Why no protesters outside Butchers?

Scanlas The 2nd

You often hear about protesters outside fur shops but you don't hear about protesters outside Butchers. Whats the story with the that?

Unless of course the fur in question is from an endangered animal why do people think its ok to kill animals to eat but not to wear their fur?

up for anything

Because we like most meat but not mink, fox, bear or chinchilla meat.

changes

If you follow that logic leather is from the cow so all clothes shops should be picketed also.... and the mart

bluto63

That's a furry good question

Butchers have big knives

Bottle_of_Smoke

Because people are hypocrites.

Animal rights groups can use these hypocrites as sympathisers when they're protesting against fur.

They can't use these hypocrites as sympathisers when they're protesting against meat because most people consume meat every 3/4 hours

JONJO THE MISER

Because where would they get there free range organic chickens then.

RMD

Because meat has a practical use in society. Furs are for those who have excess money and think jackets like this look good.

Still though, protesting about such stuff is ghey.

Cheap Thrills!

Erm, because meat is tasty unlike fur which just gets stuck in me teeth...:cool:

cooltown

They don't because they smell like crap.

ronnie3585

Deliciousness.

stovelid

Because it might inconvenience their parents when they were popping in for the Sunday roast and that would result in such a no allowance situation.

Nodin

Amani Fierce Hash wrote: »

Butchers have big knives

.....proper sharp knives. And cleavers....big fucken cleavers.....

ScumLord

Because it's food not a luxury.

rockmongrel

Because meat is seen as a necessity by most to live, ie there is meat in most meals for most people.

Wearing fur for fashion is just the finest example of human decadence and ridiculousness.

There is logic to it, it's just not very well founded.

I'm a veggie, suppose I should mention that.

Riddle101

You want an honest theory. I think it might have something to do with Bucther's being an important part in society. They're food distributors and sell meat products and since food is a necessity, the activists find that an exception can be made because they realise that while they might be vegetarians, they can't tell people what to eat. However they proberly see it as a different story in relation to clothes, because they realise fur and other such clothes made from animals, is more of a luxury then a necessity and therfore it's ok to protest about that. But that's just my theory

starbelgrade

F*cking smelly, crusty, tree hugging, animal rights protesting bastards, with their pinko-liberal, **** arsed ideas.

If I want to make a ball sack warmer from the skin of a glorified otter, I don't see what the f*cking problem is.

ejmaztec

starbelgrade wrote: »

F*cking smelly, crusty, tree hugging, animal rights protesting bastards, with their pinko-liberal, **** arsed ideas.

If I want to make a ball sack warmer from the skin of a glorified otter, I don't see what the f*cking problem is.

Getting the otter to hand it over nicely might be the problem, the unsociable little bastards.

Gummy Panda

Stuff like this makes me sad

ejmaztec

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Stuff like this makes me sad

I don't see your comment on that page.:(

Millicent

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Stuff like this makes me sad

Does it make you a sad panda? :pac:

Scanlas The 2nd

rockmongrel wrote: »

Because meat is seen as a necessity by most to live, ie there is meat in most meals for most people.

Wearing fur for fashion is just the finest example of human decadence and ridiculousness.

There is logic to it, it's just not very well founded.

I'm a veggie, suppose I should mention that.

People don't need meat to live, so I don't see why we need to slaughter so many innocent animals.

Scanlas The 2nd

Riddle101 wrote: »

You want an honest theory. I think it might have something to do with Bucther's being an important part in society. They're food distributors and sell meat products and since food is a necessity, the activists find that an exception can be made because they realise that while they might be vegetarians, they can't tell people what to eat. However they proberly see it as a different story in relation to clothes, because they realise fur and other such clothes made from animals, is more of a luxury then a necessity and therfore it's ok to protest about that. But that's just my theory

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

GLaDOS

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

People don't need meat to live, so I don't see why we need to slaughter so many innocent animals.

'Cause it tastes goddamn delicious, that's why

Also, meat eating led to humans developing greater intelligence.

blubloblu

Cows aren't cute.

starbelgrade

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

Of course it is... what would a fry-up be without meat? Beans on toast, that's what.

cc87

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

When considering a diet without meat requires supplements in order to get enough of the various macro-nutrients and supplements were not always around, meat used to be a necessity.

However if you take into account that, for some reason, people remain healthier on a diet consisting of wholefoods than on supplements, i think ill stick with my meat.

Einhard

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Stuff like this makes me sad

So, according to the Daily Wail, the fur trade is the sickest trade of all? I'm sure the women and children trafficed across the world for the sex trade would agree wholeheartedly...

Riddle101

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

Since meat is used as food, it can be considered a necessity. Plus I think the term pick your battles comes to mind, because the argument between eating meat isn't quite like the fur situation

bluto63

Einhard wrote: »

So, according to the Daily Wail, the fur trade is the sickest trade of all? I'm sure the women and children trafficed across the world for the sex trade would agree wholeheartedly...

It's a sensationalist statement from a sensationalist paper. Don't get worked up over them, it's really really not worth it

AckwelFoley

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

meat is food

Einhard

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Food is a necessity, meat isn't.

Neither are vegetables.