3 ms·
Well, here's an outside perspective with no particular axe to grind: Your position to avoid "cruelty free" products may or may not be valid. But this case does
by jmull 7y ago
Well, here's an outside perspective with no particular axe to grind:
Your position to avoid "cruelty free" products may or may not be valid. But this case does not support it.
I think in this case you've fallen victim of the natural human tendency to confirmation bias ("the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories")
Sorry... you may not be receptive to this info, in which case I'm sorry to bring it up since it's only going to annoy you. (Also, sorry if I'm wrong.)
- ars 7y agoI don't mind a discussion, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. > But this case does not support it. Seems to me it supports it. This was a product that seemed safe, no testing needed, just like "not tested on animals" products - the ingredients are probably safe, no need to test. Except that in the particular way it was used here, it wasn't safe. To lead back to cosmetics: What if a particular mixture of two otherwise harmless ingredients is toxic? What if an ingredient is thought safe, but next to the eye is actually not safe? Or for food additives, thought safe - except if used in an acidic food, or heated, or mixed with some other additive?