Meat-eaters attitudes towards fur

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?

Jelly2

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Elle Collins

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

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.

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

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.

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.

Busi_Girl08

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

Carlos_Ray

Elle Collins wrote: »

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..

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

nice1franko

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

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.

Busi_Girl08 wrote:

...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.

prinz

nice1franko wrote: »

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.

nice1franko wrote: »

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.

nice1franko wrote: »

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.

nice1franko wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

SugarHigh

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

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?

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?

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).

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?

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

prinz

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

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?

Emme

Nowadays there is no reason to wear real fur when fake fur which looks just as good is available.

For those who wear fur to keep warm (not in this country) there are a range of synthetic fabrics available which are just as warm as real fur.

The argument gets a bit grey when you consider Eskimos and Inuit tribes who live in extremely cold climates. Traditionally they would have worn fur and used every scrap of the animal they slaughtered as a necessity to survive. Even so, I would imagine that they have moved with the times and are wearing warm clothing made of synthetic materials and unless they live in a very remote area, their diet has probably become more mainstream as well.

Back to my original argument - why bother with real fur (and bother animals) when fake fur is every bit as good, and you're only wearing it to make a fashion statement anyway.

I started life as a meat-eater, have switched to veggie and back a few times but am swinging back towards veggie again. My primary reason is the way animals are raised for meat (apart from free-range, organic meat) and if you saw battery hens you would never eat non free-range eggs again. I feel better and have more energy on a veggie diet.

peasant

The issue is not so much how your future fur jacket got killed, it is how it lived up to then.

This is how:



In a cage just about big enough to fit it in, no room to move, no solid floor to stand on, no place to hide and in close proximity to its neighbours (highly stressful for a territorial animal)

All in order not to damage the prescious fur

Edit:
As a meat eater you can make a conscious choice only to buy free range meat, as a fur wearer you can't ...unless you're prepared to shoot your own mink or club your own seal.

Waking-Dreams

I’ve read Fast Food Nation and other books and know of the bad conditions that some animals are kept under - which they are trying to regulate, except McDonalds et al. seem to only care about their profits and f**k the animals and other farmers who have notions of better living conditions for animals that would be slighly more expensive.

So, arguing about the ethics of living conditions over fur animals and food animals is too gray an area. However, I think if any human slave was being executed by their captors and was given the option:

A) You get a bolt through the head/neck
You’re being skinned alive / this electric poker is going up your ass

What would most humans choose?

Animals die regardless if you eat meat or are a vegan because of your dietary choices. Unless you grow your own food that is.

But we do have an alternative to fur. Sadly, some people like the fact that it came from something living and I imagine that if synthetic meat were available there would still be those who would like the fact that their meat was ‘100% natural’.

Though we all are hypocrites, we’re kind of messed up as a species.

astrofool

Greyfox wrote: »

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

Did you bother to read my post?

My point was that, if the animal being killed for fur, was killed the same way as a cow is for meat, is fur then bad?

The argument against fur then becomes the enforcement of how the animal dies.

There are battery hens in far worse condition than those minks above, is either acceptable, probably not, but again, it comes to how the animal lives, not what it ends up as.

Fake fur, as I mentioned above, is worse for the environment than real fur, it is made using oil, and doesn't bio-degrade for thousands of years.

I'm also pretty sure that herds of cattle exist solely for their hide/leather being of a certain quality, their meat being a by-product, and used for low grade animal food.

Elle Collins

peasant wrote: »

The issue is not so much how your future fur jacket got killed, it is how it lived up to then.

That's exactly the point I'm making in regard to animals that are bred for the human consumption of their flesh. It seems to be a common feeling that it's ok to eat the meat of an animal that died with a bolt through the head, but there is an assumption that because the animal died quickly it must have lived a long and happy life! Where do people get that idea? And how can they stand over it, when animal rights groups have been canvassing about the massive meat-production centres of the world for years?

It is fashionable to be opposed to fur because people find it a lot less stressful to avoid buying a 10.000 coat than to avoid eating a 10.00 steak.

peasant wrote: »

As a meat eater you can make a conscious choice only to buy free range meat

You can, but most don't, and nobody the day we were having lunch enquired of the breeding methods of the meat in their sandwiches. In fact I've never seen any meat-eater ask that.

Also there is no comparison between the texture and softness of real and faux fur and even if there was, as one poster pointed out, faux fur is made from oil and is an environmental pollutant.

Waking-Dreams

True indeed. It’s not a black and white argument hence why it will continue to go on.

I wonder what kind of lifetime such fur clothes get. Don’t people donate stuff to charity shops when they go out of fashion, and so, couldn’t fake fur be put back into circulation as opposed to just skinning up a fresh one for each consumer? I know we’ve been able to re-use lots of things instead of wasting resources and buying a fresh one. Capitalist consumerism will of course want to put a stop to re-using any kind of commodity because capitalism is built on consumption (of ‘new’ goods) but it doesn’t have to be that way with everything.

We have all gotten use to recycling and donating things, so this could just be another extension of that. But given that people loathe the idea of thrift stores and wearing something that was previously owned (if only they knew how many people actually handled/tried on their new clothes on the store racks) it is probably unfeasible.

Though I would ask those who point to the damages done to the environment because of faux fur, does that mean you are then staunch environmentalists?

I just think it’s ironic how the people who question the objections of others to fur because we all contribute to the deaths of animals (meat-eaters and veggies/vegans) but then use that same argument and object to faux fur on the basis of it is bad for the environment when surely, we are all contributing to such damage?

So to clarify; fur is no worse because we all kill animals, but faux fur is bad because it harms the environment, which we all happen to look after?

It's kind of hard not be doing harm to the earth but I mean, given that we all contribute to the damages in different ways, can we honestly say the earth feels the pain of being skinned alive? Presumably you’d choose the skinning alive / electric poker option if it was you up for execution?

There’s no real agreeable solution to this moral puzzle.

I'm gonna sit this one out because it's just going to go around in circles.

peasant

Elle Collins wrote: »

That's exactly the point I'm making in regard to animals that are bred for the human consumption of their flesh. It seems to be a common feeling that it's ok to eat the meat of an animal that died with a bolt through the head, but there is an assumption that because the animal died quickly it must have lived a long and happy life! Where do people get that idea? And how can they stand over it, when animal rights groups have been canvassing about the massive meat-production centres of the world for years?

I will not dispute that there is an amount of hypocrisy around where consumers of battery hens lambaste the wearers of fur without realising what hyppocrits they are.

On the other hand, there is no disputing the fact that in this day and age, in our climate and in our society there is no need whatsoever for fur other than fashion.

It is not right to mistreat and torture animals in order to eat them later and there is urgent need to make meat as expensive as it needs to be for the animals to lead a dignified life before they end up on our plates ...

but

Torturing and mistreating animals just so that you can look or feel better, that's just downright cynical

Elle Collins

peasant wrote: »

but

Torturing and mistreating animals just so that you can look or feel better, that's just downright cynical

Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate that there is nothing wrong with torturing animals, but I strongly believe that my actions when I eat a steak or a deep friend chicken breast are every bit as responsible for the torture of animals as my wearing a mink coat.

I think Waking-Dreams is right; this thread could go round in never-ending circles...

Greyfox

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

Yes, as explained by an example earlier in the thread of how killing an Elephant for the sole purpose of it's Ivory is wrong.

Elle Collins wrote: »

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?

Fair point. A lot more should be done to stop this, it's definitely a case of many people not been aware of how badly these chickens are kept, or are just putting their head in the sand on the subject but in my opinion I do think people who make an effort not to eat non-free range chickens etc do have the right to lecture people about the cruelties of fur

astrofool wrote: »

Did you bother to read my post?

My point was that, if the animal being killed for fur, was killed the same way as a cow is for meat, is fur then bad?

If it's kept and killed the same way as cows in Ireland are and if the primary reason for it's death is for meat it wouldn't be bad, but sure the fur is always going to be a lot more valuable then it's meat. Ultimitaly I look down on people who buy fur because their supporting this market and I believe this practice should be banned everywhere in the world as I can't see how civilised people can support it

metrovelvet

I would only accept anti-fur, pro free range chicken arguments from vegans.

Elle Collins

Greyfox wrote: »

in my opinion I do think people who make an effort not to eat non-free range chickens etc do have the right to lecture people about the cruelties of fur

We'll just have to disagree on that. I agree with Metrovelvet in that only vegans have any right to lecture about the cruelities of any type of animal produce.

Greyfox wrote: »

Ultimitaly I look down on people who buy fur because their supporting this market and I believe this practice should be banned everywhere in the world as I can't see how civilised people can support it

To be honest I look down on people who think it's fine for an animal to die for their dinner but not for their warmth. I think it's an attitude driven by a convenient blinkeredness and I don't understand how intelligent people can support it.

Waking-Dreams

only vegans have any right to lecture about the cruelities of any type of animal produce.

Sorry, one last thing, but vegans can not lecture people on animal cruelty because their diet also caused animal deaths. Read that link I posted on the 2nd page.

However, if they grow their own food then they can take the morally superior position.

raah!

prinz wrote: »

It's not illogical at all.

What a well thought out position.

Sorry, one last thing, but vegans can not lecture people on animal cruelty because their diet also caused animal deaths. Read that link I posted on the 2nd page.

They can because their lifestyle causes less harm just as people who have free range chicken cause less harm than people who eat factory chickens or wear minks. However there's a much bigger divide between vegans and meat eaters t han there is between free rangers and non-free rangers.

Edit: I just read that thing there. There is a massive difference between killing something unintentionally or not having any alternative but to eat a certain thing and simply knowledgably killing something for a tasty dinner.

Waking-Dreams

Less?

So, because a mass murder kills less people (say, only 50 people instead of 1,000) that makes their behaviour acceptable and they can therefore take the morally superior position over people who murdered 1,000+?

Like I said, we are all hypocrites if you look at it critically.

You did read that link, right?

Elle Collins

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Sorry, one last thing, but vegans can not lecture people on animal cruelty because their diet also caused animal deaths. Read that link I posted on the 2nd page.

However, if they grow their own food then they can take the morally superior position.

I read that Waking-Dreams, it was interesting, but I thought there was more sense in PETA's response:

"Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting.

While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot
more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights
advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the majority of the animals killed during harvesting."


Sincerely,
Cliff Kaminsky
PETA Correspondent

prinz

raah! wrote: »

What a well thought out position..

Yes, I thought so. Unless of course you want to argue from a logical point of view why there is no difference between skinning an animal alive and killing it instantly and as painlessly as possible. For some reason there seems to be the idea that the end result negates any difference in the means. It doesn't.

raah!

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Less?

So, because a mass murder kills less people (say, only 50 people instead of 1,000) that makes their behaviour acceptable and they can therefore take the morally superior position over people who murdered 1,000+?

Like I said, we are all hypocrites if you look at it critically.

You did read that link, right?

I edited the post to add more.

The argument you are using there is the arguments veg/vegans use to condemn all meat use. The less argument is one used by free rangers against anti free rangers. The serial killer argument doesn't work as these are not continued actions, when it comes to diet, it's something someone continues to do.

Being a hypocrite depends on your stated position, and knowingly acting otherwise to it. Arguments like the ones you have used makes relapsing alcoholics hypocrites. Or heroin addicts who say "I don't want to do heroin anymore hypocrites"

The reason vegetarians can call people who eat free range hypocrites is that while they claim to care about the welfare of animals, they continue to kill them. If their position was simply "I don't like it when animals suffer whilst alive" then they would not be hypocrites.

raah!

prinz wrote: »

Yes, I thought so. Unless of course you want to argue from a logical point of view why there is no difference between skinning an animal alive and killing it instantly and as painlessly as possible. For some reason there seems to be the idea that the end result negates any difference in the means. It doesn't.

No one has been arguing that. You have done nothing but argue against points not made.

You said it was only ok to do kill animals for things that are necessary, eating meat is not necessary.

prinz

Elle Collins wrote: »

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.

raah! wrote: »

No one has been arguing that. You have done nothing but argue against points not made.

Perhaps you should read the post I was initially responding to, particularly the 'illogical' notion of having a different opinion to the instant slaughter as opposed to the skinning while alive. It is perfectly logical to hold them in different regard tbh, even if the end result is the same.

raah!

What she meant was, things don't like dying. Taking this as a first premis, and proceeding from there to "animals don't like dying" is not illogical. Also, through the whole argument are assumptions that we care about the welfare of animals. If we don't there is no need to argue.

It can be logical for different people to hold the two different positions, but hers was completely logical from her own starting points.

Edit: Also, nobody has been saying that the two are exactly the same. But the argument is, from a welfare point of view they are both bad. It is illogical because you are claiming to not want to cause undue harm to animals. Yet their death itself is completely unnecessary, and cannot be disregarded just because of the lack of emotion inducing suffering