Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ohelemapit

So is it OK to wear fur now?

44 posts in this topic

Nothing wrong with wearing fur. It's sustainable and environmentally friendly - in a world trying to go "green", we should be encouraging fur, over clothing made from cotton or plastics...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We humans would never have made it out of the tropics without wearing fur. I think if you wear fur you should have the guts to kill an animal and skin it yourself at least once.

Very few human activities are humane, or good for the natural world. Some of us like to think we are humane and kind to all animals but none of us really are. Not even the PETA freaks, or vegans are innocent when it comes to the "murder" of animals.

Just think of all the environmental degradation thru topsoil erosion, pesticides, herbicides, the use of petroleum products, as well as habitat destruction, and all the displaced animals that cotton is responsible for. Petroleum products are used for synthetic fabrics.

All of us are animal killers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We humans would never have made it out of the tropics without wearing fur. I think if you wear fur you should have the guts to kill an animal and skin it yourself at least once.

Very few human activities are humane, or good for the natural world. Some of us like to think we are humane and kind to all animals but none of us really are. Not even the PETA freaks, or vegans are innocent when it comes to the "murder" of animals.

Just think of all the environmental degradation thru topsoil erosion, pesticides, herbicides, the use of petroleum products, as well as habitat destruction, and all the displaced animals that cotton is responsible for. Petroleum products are used for synthetic fabrics.

All of us are animal killers.

Your point is valid, but nature is also cruel, its just the way it is. Animals kill animals. The difference with many humans and what is part of the natural world, is some do not kill for survival, they kill for money.

Big difference between killing to survive and stay warm than to killing to make money out of the animals bits, like fur or tusks.

As long as there is someone out there who will buy the furs and other animal parts to show off their wealth, there will always be killers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got a nice informative and entertaining film on why two wrongs don't make a right (the tu quoque fallacy) and yet it's as though no one noticed and keeps doing it.

I don't eat mammalian meat because I think, based on the presence of serotonin pathways and other similar considerations about the mammal brain, that they clearly fall into the category of sentient beings. As the meat business is run today, I wouldn't touch it, but I was building a scenario where people could -- in fact there are three such scenarios. The first is when one is served meat as a guest. One does not pull a holier-than-thou and refuse it. The second is when one is sure the animal lived a better life than in nature (not hard -- nature is brutal) and died humanely. This is hard to do unless one is personally familiar with where the meat came from. The third is when the animal's death came about during scientific management so as to keep populations from becoming harmfully excessive (usually done by having a hunting season).

There is little to distinguish not eating meat and not wearing leather shoes, and, in fact, I don't. Living in Vietnam means I were rubber thongs outdoors and am barefoot indoors. For more formal events I have a pair of plastic sandals.

Now what is my view of people who don't follow these rules? I don't think about it. That is their business, just as it is my business that I have decided it is okay to eat fish and poultry, while I assure you a strict monk would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We humans would never have made it out of the tropics without wearing fur. I think if you wear fur you should have the guts to kill an animal and skin it yourself at least once.

This is a fallacy; appeal to tradition

Very few human activities are humane, or good for the natural world. Some of us like to think we are humane and kind to all animals but none of us really are. Not even the PETA freaks, or vegans are innocent when it comes to the "murder" of animals.

Just think of all the environmental degradation thru topsoil erosion, pesticides, herbicides, the use of petroleum products, as well as habitat destruction, and all the displaced animals that cotton is responsible for. Petroleum products are used for synthetic fabrics.

This is the tu quoque fallacy (see above video). In short this fallacy is an "appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fur for fashion just doesn't float my boat.

On the one hand, you have my NDN heritage, and for traditional dances and such we wear skins and hides and so forth. However, in our little conclave, at least, those animals are killed by us, and every part is made use of. We stick to the thanking the earth for what we have tradition, and make sure as little as possible goes to waste. And I think this, honestly, is the best way. If you know you have to gut the animal and make use of every bit of it you can, you won't kill in abundance; you'll only take what you need.

On the other, I love vintage clothing, and someone thought they were doing a nice thing for me by giving me some fur hats and feather fascinators circa 1930. They're gorgeous pieces, don't get me wrong, and they were a gift, so I hang on to them, but I'll never wear them because I don't believe in fur as fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think rather than pushing vegetarianism and trying to ban furs and leathers, a better course for humanitarians is to worry about the conditions these animals endure and how they are killed.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your point is valid, but nature is also cruel, its just the way it is. Animals kill animals.

Yes indeed nature is cruel, that is what I was pointing out. No matter what our intentions are (good or bad), the very act of living requires another living thing must sacrifice it's life. There is no getting around this reality.

The difference with many humans and what is part of the natural world, is some do not kill for survival, they kill for money.

Big difference between killing to survive and stay warm than to killing to make money out of the animals bits, like fur or tusks.

As long as there is someone out there who will buy the furs and other animal parts to show off their wealth, there will always be killers.

For good or ill doesn't making money in modern human society translate into survival? We cant all live off the land any more there are to many of us and to few publicly available resources.

I am sure the people in the posted videos do not enjoy what they do for a living. I would guess they don't wake up every morning and say "I cant wait to get back to my glamorous carrier of slaughtering animals so rich folks can make a fashion statement". I would wager that they are just trying to survive, and doing what they have to do because they have no other options?

This is a fallacy; appeal to tradition

I wasn't appealing to anything. Just stating a true fact. I am not for or against the use of fur as clothing. I do think there are still some practical uses for fur, but I also think it's shameful waste for the rich to wear fur as a display of their socioeconomic status.

This is the tu quoque fallacy (see above video). In short this fallacy is an "appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,"

I took a lot of philosophy classes in college too. It is a very interesting subject and has many useful purposes in academia. However philosophical dogma doesn't translate well in the real world where; emotions, cultural tradition, poverty, religion, famine, hunger, disease, greed, and base survival needs rule.

Edited by evancj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't appealing to anything. Just stating a true fact.

Ok, thanks for clarifying; it sounded like you were stating what was the case and claiming that it should be the case.

I took a lot of philosophy classes in college too. It is a very interesting subject and has many useful purposes in academia. However philosophical dogma doesn't translate well in the real world where; emotions, cultural tradition, poverty, religion, famine, hunger, disease, greed, and base survival needs rule.

True, reason seems to get lost in any ideological or ethical argument (you should take a look at the Conspiracy sub-forums), but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give up. No progress would have been made in the abolition of slavery, women's rights, child labour and animal welfare if that was the case.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks for clarifying; it sounded like you were stating what was the case and claiming that it should be the case.

True, reason seems to get lost in any ideological or ethical argument (you should take a look at the Conspiracy sub-forums), but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and give up. No progress would have been made in the abolition of slavery, women's rights, child labour and animal welfare if that was the case.

Agreed!

There are things we can do to improve every living things existence on this earth, and we should never give up trying. But if we alienate those whom we are trying to help we will never realize our goals.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think rather than pushing vegetarianism and trying to ban furs and leathers, a better course for humanitarians is to worry about the conditions these animals endure and how they are killed.

We just banned crate farming of pigs (basically holding a female pig is a small area so she can't roll over and kill the piglets, also ensures that piglets have access to milk) because it is inhumane. Now our pork industry is struggling and we are eating worse pork from overseas that is pumped full of growth hormones.

Unless there is a global approach nothing much changes, only where the inhumane treatment occurs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to live my life in a kinder manner. I eat less and less animal products. I don't buy or use any type of animal products that I know of. Someday I hope to be able to call myself Vegan.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed nature is cruel, that is what I was pointing out. No matter what our intentions are (good or bad), the very act of living requires another living thing must sacrifice it's life. There is no getting around this reality.

For good or ill doesn't making money in modern human society translate into survival? We cant all live off the land any more there are to many of us and to few publicly available resources.

.

No, what I meant was those making money out of slaughtering animals for their tusks or fur. What happens in Africa because some rich guy wants ivory is absolutely appalling, Killing an animal for its fur because some fashion designer wants it seen on the catwalk, is not a means of survival, it is pure and utter greed.

China is doing what it can to stop the ivory trade, but I think if there were really harsh sentences for both the killer and the buyer then it may stop a lot of it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For good or ill doesn't making money in modern human society translate into survival? We cant all live off the land any more there are to many of us and to few publicly available resources.

Yup, exponential human overpopulation and finite resources = ?

Whatever out future, our expanding population will be to the detriment of most other species. But that's another thread somewhere.

Edited by redhen
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't catch me wearing fur, that's for sure.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't catch me wearing fur, that's for sure.

To a certain extent me neither, but if in a country were the only means of survival were to hunt for food and use the fur to keep warm, then I would and I do believe even the veggies of the world would when push comes to shove. At the end of the day, hunting was apart of the humans survival, it would be silly to let yourself starve and freeze to death because you would not kill another living thing to survive, trust me, the wild animals would not think twice about eating you if they had to.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand fur and leather on entirely different levels from each other. Leather as mentioned was a byproduct and by no means the sole reason the animal was slaughtered. It also has the advantage of lasting pretty well forever and is amazingly durable compared to any of my synthetically made clothes. Love the stuff.

Furs, I am mixed on. I don't understand their appeal as a fashion statement and find it pretty cruel to harvest animals just for them. I also find it a far more useful end to an animal being shot as a pest like a coyote. I suppose I would like to support furs, but have yet to be shown a way it can be done humanely on a commercial scale and thus hold all reservations against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

think rather than pushing vegetarianism and trying to ban furs and leathers, a better course for humanitarians is to worry about the conditions these animals endure and how they are killed.

But the alternatives are usually even more environmentally unfriendly.

At least fur and leather is renewable when created/harvested in a sustainable way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal fur only ever belongs on the animal it came from.

Unless you buy that fur from a shop, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.