The Queen sparks anger over fur for Christmas

[Still Waters]

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II wore one of her favourite fur coats on Christmas Day but her choice of material has angered animal rights groups which termed it as a cruel and uncivilised move.

http://www.business-...22600569_1.html

[Leonardo]

Fake fur has a much greater environmental footprint than real fur, and not all real fur is from sources which treat the animals cruelly.

For sure, promote a more ethical treatment of animals and go after animal farmers who treat their animals (reared for whatever reason) cruelly, but this general outrage against items such as fur is misdirected.

[SHaYap]

Oh for gawds sake ... leave the little old lady alone ....

~

[Frank Merton]

Somehow I have always found it disconcerting to think about wearing the skin of a dead animal. I even avoid leather, although I am not one who would make any issue when someone choses to do otherwise. It just does not seem civilized.

[SHaYap]

That's how civilisation started with baby steps for gawds sake ... else we'd have no notion of covering up today and naked is the only fashion statement ...

[Frank Merton]

We cover up to keep off the sun and stay warm, and I guess to try to be attractive since naked bodies gotta be really good to be attractive. Nowadays hides are not needed and are a relic.

[SHaYap]

She's an old lady ... an elder ... a senior citizen even if one does not subscribe to the monarchy ... what does one expects ? THe lil'old Queen to walk about in fluffy 100% cotton sweaters when she has some of her favorite fur coats in the royal closet ?

Leave the little old lady alone ...

~

[Frank Merton]

She's an old lady ... an elder ... a senior citizen even if one does not subscribe to the monarchy ... what does one expects ? THe lil'old Queen to walk about in fluffy 100% cotton sweaters when she has some of her favorite fur coats in the royal closet ?

Leave the little old lady alone ...

~

She is not a "little old lady," she is Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, North Ireland and who knows what else.

[SHaYap]

She is not a "little old lady," she is Queen of England, Wales, Scotland, North Ireland and who knows what else.

I know Frank ... that's the irony of it ... even if she wasn't a monarch ... she IS a little old lady ... due respect is what I'm saying ... all this hoo ha is just some opportunistic soap box bellowing by those with vested ambitions ... if you see some little old grannie walking down Kings Street in fur are you going to chastise her for being a relic ?

Why should the Queen be so deserving just cause .. ?

~

[Purplos]

She started wearing that coat in 1961. The animals are long dead and wearing it again now doesn't hurt anything again. Not wearing the coat would be more an affront to the animals that died for it, right? Also, I highly doubt the queen walking out in a 50 year old fur coat is going to start a fashion trend.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Do animal rights groups actually support animal rights? or are they a money bag organisation?

[RedSquirrel]

As much as I am no fan of monarchy and I am a respecter of animals, I think this is way overboard. Who cries for the great cotton beast? The mighty rayon herds? The lycra/spandex schools, swimming free?

Plant, animal, human. It's all alive, wear it if you please. I'd rather the whole of the animal was used than just the meat or fur.

[JGirl]

it is not illegal to wear fur. it is a preference. I'm sick to the nines of this nonsense of who should do what according to whom.

if you don't want to wear fur or leather or eat meat then by all means don't. but shut your face about it.

[DecoNoir]

You know, if these idiots actually put as much effort into learning about the animals they supposedly care about as they did into making such a fuss about this crap, they might earn a bit of respect. As it is, these groups are mostly composed of idiots of bare minimum intellect who want to maintain an APPEARANCE of being good poeple, rather than actually put effort into being good people.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20556_5-animal-rights-campaigns-that-managed-to-screw-over-animals.html

A little lightheartedness after my rant.

[redhen]

Interesting, I was unaware that fur-farming is banned in the UK. Good for them.

"The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 (c. 33) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to "prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur" in England and Wales. It received Royal Assent on 23 November 2000."

I understand Her Majesty is a busy person, but does she actually read summaries of legislation and letters patent issued in her name?

[Wickian]

As long as the rest of the animal isn't wasted, they are killed quickly and they aren't being wiped out over the act, why not wear fur? For sure, we can't let another buffalo incident happen, but there's nothing wrong with a person wearing fur.

[Likely Guy]

As much as I am no fan of monarchy and I am a respecter of animals, I think this is way overboard. Who cries for the great cotton beast? The mighty rayon herds? The lycra/spandex schools, swimming free?

That brought to mind this; "How many Naugas had to Die to make that Naugahyde Couch?"

[lightly]

This story made me wonder if people eat much mink ... looks like China is interested in buying mink meat from Iceland . ( lots of mink grown there)

http://www.icelandre...89724.news.aspx

.. mink kabob anyone?

[Likely Guy]

This story made me wonder if people eat much mink ... looks like China is interested in buying mink meat from Iceland . ( lots of mink grown there)

http://www.icelandre...89724.news.aspx

.. mink kabob anyone?

Well done, maybe.

[redhen]

For sure, we can't let another buffalo incident happen, but there's nothing wrong with a person wearing fur.

For what purpose? Warmth or fashion? If people were really buying fur to keep warm, they would have a coat with a layer of fur facing inwards towards the skin, you know, like Inuit and other aborigines who actually have to wear fur to keep warm.

If it's purely for fashion and status (which I'm sure it is), then it is unnecessary and thus by definition, cruel.

[redhen]

it is not illegal to wear fur. it is a preference.

In the UK and other enlightened countries, fur farming is banned. Yeah I know, Canada is no country for animals.

I'm sick to the nines of this nonsense of who should do what according to whom.

It's called ethics, morality and law. We, as civilized people are supposed to be moving towards a more humane and ethical society. You have a problem with that?

if you don't want to wear fur or leather or eat meat then by all means don't. but shut your face about it.

Well, I will not shut my face.

Here's an idea, let's have a real argument. I don't mean a dispute or heated shouting match, but an argument using logic and reason. Should I go first or do you want clean up and rephrase your premises and conclusions?

[Likely Guy]

For what purpose? Warmth or fashion? If people were really buying fur to keep warm, they would have a coat with a layer of fur facing inwards towards the skin, you know, like Inuit and other aborigines who actually have to wear fur to keep warm.

If it's purely for fashion and status (which I'm sure it is), then it is unnecessary and thus by definition, cruel.

Would you readjust your position if the meat was consumed?

[redhen]

Would you readjust your position if the meat was consumed?

If we're talking about Eskimos, etc., yes, because it is necessary for them. They don't live in a modern agricultural society and therefore need both meat and fur.

If we're talking about people who do live in a modern agricultural society, then no. Eating meat is also unnecessary and thus by definition, cruel.

[Frank Merton]

I really wish she wouldn't wear it. I think a lot of people feel that way; it just sends a slimy message.

[Wickian]

We're omnivores by nature, there's nothing cruel at all about eating another animal and making use of it's remains. Gaining the ability to create clothing out of plants and synthetics doesn't change this in my opinion.