Wearing fur is not cool.
- Thread starter anthrofoxduji
- 162 comments
- 4,158 views
- 87,828
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There is nothing further which needs to be said. soptom - you've just sealed your own fate.
(also, I don't have to use the internet to pretend to be someone else. Ask any of the "at least" seven people from this site who've actually met me)
So, anyway. Fur.
Given that I can kill anything I want so long as I stay within the confines of the law, that by eating meat I'm artifically keeping several otherwise-doomed animal species alive, that by wearing fur the same phenomenon would probably occur and that 99.99% of all species of living things have died out, what reason is there for being biased against fur-wearers?
Anderton raised an interesting couple of points a while ago. Yes - in the overall big picture it doesn't matter. I suspect in 10 years time - unlike 9/11 - it'll be just another bomb. In the short term it seems to matter, due to our perception. Why should I be concerned - even if the fur industry would cause the extinction of an animal, which, these days, is unlikely to be the case (why deplete your materials source?) - if an animal species becomes extinct? Many species were extincted last year - did you care about them?
I suspect it all boils down to cats/squirrels/deer being fluffy and cows/pigs/chickens not being fluffy. We have no qualms about killing a genuinely intelligent species (pigs) for our selfish needs, but baulk at killing stoats for the same reasons. There isn't really any logic there.
- 1,262
Ok we're getting off topic here.
Hey maybe I should re-invent myself.....hmmmm the blue is out from now on and I'm changing everything.
Hey maybe I should re-invent myself.....hmmmm the blue is out from now on and I'm changing everything.
- 3,425
soptom
Colt , winchester , smith and wesson , Ruger , mauser etc. etc. Actually they just helped things along . The fact that animals have been feeding humans and clothing them and providing for other needs throughout human history seems to point to the fact that Humans took that right and have kept it .
Feel free to join a commune or go someplace that uses no animals . Or just keep to yourself and live your life the way you see fit .
I'll sit around eating a nice London broil while admiring my new fur lined leather jacket while I mount my trophys from hunting season on my den wall .
@ Famine ;
As your long trusted advisor I implore you not to enter into a battle of wits with and unarmed oponent . It not very sporting .
- 1,766
Dolphins aren't fluffy and I wouldn't like to see them killed, so there goes your theory.
And about pigs, yeah they're intelligent. My grandmother had one as a pet many years ago, living on a farm. Her name was 'porky" and would even walk into the kitchen.... but one day she ended up in the frying pan. My grandmother is evil. :-|
And about pigs, yeah they're intelligent. My grandmother had one as a pet many years ago, living on a farm. Her name was 'porky" and would even walk into the kitchen.... but one day she ended up in the frying pan. My grandmother is evil. :-|
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Let's try this from a slightly different angle.
From a moral stand point, is there a difference between killing a man because you want his wallet and killing him because you didn't like him? How about if you were starving and just wanted the burger in his hand? Or maybe he just looked at you funny and that didn't sit well with you?
His right to life is not affected by your state of mind or circumstances. Not unless he was affecting YOU in some negative way.
Thus, the question of killing animals isn't about what you do with them afterwards. It is either something that is acceptable or unacceptable. You can't say "killing an animal is okay as long as you plan to eat it" anymore than you can say "killing a man is okay as long as you plan to rob him after you're done".
Why you kill or what you do with the remains when you are done isn't the issue. An animal either has the right to live and be free of any form of imprisonment, torture or survitude or it doesn't.
M
From a moral stand point, is there a difference between killing a man because you want his wallet and killing him because you didn't like him? How about if you were starving and just wanted the burger in his hand? Or maybe he just looked at you funny and that didn't sit well with you?
His right to life is not affected by your state of mind or circumstances. Not unless he was affecting YOU in some negative way.
Thus, the question of killing animals isn't about what you do with them afterwards. It is either something that is acceptable or unacceptable. You can't say "killing an animal is okay as long as you plan to eat it" anymore than you can say "killing a man is okay as long as you plan to rob him after you're done".
Why you kill or what you do with the remains when you are done isn't the issue. An animal either has the right to live and be free of any form of imprisonment, torture or survitude or it doesn't.
M
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
I think it's the purpose of the death, not so much what you do with it once it's dead. Although the two are very closely related, there is a difference and the line is there.
e.g. :
Kill, or get killed? When attacked by an animal your only thought is for your own survival, as is the animals'. That moral crap just goes out the window once you're put in a position like this.
But I suppose it's also convenient if you take it's coat after you've killed it though.
e.g. :
Kill, or get killed? When attacked by an animal your only thought is for your own survival, as is the animals'. That moral crap just goes out the window once you're put in a position like this.
But I suppose it's also convenient if you take it's coat after you've killed it though.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
PS
If what you're saying is that it is NEVER moral to kill an animal unless it is threatening your life, I can accept that as a coherant statement. But I have a very tasty meal sitting in my stomach that says otherwise.
Certainly though, it has far more consistancy than the completely wishy-washy, "it's okay to kill an animal as long as I approve of the type of animal, method of killing and what is done with the body." That's just silly.
M
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
///M-Spec
I'm saying that, but it's not my personal opinion. Generally, to me, if an animal dies painlessly or very quickly I'm fine with it if you do it for a reason such as food, survival (in which case I don't care, as long as it's no longer a threat), or if there is an over abunance of an animal then I think measures should be taken (open hunting season, increase hunting/farming etc) to help decline or control the growth rate, especially if it's something like rats or alligators anything that can adversly affect the ecosystem, then I'm fine with it.
I have a somewhat complicated moral system, but I usually stick by it and rarely make it hypocritical. My only exception would probably be vermon/pests, but only if they're bothering (not like "you stared at me wrong, die!", but like in my house or eating things) me. Even then, I'll probablly just try to catch it and then leave it in the park. Erm, if it's not like a wolverine or mongoose or something slightly more agressive.
...oy.
But in any case, I think the skinning of animals is fine as long as the animal is shot or dies painlessly/quickly, is not endangered, and other body parts serve a purpose as well, and that the animal has been farmed and not taken from the wild. I'd prefer not to make it mainstream though. Take a clouple from the wild, but I'd prefer a farmed animal. It just seems wastefull, like the purpose of its death was somewhat weak when an animal is hunted just for its skin.
Farmed animals are screwed anyway, what are they going to do in the forest, wait for the giant food dish to appear?
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Oh they do? And I thought it was Rap all this time. Actually kids have more since about guns here then say.....a city. They actually respect guns and are taught how to handle and use them in a controlled environment, but that's for a different thread.
- 1,620
Personally, I don't like animals to be killed at all. Still, I'll happily eat meat (and enjoy it for the taste and nutrition) if someone gives it to me (hey its already dead, transaction from its sale complete), but I rarely buy it myself (I don't like to, but you feel really crappy if you don't have at least a bit of meat in your diet - I feel its justified in a health or survival sense).
Because humans don't need mink coats to survive and feel healthy, then we can more easily go along with the ideal of killing as little animals as possible. People that wear fur coats are inherently uncool because they obviously have an arrogance that they don't mind really pissing a lot of people off for no good reason other than to infer their own superiority. Besides, fur coats look terrible from a fashion sense anyway.
I just believe we should have a policy of minimal impact on the natural world. Yes, its a bit late for that, but hey its a nice sentiment.
Because humans don't need mink coats to survive and feel healthy, then we can more easily go along with the ideal of killing as little animals as possible. People that wear fur coats are inherently uncool because they obviously have an arrogance that they don't mind really pissing a lot of people off for no good reason other than to infer their own superiority. Besides, fur coats look terrible from a fashion sense anyway.
I just believe we should have a policy of minimal impact on the natural world. Yes, its a bit late for that, but hey its a nice sentiment.
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
PS
You say you're okay with it as long as it's for food. This means to me that an animal should have rights against being killed for reasons OTHER than being eaten.
But why would an animal's right to live or otherwise be free from harm be dependant on the needs of man?
Should a living being's rights, human or animal, be dependant on the situation and circumstance of another being? Can you say "you have rights as long as someone is not interested in taking them away from you"?
Follow this logic for a minute.
An animal's right not to be killed is dependant on whether or not a human is hungry? Therefore it more "okay" to kill an animal if you're going to consume the body afterwards? What kind of 'rights' are those??
So is a woman's right not to be raped dependant on the sexual urges of her attacker? Would it be more okay to rape a woman if it was done in a quick and "painless" way? Would it be more okay to rape a woman if the man really, really needed to have sex?
I submit it isn't. To me, a right is inalienable, to borrow a term from my Original Dads. This notion is what good morality and ultimately, good laws are built upon.
Animals either have rights or they don't. A halfway point makes no sense to me.
M
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
///M-Spec: Would you say though that there's a difference between rights of pets vs. non-pet animals? (And I don't mean the obvious implication of property rights [obvious to you and me anyway 
], such as people not having the right to harm other's pets What I mean is, for example, does a pet owner have the right to drive a nail in his dog's head because it's annoying him? [True story, BTW]).
], such as people not having the right to harm other's pets What I mean is, for example, does a pet owner have the right to drive a nail in his dog's head because it's annoying him? [True story, BTW]).
Evolution.
(Banned)
- 3,722
I cant believe this guy..both of his posts have been about how fur clothing is bad...and its on a GT forum....
WTF MATE?!
Back on topic:
Animals have to die sooner or later.Why do we hunt deer (in most places,anyways)?To keep the population down and to get food.Most of the time,we don't hunt animals for just their fur.We hunt them to keep down population or,as people way back in the day did,we do it for food.
Or im just a complete idiot with no clue.
WTF MATE?!
Back on topic:
Animals have to die sooner or later.Why do we hunt deer (in most places,anyways)?To keep the population down and to get food.Most of the time,we don't hunt animals for just their fur.We hunt them to keep down population or,as people way back in the day did,we do it for food.
Or im just a complete idiot with no clue.
- 1,766
///M-Spec
We CAN use animals to fulfill our needs, just ask Famine.
p.s. How about a goat?
///M-Spec
Staff Emeritus
- 4,928
Sage///M-Spec: Would you say though that there's a difference between rights of pets vs. non-pet animals? (And I don't mean the obvious implication of property rights [obvious to you and me anyway
To be consistant with everything I've stated thus far, I'd have to go with NO; even though my heart wants me to say otherwise.
My dogs never asked to be my pets. I basically keep them sheltered, well fed, clean and in good health in return for --let's not mince words-- imprisoning them in my house and backyard.
I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that what I'm doing is morally any different than a farmer keeping chickens or cows on a farm.
How I treat my pets is a choice based on my own sense of personal ethics, not in observation of a code of morality my dogs can never understand, much less reciprocate.
smellysocks12We CAN use animals to fulfill our needs, just ask Famine.
p.s. How about a goat?
I prefer members of my own species, specifically of the opposite gender.... but hey what ever floats your boat.M
Danoff
Premium
- 34,109
- Mile High City
Sage
I've got to say. Nice job on the brackets there and coming back to close your parens. I thought for sure while I was reading that you had left one open - but you came back and tied it up. 👍
Now about the topic here. I'm afraid that I don't afford animals very many rights. I'm not sure where to go about animal torture without some kind of purpose, but killing an animal should be at the descretion of the owner. Reason being? Animals lack the higher order brain functions (ie: self awareness, conciousness) that humans have - so the death of a dog/snake/cow is not an immoral act.
However, dogs/snakes/cows can feel pain - and even though the animal isn't necessarily aware of its own nature, it certainly is aware that it is experiencing pain. I think even lower level life forms have the right not to be tortured - with the exception of research - in which case I think it's ok.
This is a nasty grey area that I don't really like to think about because I haven't really made up my own mind about where my principles are on this issue. I hate making my own value judgements instead of appealing to principle - but I really don't know where my principles should be on the animal torture issue.
So in summary, killing animals = ok. Fur coats = warm, Beef = yum.
- 1,766
#17
Souls don't exist, except in video games like soul reaver and in that fairy tale book...
Sage
Staff Emeritus
- 12,533
- United States
- GTP_Sage
Heh heh, thanks.danoff
I messed up the ending punctuation (that period should be before the bracket), but, oh well. Yeah, I'm the same, which is why I decided to pose that question. And, as you and ///M-Spec can understand, I'm still a bit unsure of where I stand on animal torture part of me says that pets are property and so the owner has total discretion in regards to treating their property, including torture if they so wish but then part of me says that pets are the only form of property that can feel in any way, so maybe there should be an exception for them but then another part of me says that if we give this exception for pets, then we have to do it for livestock too and so on and so forth. The real issue there is that pets are the only form of property on the face of this Earth that can register pain, so it kind of screws with the rest of the principles.
