Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Meat-eaters attitudes towards fur

  • 19-07-2010 04:22PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Elle Collins


    I'd like to start a discussion on attitudes towards fur and wearers of fur, specifically the attitudes of meat-eaters. It's relevent to me since I've very recently bought myself a sheared-mink jacket. I've never owned a fur garment before but I have no qualms about buying one since I eat meat and wear leather.

    I can't understand why some consumers of leather and meat have an objection towards the use of fur. If we were talking about the opinions of a die-hard vegan well then yes, of course that's understandable, but how or why does anyone feel the need/right to moralise about the use of fur while they've cow hide on their back/feet and a few slices of pig meat digesting in their belly???

    I was sitting having lunch recently and a few meat-eaters round the table let out squeals of horror when I mentioned my new jacket, while every one of them had some form of meat on the plates infront of them! Can anyone shed any light on these attitudes? Do you eat meat and wear leather, yet object to fur? And if so, why?


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 402 ✭✭Jelly2


    I'd like to start a discussion on attitudes towards fur and wearers of fur, specifically the attitudes of meat-eaters. It's relevent to me since I've very recently bought myself a sheared-mink jacket. I've never owned a fur garment before but I have no qualms about buying one since I eat meat and wear leather.

    I can't understand why some consumers of leather and meat have an objection towards the use of fur. If we were talking about the opinions of a die-hard vegan well then yes, of course that's understandable, but how or why does anyone feel the need/right to moralise about the use of fur while they've cow hide on their back/feet and a few slices of pig meat digesting in their belly???

    I was sitting having lunch recently and a few meat-eaters round the table let out squeals of horror when I mentioned my new jacket, while every one of them had some form of meat on the plates infront of them! Can anyone shed any light on these attitudes? Do you eat meat and wear leather, yet object to fur? And if so, why?

    The reasons that I object to the wearing of fur are twofold. The fur trade breeds animals only for the fur market; they are bred and kept in poor conditions, and the only piece of them that is used is their fur. At least with pigs and cows, the meat is used as well as the fur. In addition, I only eat free range meat (including pork, which is hard to source in Ireland). If you use animals for eating, clothing etc, then you should use products that are produced with as little pain as possible for the animal concerned, and products sourced from animals that are not just bred for luxury items. Nobody could possibly say that about animals bred for the fur trade.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,474 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    I am a "meat-eater". I'm not some vegan, red-paint-throwing PETA enthusiast, but I object to fur, just because I can't stand the idea of an animal being killed just to make some unnecessary garment.

    Animals for produce (milk, etc) or meat, well, it's produce. Necessary for survival and the agricultural economy. People eat meat. We always have.
    There are many alternatives to meat, which people will choose, eg. tofu, soya, etc, but there are also many, many alternatives to fur.
    When people go out of their way and spend hundreds or thousands of € to support this unnecessary trend, people get pissed off.


    No offense to you, but I just find the idea of killing an animal to shear off its skin and wear it is just grotesque.
    What's wrong with faux fur?


    Also, I think it's the idea that fluffy fur creates the image of a cute, fluffy animal. And then people imagine this cute, fluffy animal being slaughtered so a coat can be paraded down a runway on a girl who looks like she can barely support the weight of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I have no issue with the peoples of the Arctic Circle etc using fur as it is necessary, used for survival and in general they use every last scrap of an animal they kill as needed, meat, skin, bones, blubber, etc.

    I do not like the western world's fashion statement fur. For the most part the animals are not killed as needed, they are bred in horrific industrial systems, IIRC these days most animals are skinned alive when fur is extracted with the remainder of the animal tossed aside as a waste product.

    I feel the same about fur as I do about the killing of elephants for nothing but their ivory, or the killing of sharks so I can have a shark fin mounted on a wall. Really pointless excess.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Elle Collins


    No offense to you, but I just find the idea of killing an animal to shear off its skin and wear it is just grotesque.
    What's wrong with faux fur?

    Well what I'd say to that is, what's wrong with tofu? I see what you're saying but I don't think seeing a woman wearing a fur coat is any more disgusting than watching the same woman eat a steak.
    Also, I think it's the idea that fluffy fur creates the image of a cute, fluffy animal.

    I think that's more to the point Busi_girl08. We don't hear the same uproar about pigs and cows because they're butt-ugly by comparison. And as for furry animals being bred in horrendous conditions, they're no worse than the conditions the chickens are raised in that you see lining the shelves in dunnes/lidl/tesco. This is not directed at you personally but I think there's a lot of hypocrisy around the issue of the use of different animal products.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Chuchoter


    I disagree with fur as the conditions the animals are raised in are so bad. Its unnecessary. I don't mind people having a pair of leather shoes, because they'll last and thats better than 5 pairs of plastic shoes getting thrown in a dump to pollute. I don't eat a huge amount of meat purely because I don't like it, but I don't really see eye to eye with the vegetarian/vegan point of view.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,474 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    Well what I'd say to that is, what's wrong with tofu? I see what you're saying but I don't think seeing a woman wearing a fur coat is any more disgusting than watching the same woman eat a steak.

    I agree, the point I was really getting at though, (as a previous poster pointed out) was the fact that people, by wearing a fur coat, are supporting a culture and the fashion industry that uses the suffering of animals solely as something for vanity and image, rather than consumption and survival.

    A big €2,000 fur coat makes much more of a statement than a €5 steak.


    I think that's more to the point Busi_girl08. We don't hear the same uproar about pigs and cows because they're butt-ugly by comparison. And as for furry animals being bred in horrendous conditions, they're no worse than the conditions the chickens are raised in that you see lining the shelves in dunnes/lidl/tesco. This is not directed at you personally but I think there's a lot of hypocrisy around the issue of the use of different animal products.

    Which is why more and more people are opting for the free-range options nowadays.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


    Well what I'd say to that is, what's wrong with tofu? I see what you're saying but I don't think seeing a woman wearing a fur coat is any more disgusting than watching the same woman eat a steak..


    I think that's more to the point Busi_girl08. We don't hear the same uproar about pigs and cows because they're butt-ugly by comparison. And as for furry animals being bred in horrendous conditions, they're no worse than the conditions the chickens are raised in that you see lining the shelves in dunnes/lidl/tesco. This is not directed at you personally but I think there's a lot of hypocrisy around the issue of the use of different animal products.

    A lot of meat eaters wouldn't eat the chicken that line the shelves in the stores you mentioned. Again, it is possible to eat meat with a conscience. The problem with fur its often from endangered species,and the method of killing animals for fur is especially cruel. There is a major difference between a cow being killed by a bolt to the head and a fox etc being skinned alive and left to die on a hook.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭nice1franko


    I object to fur, just because I can't stand the idea of an animal being killed just to make some unnecessary garment.

    A lot of meat (maybe even most) that's eaten in the Western World is unnecessary - the modern Western diet is over indulgent to a disgraceful degree - and the birds and animals are raised in horrendous conditions. Also, a lot of leather is produced for "unnecessary garments".

    OP is bang on the money. Fur is fashionable to hate and easy to abstain from, so haters can sit on their high horses with a clear conscience.

    The reality is they play just as big a part in contributing to the abuse and mistreatment of animals as anyone with a fur coat.
    ...Which is why more and more people are opting for the free-range options nowadays.
    I think the point the OP is making is that the people who *don't* buy free range aren't subjected to the same disdain a someone with a fur coat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    A lot of meat (maybe even most) that's eaten in the Western World is unnecessary - the modern Western diet is over indulgent to a disgraceful degree -

    To an extent I agree from the point of view of general over production. However very little meat IIRC is actually goes to waste, as opposed to other animal products, dairy produce etc.
    and the birds and animals are raised in horrendous conditions. Also, a lot of leather is produced for "unnecessary garments".

    Most animals in Ireland and indeed the EU are not raised in horrendous conditions. The last real shame is the battery poultry factories which need to be stopped.
    The reality is they play just as big a part in contributing to the abuse and mistreatment of animals as anyone with a fur coat.

    Not at all tbh. If steaks and chick breasts were cut from the body of the animal while it was still alive and the rest of the animal dumped you may have a point.
    I think the point the OP is making is that the people who *don't* buy free range aren't subjected to the same disdain a someone with a fur coat.

    Not really. The OP referred to meat eaters. Regardless of the source of the meat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    I don't know much about whether or not fur trading needs to be cruel, or if it's necessary to skin things alive. But meat is certainly no more necessary than fur. The existence of healthy vegetarians shows it's not necessary to eat meat. If you want to make an argument about "people have always ate meat" then people have always worn fur.

    I think the arguments against animal suffering are just an extension of arguments against killing cute things. It's more about causing discomfort to people than the animal's welfare. Animals don't like being killed, no matter how quickly it's done.

    This are just my views, which are rather extreme. But I think anyone who participates in the unnecessary consumption of meat and purports to care about animal welfare has either not considered their position or is a hypocrite.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    raah! wrote: »
    This are just my views, which are rather extreme. But I think anyone who participates in the unnecessary consumption of meat and purports to care about animal welfare has either not considered their position or is a hypocrite.

    Rather ill-thought out approach. How many mink are needed to make one coat? How many cows are needed to make one steak? What happens to the rest of the cow, do we extract the best cut and dump the rest? Has the animal been literally dissected while still alive to get a certain cut of meat? Has the animal been put through unnecessary pain to reach that end?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,157 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Fur ..... (as found in the sense of 'fashion'); beautiful animals worn by ugly women.


    I am a meat-eater and I abhore the wearing of fur for pretty much every reason outlined by others above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    prinz wrote: »
    Rather ill-thought out approach. How many mink are needed to make one coat? How many cows are needed to make one steak? What happens to the rest of the cow, do we extract the best cut and dump the rest? Has the animal been literally dissected while still alive to get a certain cut of meat? Has the animal been put through unnecessary pain to reach that end?

    Most of these points aren't really relevant to what I said.

    What do you mean by unnecessary? In my post I said the killing of animals was itself unnessecary. Using all of a cow has nothing to do with it's welfare. These are qualms you have with a product being wasted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,474 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    Killing animals for meat = Food = necessary.

    Killing animals for a pretty coat/scarf = unnecessary.

    Yes, people used to wear fur/animal skins, but they wore the skin of the animal they killed for food.
    They didn't just kill an animal, scrape its fur off and leave the rest of it. They used its meat for food, and bones for tools, etc.

    They didn't have tofu or synthetic fabrics back then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    prinz wrote: »
    I have no issue with the peoples of the Arctic Circle etc using fur as it is necessary, used for survival and in general they use every last scrap of an animal they kill as needed, meat, skin, bones, blubber, etc.

    I do not like the western world's fashion statement fur. For the most part the animals are not killed as needed, they are bred in horrific industrial systems, IIRC these days most animals are skinned alive when fur is extracted with the remainder of the animal tossed aside as a waste product.

    I feel the same about fur as I do about the killing of elephants for nothing but their ivory, or the killing of sharks so I can have a shark fin mounted on a wall. Really pointless excess.
    But you can make the argument that killing a cow for food is pointless excess since vegans are capable of living healthy lives without meat so why can't you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Killing animals for meat = Food = necessary.

    Killing animals for a pretty coat/scarf = unnecessary.

    Yes, people used to wear fur/animal skins, but they wore the skin of the animal they killed for food.
    They didn't just kill an animal, scrape its fur off and leave the rest of it. They used its meat for food, and bones for tools, etc.

    They didn't have tofu or synthetic fabrics back then.
    What makes it necessary and why are vegans able to survive without something that is necessary?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    prinz wrote: »
    Rather ill-thought out approach. How many mink are needed to make one coat? How many cows are needed to make one steak? What happens to the rest of the cow, do we extract the best cut and dump the rest? Has the animal been literally dissected while still alive to get a certain cut of meat? Has the animal been put through unnecessary pain to reach that end?
    Why does it matter how much of an animal you use?

    Do you think the animal cares?
    Has the animal been put through unnecessary pain to reach that end?
    What's unnecessary pain? Is a certain amount of pain necessary to have meat and why is that ok and not fur?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,474 ✭✭✭✭Busi_Girl08


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    What makes it necessary and why are vegans able to survive without something that is necessary?

    Maybe "necessary" wasn't the right word. What I mean is there will always be people who eat meat. It is a food source, one that a lot of people rely on. So because a percentage of people choose to omit 2 food groups means everyone else should?

    For some people, a vegan lifestyle is not an option because of location, budgetary restraints or even health/medical reasons (allergies, intolerance, etc).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    What makes it necessary and why are vegans able to survive without something that is necessary?


    As a meat eater, I can't say I am against the killing of animals. Humans exist today becuase we have a killing instinct but thats another issue altogether.

    Ultimately (as many people have already outlined) ,you CAN be against the fur industry and still eat meat.

    Similary you can be pro-death penalty while at the same time be against the stoning of women in Iran.


    Saying that all meat eaters who are against the fur trade are hypocrites just because the common denominator of both is the death of an animal is over simplifying the matter. Am I a hypocrite because I eat meat but I am against the killing of Whales and dolphins?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 506 ✭✭✭Waking-Dreams


    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The only reason I object to fur is because fake fur is actually available; AND no human can tell the difference. Tofu, and other vegetarian alternatives to meat have not been able to replicate the same texture/taste of meat.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If and when synthetic meat is ever created, who knows, maybe people would have no problem switching. Plus, being able to grow such food in a lab could help with world hunger - animals have to be fed and watered before they get to the killing floor.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But many animals are killed in an unbelievably cruel way for their fur, whereas a cow has a hole punched in their neck, etc. Maybe it's just cognitive dissonance talking, but I personally don't see eating a burger as bad as wearing something that came from an animal who was skinned alive, or had an electric poker shoved up their ass because some person wanted to look good.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And before anyone uses the vegan/veggie argument; here's another thing vegans/veggies often overlook: lots of animals die in the process of their dietary choices. That's right! So, we're all hypocrites in a way. Don't believe me? Well then, have a read of this:

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill
    [/FONT]


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭Jessibelle


    What's the opinion on vintage fur, ie a second hand fur coat? I personally wouldn't buy a new coat, but I've been left some beautiful 40's and 50's coats by relatives that are trimmed with real fur collars, and cuffs, in most cases rabbit fur I think. The animals may have been used for food, (I'd hazzard with one, it's a definite rather than a possibility) but I couldn't vouch for the others. Ethically is it as dubious to wear something that was created in a different time, under a different coda?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Carlos_Ray wrote: »
    Am I a hypocrite because I eat meat but I am against the killing of Whales and dolphins?
    Well as long as the type of whale or dolphin isn't endangered then yes that does make you hypocrite.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    Why does it matter how much of an animal you use?

    Are you implying that you cannot tell the difference between using an animal for food, clothing, tools, light and heating, and shooting an elephant for it's tusk alone? Most animals only became endangered when the second system got into full swing btw. That might give you a clue.
    SugarHigh wrote: »
    What's unnecessary pain? Is a certain amount of pain necessary to have meat and why is that ok and not fur?

    If you can't tell the difference between killing something instantly and as painlessly as possible and skinning it alive as slowly as possible to ensure no damage to the skin then that's a sad state of affairs tbh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,526 ✭✭✭techdiver


    http://www.peta.org/feat/chinesefurfarms/index.asp

    BTW, I'm a meat eater, but I find the treatment of animals in the fur trade disgusting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    raah! wrote: »
    But meat is certainly no more necessary than fur. The existence of healthy vegetarians shows it's not necessary to eat meat.

    This month's National Geographic Magazine contained an article about evolution in which it was theorised, partly on the basis of fossils, that man's ancestor's eating of meat was a key factor in our evolution, as it resulted in the ability to sustain bigger brains and, thus, more intelligence.

    Food for thought. ;)

    I'm not saying that contradicts your argument, in any sense. I haven't looked into the biological effects of vegetarian diets.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Elle Collins


    raah! wrote: »
    But meat is certainly no more necessary than fur. The existence of healthy vegetarians shows it's not necessary to eat meat. If you want to make an argument about "people have always ate meat" then people have always worn fur.

    I think the arguments against animal suffering are just an extension of arguments against killing cute things. It's more about causing discomfort to people than the animal's welfare. Animals don't like being killed, no matter how quickly it's done.

    .....I think anyone who participates in the unnecessary consumption of meat and purports to care about animal welfare has either not considered their position or is a hypocrite.

    I have to say I agree with every line of the above. Meat consumption is not necessary; it is a luxury humans have been indulging in for millennia. I've been indulging in it myself for my entire lifetime and I'm sure the pigs, cows and sheep whose deaths my consumption has been responsible for no more wanted to die than the minks in the jacket that'll be keeping me warm this winter.

    What a lot of these arguments seem to boil down to is that it is condonable to kill a living thing as long as it's done quickly. I think as living things ourselves we can all figure out the illogic on that one pretty quickly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,364 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    It seems most people have a problem with how the animals were killed for fur. If the animal was killed in the same way as a cow, would fur then be ok? What's the difference between fur and leather?

    I eat meat, I'd wear fur/leather etc., I try and buy free range meat (if the option is available), but there really is no difference at all between eating a steak and wearing fur.

    I also think people on here are vastly overestimating the amount of an animal we, in the western world, actually use. Chicken beaks anyone?

    Being a male, I doubt I will actually ever buy/wear fur, but it's not for moralistic reasons, I try not to be a complete hypocrite.

    I'd also disagree with the hunting and killing of endangered animals, they shouldn't be used as a dustbin, coat, penis enhancer, etc.

    Fake fur is made from oil, and is probably far worse environmentally than killing animals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,087 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    astrofool wrote: »
    It seems most people have a problem with how the animals were killed for fur. If the animal was killed in the same way as a cow, would fur then be ok? What's the difference between fur and leather?

    ...but there really is no difference at all between eating a steak and wearing fur.

    Yes it's this thing called TORTURE, did you even bother to read the other posts in this thread?

    For me if someone buys fur their saying that they believe the torturing of animals is ok, should we ever listen to people who say torturing animals is ok? I believe it's perfectly ok to kill animals for meat, but only if strict guidelines and regulations are followed and the animal dies a quick death, I won't eat any meat where I think these strict guidelines are not met and I do make an effort to consider where the meat I eat comes from. My girlfriend is a vegitarian and makes a couple of good points but accepts that meat eaters also make some very good points on why it's ok to eat meat. You see the eating of meat is open to discussion but the torturing of animals is not as theirs no way anybody could argue that this is ok. The difference with leather is the main reason the cow was killed was for meat while with fur the animal was not killed for meat.

    I worry about humanity when some people can't tell the difference between killing an animal quickly for food and raising an animal in inhumane condition and then torturing it. the difference between the two is theirs very strong arguments as to why it's perfectly ok to eat meat, whereas theirs zero arguments as to why it's ok to torture an animal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    What a lot of these arguments seem to boil down to is that it is condonable to kill a living thing as long as it's done quickly. I think as living things ourselves we can all figure out the illogic on that one pretty quickly.

    It's not illogical at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 681 ✭✭✭Elle Collins


    Greyfox wrote: »
    The difference with leather is the main reason the cow was killed was for meat while with fur the animal was not killed for meat.

    So what you're saying is that it's ok to kill an animal for what's beneath its skin but not for what's outside it. Sorry but that make zero sense to me.
    Greyfox wrote: »
    I worry about humanity when some people can't tell the difference between killing an animal quickly for food and raising an animal in inhumane condition and then torturing it.

    Greyfox, many people are totally unaware of that fact that animals which are bred for their flesh (with the exception of those raised in free-range conditions) live their entire lives in a state that could only be described as torture. Overcrowding alone causes chickens to stand on each other and trample each other to death in an effort just to breathe.

    These are the same non free-range chickens I mentioned earlier that line the shelves in our most popular supermarkets. Now my point is, what right has anybody got to lecture me on the cruelties of fur when they've got with slices of these chickens sitting in front of them on their plate?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement