practices are not only allowed but made compulsory.
I must know what Lush's petition was for and if their petition was for 'stop buying products which are animal tested' (since it can't be for 'make england stop testing on animals, since it's already banned here) then it needs to be taken with the big heads who allow the 'bad products' to be sold here.
If banning the commercialisation of products which are tested on animals is not happening, I can think of other tactiques which would work for me. Imagine you divided your typical superdrug/boots in 2: sections which would be clearly marked 'animal friendly' and the other section. This would definitely make people think, education to happen, parents to talk about with their loved ones, and most of all the shopper to make better shopping decisions.
There is a lot to be done on this issue, some decisions which need to be taken at the very top and I think that not only Lush's display is NOT going to help achieve that but worst: they are shotting themselves in the foot and turning people who are still learning about it all against the cause. If it had been my cause, there is no way I would have gone about it that way. I already feel bad when I fight for something which is dear to me on twitter (unimportant silly awareness issues like gfc button disappearing) in case that would could turn people off the issue completely by going too strongly about it. So there is no way I could live with playing with an important issue like animal testing like thst and take the risks of turning people off.
I hope I am not shocking my friends with my views but I am really am of a sensitive nature and for me this campaign was really a step too far.
liloo/@tsunimee
Whole-heartedly agree with the above comment that shops could be sectioned off into 'animal-tested' and 'non-animal-tested' products; something like this would definately make me think twice. Wheras a shock-campaign as discussed would make me run a mile with my fingers stuck in my ears and my eyes screwed tight!
I like this post a lot, and I like your balanced view a lot. I disagree with many of the comments regarding women and sexual connotations... I really don't think that that was what Lush had in mind when they created a campaign against animal testing. I think it's a pity that people turn a positive campaign into something negative - it makes me wonder precisely what they do feel about cosmetic animal testing. As for it being a publicity stunt, well so what? Lush is cruelty-free, I am all for people buying their products. And I think that, as you highlighted so correctly in your post, people seem to live in a hazy dreamland where the UK doesn't sell anything that contains any animal-tested ingredients which makes this a publicity stunt/waste of time. And I am in two minds about children seeing this display - I think that children should be aware of the reality of animal testing, however I do agree that it would be disturbing for a child to witness such a display. Equally the campaign has done more for 'cruelty-free' than any non-shock campaign in my memory has - look how many people are talking about it! And to the people who found the display distasteful - a quick search of YouTube and you will find that far more horrific things happen to animals every day. And if applying that to a human-being (who, let us not forget, volunteered for the job!!!)is what makes people turn around and think twice, then so be it!!! I'm glad to have read your post, I have agreed with many of your opinions lately and this is something very close to my heart. xxx
Well they have certainly succeeded in getting the brand name and the issue on everyone's lips.
Whether or not I agree with it, is more difficult to say and I do sympathise with those who say they do not want their children witnessing this.
I remember waaaaay back in the 1980s there was an animal testing campaign where they released the photos of vivisection labs featuring rabbits with their skin removed and eyes held open so that product could be tested on them. I can't remember how I saw it, probably a magazine, but I did find it very upsetting so it is true that stunts like this can traumatise children.
However, that experience made me staunchly opposed to animal testing from an early age and the image has stayed with me indelibly. Therefore it was a campaign that totally succeeded in is's objectives and proves that shock creates an impact that outlasts many other tactics.
I am pretty sure that this campaign that started in the 80s was run by a charity, whose only objective was to help animals. Therefore I think that if anything leaves a bad taste, it is the fact that could be perceived as a successful commercial enterprise hiding self-promotion behind a veneer of hand-wringing morality. This allows Lush to use imagery and tactics which would never be permissible in a straight-forward commercial message after all.
On a more positive note, someone above suggested clearly labelling products that are tested on animals in shopping aisles I think this is a good idea as it would make it easy to purchase responsibly even in a hurry.
I was going to do a post of my own but I don't think that I can handle the tirade of opinions right now!
Firstly, I see no connetations to rape, domestic and sexual violence and degradation of woman. None at all. The woman, who chose to be there, represents an animal. She is not an animal, she represents one. I do not take a casual attitude to rape and violence against women, but I also do not see how this has relevance.
Secondly, I might have missed something but has someone actually complained that their child had seen the display? While I understand the concern, I haven't seen someone actually complain their child saw it and has had problems with it. And this seems to be the lead of most people's arguments.
Thirdly, more horrific than any of those images are the comments and opinions of certain people, not just on this specific post but on the plethora of comments I have read on a variety of blogs and news sites. I saw someone say they didn't care that cosmetics were tested on animals. In all my life I have never heard or read ANYONE say that. I have read many that continue to buy them as they don't want to stop but they always acknowledge that the actual act of animal testing is cruel and in many cases unecessary. I would also point out, this is an issue of cosmetic testing, medical testing is a whole different kettle of fish. Fish that are irrelevent on this topic.
Fourthly, animal testing is not a simple practice. It is not as simple as saying a brand do or do not test and that a country do or do not test. Therefore, although I understand the idea of seperating them in shops, this is not a viable option. Also, it's like saying "buy me" and "don't buy me" do you really think compaies and governments would go for this?! Animal testing is such a complex issue and on paper a company can look squeaky clean but delve a little deeper and you will find links to animal testing. Not in every case but what I am trying to say is it is not a simple option.
Finally, for those that think it's all part of some ploy and bandwagon and publicity stunt, think about it. From day one they have been anti animal teting, they have been around years, hardly jumping on a bandwagon. As for a publicity stunt, I suppose it is but only to get their voice heard, not so much to drive their sales. And even if it was to drive sales, every brand uses tools to drive sales be it shock tactics like this or the use of celebrity endorsement. I can be as cynical as the next person but really, spend your whole life so cynical it will wear you down!
In my personal oinion I love everything Lush stand for, I love them as a brand and I love many of their products. I think it is good that they are not afraid to stand up and speak. I would also say though, I think this campaign was maybe a step too far. The scenes were clearly equatable to those of a rated 18 horror and that is not an acceptable thing to have on view to the public where there is the potential for younger audiences to see. While I don't think an apology is wholly necessary I do hope Lush think twice before doing a similar campaign and perhaps rein it in a little.
Animal testing may be banned in the EU, but the SALE of animal tested ingredients an products is not. It renders the ban on testing completely ineffective as animal tested products still flood our market, with companies simple testing outside of eu and selling to an European market who think they aren't tested because 'the finished product' isn't.
To get the cosmetics directive legislation passed, which is what the Lush campaign is all about would be a massive step in stopping a cruel practise.
Yes it was a hard hitting campaign but I believe that's what it was supposed to be. It's horrible to watch because it IS horrible, but this IS what happens to millions of animals every day for the sake of a new lipstick? For a lot of the public ignorance seems to be bliss, which I get because it's a horrible thing to see and think about. But the reality is that is DOES happen. We are a hugely powerful tool if we fight against something together and I absolutely applaud Lush and the Humane society for standing out and saying "this is wrong, this has to stop!" Things can only change if we fight for them too. Wouldnt it be amazing to go into a beauty shop and buy whatever you liked and you wouldn't even have to think twice about the cruelty behind it? Sometimes you have to push boundaries and show uncomfortable things to really make people see whats happening and what we can do to change it. I'd rather be the person who did that and dealt with the backlash, than be the person who say by and did nothing.
Hi Rebecca: I have to agree that I didn't see any connection with violence to women. I think I can see how the connection is made but didn't make it myself. My thought is that is a question of degrees; that campaign could equally have taken place in front of an invited audience; maybe bloggers, journos etc who could all then get the word out there. I think the thing is, that whether you wanted to or not, if you were passing the store you would have seen it and that is where I think the line was crossed. Someone made the point (I forget where) that if those procedures were being done live to an animal rther than a human representation of an animal, can you image the outcry? Oddly, because we are subjected to human violence on TV SO regularly, it didn't have the same absolute shock that it would have done had it been an animal. NOT that I am suggesting in any way that it should have been of course. I don't think anyone has complained about their child seeing it that I aqm aware of, but any kid can look on the dailymail website where the imagery was - kids don't have the same ability to assimilate information as grown ups do, and if you are explaining about animal cruelty I think you should, as a parent, have the right to do it in a way that is age appropriate and not casually come across something so powerful that might be hard to understand, let alone rationalise.
Lush has responded to some of the issues raised by those on this blog here:
http://www.fightinganimaltesting.com/our-blog/power-oppression-and-abuse-performing-animal-tests-2/
I agree with Rebecca. I think Lush have done a brave and necessary thing by bringing this out into the open. Cosmetic testing and ingredient testing on animals IS horrible and cruel and unnecessary and we shouldn't just pretend it doesn't exist.
Animals suffer horribly and whether or not we choose to ignore it is our choice to make but we should be aware of what we are ignoring and aware that the animals have no choice.
Post a Comment