Swarovski crystal bad for aniamls !

squeek

Ladyhawk wrote: »

Squeek - Um... your original post said "please tell your friends and family about this." Isn't that telling people what to do? You may think that your opinion is valid, but it doesn't make sense.

Have Swavorski publicised that they are an animal rights/ anti hunting organisation? Have they ever denied that they make sights for guns?

They are a commercial organisation. They make crysals that are pretty and one way that they that they can generate more money is by selling these crystals in animal form as well as many other forms. They don't specifically sell these to animal rights activists/ anti-hunting campaigners/ vegans or anything. You might not like it, but this is the nature of commercial organisations, they are they primarily to make money.

How can they be called hypocrites when they have not made any claims to be hypocritical about?

hi im not ordering people to do as i say, im asking them to listen and learn. if they take my advice then good, if they dont thats their choice. im just passing on what ive learnt.
no, but swarovski also do not publicise the fact they make these sites, go in a jewellers you wont find info on their optic sights, they keep it seperate,b/c i think if more people knew,they wouldnt buy their pretty ornaments. im just informing of what ive learnt and suggesting we make a stand. up to you what you do. i think its time these big commercial organisations to take responsibility for the destruction they cause.
lets see swarovski advertise their Scopes in broad day light ! lets see some real honesty here, ah but then they may see sales drop eh !

squeek

cajef wrote: »

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/current-projects

well they look good , but what about the birds that are shot most of the year, not forgetting the dear, fox, rabbit, i can go on and on.

what i say to swarovski is come out and say who you are, dont hide behind your sparkle, lets see some adverts on what they make other than pretty objects. tell the world of their optics !

squeek

Mistymaid wrote: »

So the link means the company donate to conservation projects and guns are used to cull overpopulated species.
Balance.

have you ever thought that killing is not always the only answer ?
what about steralization for some animals stemming the growth of herds etc. we humans i think are over populated are we to be culled too ?

Gigervamp

squeek wrote: »

go in a jewellers you wont find info on their optic sights, they keep it seperate,b/c i think if more people knew,they wouldnt buy their pretty ornaments.

You won't find info in a jewellers about their optics because jewellers don't sell lenses, it's irrelevant.

Lotus-eater

squeek wrote: »

go in a jewellers you wont find info on their optic sights, they keep it seperate,b/c i think if more people knew,they wouldnt buy their pretty ornaments. im just informing of what ive learnt and suggesting we make a stand

I don't think most people will give a toss, most people are meat eaters, animals die.
How many people have interested in what you say on MSE? Exactly.

I care about animals (human beings included) but if I wanted to campaign about their welfare, your silly little info about a company that makes sight lenses, would be way way down the list, in fact it wouldn't even be on the list. Daft.

Lotus-eater

squeek wrote: »

have you ever thought that killing is not always the only answer ?
what about steralization for some animals stemming the growth of herds etc. we humans i think are over populated are we to be culled too ?

I can see you know much about the controlling of animal populations. Who's going to pay for this sterilisation approach then? Who's going to do it and how?
It's not only ridiculous it's impractical in the extreme.

What about rats? Is is wrong to shoot them (using a scope), but OK to poison them, so they die in agony? And if it's not ok to do either, are you going to capture them and neuter them yourself?