# Faux Fur



## Bridgita

I hope this is within in the scope of the forum. Today, I was reading the news and apparently, it has recently come to light that a lot of "Faux Fur" is not necessarily "faux" after all. I am personally infuriated. The jacket I have been wearing (it's VERY cold here) very well may have real fur in the trim. In China, they have been using this dog, "raccoon dog" for fur. The manufacturers mislabel and sell them to retailers as "faux." I'm so disgusted that I don't want to wear that jacket anymore, many popular retailers were on the list of mislabeled fur. The way they obtain the fur is HORRIFIC . . . they cut off their feet and skin these poor animals alive. The website brought me to tears. I'm disgusted. If I wanted to have REAL fur, then I would but I DONT. I am an animal lover and I don't need the skin off their backs (literally) for mere fashion and vanity. I know someone is going to come here and say "do you wear leather" or "do you eat meat" and my answer will be yes. Leather in my opinion isn't as bad, because the meat was also used for consumption and not purely for vanity . . . and yes they hang them and slit their throats but far less inhumane than what you will see on this website. I would like to know the opinions of others on this very sad sad subject. Thanks.

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/raccdog.html


----------



## mytwolangs

Rest assured that "faux" fur really is false. 
Real fur is expensive as hell and they are not going to sell real fur at fake fur price. They may have a faux fur jacket that they try to pass off as real, but NOT the other way around
That would make about as much sense as using real diamonds and telling the buyers that they are zirconium.

Now me, I hate how they come up with fur also, I have a fake fur jacket, it goes to about my knees and it was $90. 

Don't worry, your faux fur IS faux. And if your jacket did not come from China, rest double assured.

I am against animal cruelty, but the thing is, no matter what one buys or uses, cruelty was somehow invloved. There is not really a way to avoid it, just minimize it.


----------



## TRG

Bridgita said:


> I hope this is within in the scope of the forum. Today, I was reading the news and apparently, it has recently come to light that a lot of "Faux Fur" is not "faux" after all. I'm a personally infuriated. The jacket I have been wearing (it's VERY cold here) very well may have real fur in the trim. In China, they have been using this dog, "raccoon dog" for fur. The manufacturers mislabel and sell them to retailers as "faux." I'm so disgusted that I don't want to wear that jacket anymore, many popular retailers were on the list of mislabeled fur. The way they obtain the fur is HORRIFIC . . . they cut off their feet and skin these poor animals alive. The website brought me to tears. I'm disgusted. If I wanted to have REAL fur, then I would but I DONT. I am an animal lover and I don't need the skin off their backs (literally) for mere fashion and vanity. I know someone is going to come here and say "do you wear leather" or "do you eat meat" and my answer will be yes. Leather in my opinion isn't as bad, because the meat was also used for consumption and not purely for vanity . . . and yes they hang them and slit their throats but far less inhumane than what you will see on this website. I would like to know the opinions of others on this very sad sad subject. Thanks.
> 
> http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/raccdog.html


 
I would assume that someone who was really concerned about the issue of using animals for their fur would never consider wearing faux fur. You are just contributing to the problem since people seeing you on the street have no way of knowing that your fashion statement is faux. 

As for the notion that real fur is too expensive to be used a a substitute for faux fur, I'd really like to see the numbers on that!


----------



## mytwolangs

Well TRG, have you ever heard of a $90 fur coat? 


Have a look at some of the prices. The tax alone on any of them is more than what I paid for my coat.


----------



## Bridgita

To say I'm contributing to the problem is just ridiculous. It's a tiny bit of trim on the hood. Far from wearing an actual fur coat. The tag says polyester. The fur is real (maybe not necessarily on my jacket because it clearly hasn't been tested) but 24 out of the 25 jackets tested were mislabeled. The Humane Society did this test. I will provide the link. 

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2862608&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/popup?id=2862351

*(TRG>>>* I would assume that someone who was really concerned about the issue of using animals for their fur would never consider wearing faux fur. You are just contributing to the problem since people seeing you on the street have no way of knowing that your fashion statement is faux.*) *


Wow, I feel like every post I ever make someone is being extremely rude to me. I'm sure that there are many foreros who have what they thought to be "Faux" trims on their jacket and believe me, no one would think the fur on my jacket is real . .. It's a puffy coat.


----------



## TRG

mytwolangs said:


> Well TRG, have you ever heard of a $90 fur coat?
> 
> 
> Have a look at some of the prices. The tax alone on any of them is more than what I paid for my coat.


 
You are just falling into a logical trap. Furs are natually thought of as being expensive so it's easy to assume that there is no such thing as cheap fur, but unless you are in the fur business I suspect you really don't know what kinds of cheap fur may be available. I don't know either, but the idea does not sound outlandish to me. Other than googling fur coats, tell me what you really know about the fur trade.


----------



## Bridgita

TRG said:


> You are just falling into a logical trap. Furs are natually thought of as being expensive so it's easy to assume that there is no such thing as cheap fur, but unless you are in the fur business I suspect you really don't know what kinds of cheap fur may be available. I don't know either, but the idea does not sound outlandish to me. Other than googling fur coats, tell me what you really know about the fur trade.


 
I don't know what you're trying to do here, but CLEARLY . . . we bought what we thought and maybe actually be "FAKE" fur . . . so therefore, I can tell you that I know NOTHING of the FUR business. I only know what ABC News reported today about tests performed by the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.


----------



## TRG

Bridgita said:


> To say I'm contributing to the problem is just ridiculous. It's a tiny bit of trim on the hood. Far from wearing an actual fur coat. The tag says polyester. The fur is real (maybe not necessarily on my jacket because it clearly hasn't been tested) but 24 out of the 25 jackets tested were mislabeled. The Humane Society did this test. I will provide the link.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2862608&page=1
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/popup?id=2862351
> 
> *(TRG>>>* I would assume that someone who was really concerned about the issue of using animals for their fur would never consider wearing faux fur. You are just contributing to the problem since people seeing you on the street have no way of knowing that your fashion statement is faux.*) *
> 
> 
> Wow, I feel like every post I ever make someone is being extremely rude to me. I'm sure that there are many foreros who have what they thought to be "Faux" trims on their jacket and believe me, no one would think the fur on my jacket is real . .. It's a puffy coat.


 
I apologize for being mean, if I was, but I wanted to bring your attention to the point that if you are really wanting to discourage the use of fur, the you should not use fake fur. It does in way contribute to the problem. Does this not make any sense to you at all?


----------



## Bridgita

TRG said:


> I apologize for being mean, if I was, but I wanted to bring your attention to the point that if you are really wanting to discourage the use of fur, the you should not use fake fur. It does in way contribute to the problem. Does this not make any sense to you at all?


 
If you weren't intending to be mean, then I accept your apology. It only appeared that way to me, but trust me, mine does not by any means look real . . . You can tell a real fur (or what we would think of as real) . . you know why? Because usually, it's of something like Rabbit, Beaver, Chinchilla, Mink and varias other animals and is VERY SOFT. No one would recognize this fur as real, because it's not really soft, it feels cottony, and it's not shiny. I never would have imagined it was real, you know why? Because I would NEVER dream that I was wearing DOG FUR!! And they have to sell it cheaper . . . It's DOG . . . I would bet that most Americans (I'm speaking of North TO South America, not just US) (I can't speak for other cultures) would NOT want to wear dog fur. . . we have dogs as pets, or rather as family members . . . it's very different, even though it shouldn't be. I never would've thought that fur was real, but it may infact be real.


----------



## emma42

Fake fur has become very popular here and I completely disagree that the wearers of such are contributing to the real fur trade.  Fake fur is a fashion item per se.  Gone are the days when one would want people to think that one was wearing real fur instead of fake.  Not completely gone, but certainly to a large extent.  

For example, there have been trends here around brightly coloured fake fur (pink, green etc) and people are happy to wear what is obviously fake.

No one should be criticised for wearing fake fur.  Would those same criticisms be levelled at someone wearing a polyester leopard-print dress? (other questions of taste, perhaps...)

Bridgita is quite right to be upset at the deception she has (probably) fallen victim to.


----------



## Bridgita

emma42 said:


> Fake fur has become very popular here and I completely disagree that the wearers of such are contributing to the real fur trade. Fake fur is a fashion item per se. Gone are the days when one would want people to think that one was wearing real fur instead of fake. Not completely gone, but certainly to a large extent.
> 
> For example, there have been trends here around brightly coloured fake fur (pink, green etc) and people are happy to wear what is obviously fake.
> 
> No one should be criticised for wearing fake fur. Would those same criticisms be levelled at someone wearing a polyester leopard-print dress? (other questions of taste, perhaps...)
> 
> Bridgita is quite right to be upset at the deception she has (probably) fallen victim to.


 
Thank You Emma!!!


----------



## emma42

De nada, Bridgita!


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

I've seen chavs wearing fake Burberry garments.  Do these contribute to the proliferation of the Thomas Burberry Spring Collection?


----------



## Bridgita

RAPHUS CUCULLATUS said:


> I've seen chavs wearing fake Burberry garments. Do these contribute to the proliferation of the Thomas Burberry Spring Collection?


 
Raphus, I have to say that most of the time when I see a Burberry, Fendi, or Louis Vuitton purse, I automatically assume that they are fake.  The same assumption that I make with most fur coats these days.  I am sure some that I think are fake, are actually real, but I guess these days . . . there are so many "knock-offs" that it's hard to tell the difference.  So I fully agree with what you said.  Either way, being decepted into buying a product that you very well may be FULLY against is horrible.


----------



## _forumuser_

TRG said:


> I apologize for being mean, if I was, but I wanted to bring your attention to the point that if you are really wanting to discourage the use of fur, the you should not use fake fur. It does in way contribute to the problem. Does this not make any sense to you at all?


 
I wonder if you really believe what you say or you are just trying to sound clever. If I am a convinced environmentalist and a car maker comes up with a 100% emission-free car, according to your logic I cannot purchase it because others would have no way of telling that my car is different from ordinary gasoline-guzzling cars and therefore I would be encouraging fuel consumption and indirectly contributing to air pollution.....??? 
People wear fur because they like it, and changing people's tastes is immensely harder than changing where we take the fur from, polymers instead of live animals. PLus I don't see why we should if fur can be obtained without harming anyone.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Bridgita said:


> I would like to know the opinions of others on this very sad sad subject. Thanks.



  I, and therefore probably some other forer@s, am not certain what you are asking.  Are you looking for opinions on cruelty to animals, false advertising, or the morality of the fur industry?  We need to narrow this thread down a little.


----------



## maxiogee

I find it strange that we humans can eat the flesh of factory-farmed animals without a problem, but turn our noses up at the concept of wearing the skins of factory-farmed animals.

I find it more strange that many people wear leather without raising the eyebrows of the softer sort of anti-fur people.

I find it very strange that we 'own' pets.

---

But then I look at how we humans despoil anything we think is to our advantage, and I find it strange that I find the above strange.


----------



## _forumuser_

maxiogee said:


> I find it strange that we humans can eat the flesh of factory-farmed animals without a problem, but turn our noses up at the concept of wearing the skins of factory-farmed animals.
> 
> I find it more strange that many people wear leather without raising the eyebrows of the softer sort of anti-fur people.
> 
> I find it very strange that we 'own' pets.



I say one thing at a time. Doing something is always better than doing nothing on account of our inability to do everything.


----------



## cuchuflete

Things I wonder about, but rarely, and with little fire in the belly:

Do people who oppose wearing fur ever watch professional tennis matches?
-If they do, are they concerned about the racquets?  _—natural gut is used by most professionals—

_Do people who oppose wearing fur own CDs or vinyl LPs or eight track tapes of orchestral performances?
-If they do, are they concerned about the string instrument strings? _—many of the best sounding strings are made of animal guts—_
-If they do, are they concerned about the fine violins? _—Most fine violins, and other string instruments, are built using glues made from animal hides.—





Do people who oppose wearing animal-based products worry about global warming?
-If they do, how much consideration do they give to the petrochemical raw materials and hydrocarbon energy used
to convert these into alternatives to animal-based products?


_


----------



## TRG

_forumuser_ said:


> I wonder if you really believe what you say or you are just trying to sound clever. If I am a convinced environmentalist and a car maker comes up with a 100% emission-free car, according to your logic I cannot purchase it because others would have no way of telling that my car is different from ordinary gasoline-guzzling cars and therefore I would be encouraging fuel consumption and indirectly contributing to air pollution.....???
> People wear fur because they like it, and changing people's tastes is immensely harder than changing where we take the fur from, polymers instead of live animals. PLus I don't see why we should if fur can be obtained without harming anyone.


 
You are almost right, but the better example is of the "environmentalist" who criticizes people for driving the SUV while driving one him/herself. If you were driving a pollution free vehicle it is very unlikey that people are going to confuse it with vehicles that are highly polluting. Besides which, there are no cars that do not produce pollution in some form or other so it's strictly a hypothetical case. If someone ever makes a non-polluting vehicle then it will immediately become famous and no one will confuse it with the cars we are driving now. This is all very different from the situtation of people who want to end the use of fur as a fashion statement while wearing fake fur themselves. It surprises me that people do not seem to want to ackowledge any inconsistency in this. And if unscrupulous people are substiting real fur for fake fur then this is all the more reason to avoid it.


----------



## emma42

There is no inconsistency.  Fake fur is a fashion statement in itself.  It is no longer the case that people wearing fake fur want others to think it's real.  I am only referring to "western" societies here because this is where I trade.  Real fur has become such a no-no that women (because it's usually women) would, for the most part, be appalled that anyone would mistake their fake fur for real.

I just wanted to deal with this point and am not expressing an opinion on the environmental implications of fake fur.


----------



## Veggy

cuchuflete said:


> Things I wonder about, but rarely, and with little fire in the belly:
> 
> Do people who oppose wearing fur ever watch professional tennis matches?
> -If they do, are they concerned about the racquets? _—natural gut is used by most professionals—_
> 
> Do people who oppose wearing fur own CDs or vinyl LPs or eight track tapes of orchestral performances?
> -If they do, are they concerned about the string instrument strings? _—many of the best sounding strings are made of animal guts—_
> -If they do, are they concerned about the fine violins? _—Most fine violins, and other string instruments, are built using glues made from animal hides.—_
> 
> 
> 
> _*THE ANSWER IS YES OF COURSE*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Do people who oppose wearing animal-based products worry about global warming?_
> _-If they do, how much consideration do they give to the petrochemical raw materials and hydrocarbon energy used_
> _to convert these into alternatives to animal-based products?_


 
Sorry, I did not use the "quote" right. What I meant to say to cuchuflete is that the answer is yes to everything is asked.
Moreover, I personnally wonder why do people like wearing or using FAUX???


----------



## AngelEyes

Bridgita,

I very much DO understand how you feel...I would feel the same way, too! I think Emma touched on some of my reactions, as well.

And yet...cuchuflete's remarks really can't be disputed and point out very clearly our inconsistencies in this area.

Still...oh, my God...I can't even go to those sites and read about such things. 

My mother-in-law has beautiful, expensive furs. They're gorgeous. Silky soft, with radiant shimmers to their surface...I hate every one of them, because I physically feel sick to my stomach when I'm by them. We're the same size and she's always saying I can have them when she's gone. I just shake my head and wonder...what would I do with them, other than to get rid of them as soon as I possibly could?

I know, it doesn't make sense. It's not logical. But it's the way I feel.

Also, there are some very high quality fake fur companies who sell very beautifully real looking furs. I don't see anything wrong with buying and wearing them. They at least don't make me want to lose my lunch when I look at them. 

Maybe it's a girl thing, but I just can't get past my honest emotions about the subject.

So, I understand completely, and I would be horrified if one of my coats contained dog fur. I'd never be able to wear it again.


_*AngelEyes* _


----------



## JamesM

Veggy said:


> Sorry, I did not use the "quote" right. What I meant to say to cuchuflete is that the answer is yes to everything is asked.
> Moreover, I personnally wonder why do people like wearing or using FAUX???


 
"French" and "fashion" go together, at least for many Americans. To add a certain _cachet_  to any phrase in American English, borrow a French word. It makes it _chic, _and adds a _soupçon_ of sophistication. In fact, it's _de rigeur_ in the fashion and culinary industries. "Fake" sounds cheap; "faux" sounds classy.

I think the original poster's discovery is shocking but not surprising. If I were in his/her position I think I would be personally scandalized by the discovery, and I can understand the outrage. That said, I imagine it's not a widespread or longstanding practice, and it doesn't rise to the level of other concerns in my life based on this one incident.


----------



## Veggy

Thank you so much JamesM, for your "linguistic explanation" it's interesting but I did not mean linguisticly speaking. I was wondering if one does not like to wear a fur coat because one knows the amount of suffering it comes from and because one would feel a thief since the coat is given to animals to protect them and is not ours to steal and wear, WHY should one turn to something similar.
Another question I ask is in th U.S. or in Europe maybe a dog (or a cat) can be considered "faux" because usually people use other animals to get fur from, so maybe the label is not lying. In other words is Real dog a "faux" for the fur industry?
It is not a problem I have because I do not wear ANY kind of products that come from suffering and death. But the discussion is very interesting


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> I was wondering if one does not like to wear a fur coat because one knows the amount of suffering it comes from and because one would feel a thief since the coat is given to animals to protect them and is not ours to steal and wear, WHY should one turn to something similar.



Why?
Because real fur is one of the warmest things one can wear. Who wouldn't want to try to emulate the thermal qualities of fur?
It can also 'look' beautiful, particularly in movement, when the light catches each individual fibre and radiates a glow.

Face it, whether we are pro- or anti-fur, fur is sexy! There's an Ug-the-caveman earthiness to it, a dominant-predatorness, and a potency about the person who can wear a fur coat.


----------



## cuchuflete

> t is not a problem I have because I do not wear ANY kind of products that come from suffering and death.



I'd like to learn more about the circumstances of linen, cotton, and wool production before I accept that there is no suffering involved.  Certainly if one wears artificial fibers made from petroleum there is plenty of human suffering in the process of extraction and production.  It may be less obvious than skinning an animal, but
trade-offs between perfectly bad and blissfully good are hard to find.


----------



## JamesM

Veggy said:


> It is not a problem I have because I do not wear ANY kind of products that come from suffering and death. But the discussion is very interesting


 
I admire your principles, but I'd like to say that the best we can do in our current interrelated world is not "knowingly" wear any kind of products that come from suffering and death. You might be reading an article next week that exposes the all-natural cotton fiber clothing you purchased last week as a product of a sweatshop in Bangladesh, despite any fair trade, human-friendly, made-by-local-artisan label you carefully inspected before buying.

I think that's the source of the original poster's outrage. He or she did not intentionally purchase a product that came from suffering and death and is upset that her good intentions and the trust she placed in the vendor were both treated so cavalierly.


----------



## Mike P.

emma42 said:


> Real fur has become such a no-no that women (because it's usually women) would, for the most part, be appalled that anyone would mistake their fake fur for real.



Aside from upkeep and expense issues, I've never met someone who didn't prefer the real thing over the fake.


----------



## emma42

Is that, perhaps, a USA thing?  I get the impression that real fur is more acceptable in certain states of the USA than here in England.  I am particularly thinking of "rural" states.  Also, I believe there is a generation factor.  I remember from American films of the 40s, 50s, 60s, that the heart's desire of lots of female characters was a mink coat.


----------



## AngelEyes

Mike P. said:


> Aside from upkeep and expense issues, I've never met someone who didn't prefer the real thing over the fake.


 

Mike,

Emma's from England and I'm from the US, and we both agree here that if you're a woman who is against the wearing of fur coats, you wouldn't want anyone mistaking your faux for real.

It's strange, I know, but that's how a lot of us feel. I admit that logic doesn't play a very important part for me over this, but I still feel the way I do, and I understand how Emma feels, too. I agree that real fur is beautiful, but it's more than looks that I take into consideration when it comes to this type of clothing.

I've also noticed that women of my mother's generation are much more tolerant of wearing real fur. They grew up appreciating it as a form of status and style. 

And they all say their fur coats are much warmer than any other.

By the way, I can think of one thing - no, make that two - where a LOT of people prefer the fake over the real.  

Seriously, I know what you're saying, but it's just not for me.


*AngelEyes*

*EDIT:*
*I was writing my post as Emma was writing hers. It's amazing how we chose similar words and thoughts!*


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> By the way, I can think of one thing - no, make that two - where a LOT of people prefer the fake over the real.


 Artificial goatees and merkins, no doubt.


----------



## AngelEyes

cuchuflete said:


> Artificial goatees and merkins, no doubt.


 

Uh, yeah...what else is there?  


*AngelEyes*


----------



## emma42

Really, cuchuflete, please stick to the topic and spare us your personal proclivities.


----------



## Veggy

Yes, JamesM, I agree that the best we can do is not knowingly wear anything that comes from suffering which lead us to  what cuchuflete says about suffering being probably in many products. We are not perfect but what we can do is _the best we can with what we know._ And try every day to know a little more and become a little bit better. To those who say that fur is beautiful I'd like to say that you find it beautiful until you know how it gets in the shops and at what price. The moment you know that, you will only look at a fur coat in disgust. It is warm? I think we are clever enough to keep warm without harming other living beings. In Russia, many years ago,  people use to wear fur _inside _their coats, today we wear it to show it. 
I ask again: why should we want to wear something similar like faux? There are many materials, beautiful and warm.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> To those who say that fur is beautiful I'd like to say that you find it beautiful until you know how it gets in the shops and at what price. The moment you know that, you will only look at a fur coat in disgust.



Don't generalise.
Not everyone sees the 'price' of fur as being a price too high to pay. And many who _do_ know how it gets to the shops _don't_ look at fur in disgust.

Don't forget that "nature" is all about life and death and nature is more cruel than you could ever imagine. The use of furs for clothing is just recycling dead animal matter. 
Does not eating meat or wearing fur/leather make one more moral than those who do? Why?


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> Don't generalise.
> Not everyone sees the 'price' of fur as being a price too high to pay. And many who _do_ know how it gets to the shops _don't_ look at fur in disgust.
> 
> Don't forget that "nature" is all about life and death and nature is more cruel than you could ever imagine. The use of furs for clothing is just recycling dead animal matter.
> Does not eating meat or wearing fur/leather make one more moral than those who do? Why?


 

Ok, maxiogee, I generalized and that is wrong. But I think and I hope that MOST people who know will be disgusted by a fur coat and will refuse to buy it and wear it. I must say you are wrong if you think that fur or leather is being used because otherwise it would be thrown away. It is not so. It is not recycling. It's a trade by itself and bring lots of money. Unfortunately it brings also  lots of pollution and illnesses to people who work within.(leather factories)Nature might be cruel to your point of view. To me, nature is nature.  Man, with the help of the use of his mind and sensitivity can do better.
I don't know how to answer to your last question. I am not trying to be more moral than others, I am not concerned with that.


----------



## Maja

Bridgita said:


> Today, I was  reading the news and apparently, it has recently come to light that a lot of  "Faux Fur" is not necessarily "faux" after all. I am personally  infuriated.


I totally  understand how you feel!!! 



cuchuflete said:


> I'd  like to learn more about the circumstances of linen, cotton, and wool production  before I accept that there is no suffering involved. Certainly if one wears  artificial fibers made from petroleum there is plenty of human suffering in the  process of extraction and production.


It is  one thing not having much choice but to use (or eat) animal products and  other to have a choice and still use it for pure fashion and social prestige  (worming arguments can hardly apply in the western society where there is heat  everyway you go)! 
You cannot start walking to work because the bus is polluting  atmosphere, or going barefoot and naked because you don't wont to wear leather (because of the animals) or artificial materials (because they pollute atmosphere),  you cannot avoid using some kind of cellulose products (writing paper, tissues,  toilet paper...) even if you are aware of (and sorry for) the trees etc. 
People  _have to be selective_ in order to function normally in today's society! The  point is reducing our abuse of nature as much as we can...


----------



## cuchuflete

> The  point is reducing our abuse of nature as much as we can...


 That sounds like a perfectly fine idea.
Now just who is going to define 'abuse of nature'?  Each of us can do it for ourselves, and probably ought to.
Declarations that wearing leather is "worse" on some scale than wearing plastic are not especially enlightening.
Selling animal products, intentionally mislabeled as 'faux' fur, is dishonest.  We should be able to know what we are choosing to wear, and then make informed, individual, choices.


----------



## Maja

cuchuflete said:


> That sounds like a perfectly fine idea.
> Now  just who is going to define 'abuse of nature'? Each of us can do it for  ourselves, and probably ought to.


I guess... everyone according to  their own conscience... 


cuchuflete said:


> Selling animal products,  intentionally mislabeled as 'faux' fur, is dishonest. We should be able to know  what we are choosing to wear, and then make informed, individual,  choices.


More then dishonest. A crime. Almost as bad as lying to a  vegetarian that he is eating a soy burger when in fact he is eating a real  one!


----------



## JamesM

Veggy said:


> .
> I ask again: why should we want to wear something similar like faux? There are many materials, beautiful and warm.



Why should those who are creative with materials not be allowed to express their creativity in imitating the beauty of an animal's fur?  

Imitating the look of nature is a common theme in artistic work.  I don't see why clothes should be any different.  I am not offended by a plush teddy bear, even though the material is obviously "faux" fur.


----------



## emma42

Good points, James, particularly your plush teddy bear.

If one really examines the problem honestly, why should not the same arguments apply to, say, acrylic sweaters which imitate wool, polyester coats which imitate cashmere, rayon dresses which imitate silk, any number of faux leather articles, faux snakeskin etc etc?


----------



## Veggy

Maja said:


> It is one thing not having much choice but to use (or eat) animal products and other to have a choice and still use it for pure fashion and social prestige (worming arguments can hardly apply in the western society where there is heat everyway you go)!
> You cannot start walking to work because the bus is polluting atmosphere, or going barefoot and naked because you don't wont to wear leather (because of the animals) or artificial materials (because they pollute atmosphere), you cannot avoid using some kind of cellulose products (writing paper, tissues, toilet paper...) even if you are aware of (and sorry for) the trees etc.
> People _have to be selective_ in order to function normally in today's society! The point is reducing our abuse of nature as much as we can...


 
Sometimes, Maja, one would be surprised at the amount of choice we have in western society. One might think that not wanting to wear leather shoes would mean go without shoes, but the moment one starts to be interested in this question, one finds out there are many choices other than leather. Same thing for food etc. 
And I'd like to point out to cuchuflete and maxiogee that it is not a matter of being better or more moral than others, it's just that once you open your eyes you cannot shut them again. If someone does (like maxiogee says) it is perhaps "emotional blindness" or "sensitivity indifference"??


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> And I'd like to point out to cuchuflete and maxiogee that it is not a matter of being better or more moral than others, it's just that once you open your eyes you cannot shut them again. If someone does (like maxiogee says) it is perhaps "emotional blindness" or "sensitivity indifference"??



You may not feel that there is a 'more moral' angle to this, but your statements all tend to denigrate those who aren't as enlightened as you.

My problem with 'enlightenment' is that there are so many areas of life where, if we are to not be physical, social and cultural hermits, we must turn many blind eyes in the course of an average day.

Find a list of the countries of origin of the items in your home. Bring it out to the average passer-by and ask them to comment on what negative associations each country has in their mind. Do this with a few people and you'll see a trend start to emerge - there are 'good' and 'bad' countries. Then do the same for the companies which produced the goods and you'll get the same patterns - there are (a few) 'good' companies and a lot of 'bad' ones. Should we boycott the bad countries and companies? That can lead to real quandaries as there may be few suppliers in a certain market and they migth all be 'bad' to some degree.

So perhaps it isn't so much a matter of "sensitivity indifference" but more a matter of "sensitivity balancing".


----------



## Veggy

JamesM said:


> Why should those who are creative with materials not be allowed to express their creativity in imitating the beauty of an animal's fur?.


But then, isn't it a contradiction? If a woman chooses a faux and does not want it to be taken for real by others, it seems to me contradictory to want the imitation to be perfect. 
maxiogee says (sorry, I don't know tecnically how to quote twice) "your statements tend to denigrate those who aren't as enlightened as you" Now you are generalising. This is YOUR point of view and it's ok that you have it but not everyone sees it this way. You apply good or bad or moral or not moral to countries or people or ideas but not everybody has this scale of evaluation. Good/bad, moral/not moral is individual and private  perhaps even religious matter therefore absolutely individualistic.
To me, a firm is better than another because it does not use animal material and I choose to buy and use this one but I cannot say that is is better or more moral generally speaking. I will try to explain to others my point of view and why I choose one thing instead of another and that's it, it stops there. In fact this is the only thing we, each one of us, can do: the best we can with what we know.


----------



## _forumuser_

Veggy said:


> But then, isn't it a contradiction? If a woman chooses a faux and does not want it to be taken for real by others, it seems to me contradictory to want the imitation to be perfect.


 
I keep thinking this entire line of reasoning is ridiculous. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with wearing faux fur. I'm sure all animals lovers appreciate those who choose to "go fake".


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Veggy said:


> But then, isn't it a contradiction? If a woman chooses a faux and does not want it to be taken for real by others, it seems to me contradictory to want the imitation to be perfect.
> .



What a funny theory 
So let's say I'm a guillotine collector and I want my guillotines to be as identical as possible to the original ones: does my passion for perfectly working guillotines turn me into a headsman? Am I to be considered an executioner only because I like guillotines?
Would I be not so cruel and bloodthirsty if my reproduction of an authentic guillotine were not very accurate?


----------



## cuchuflete

> And I'd like to point out to cuchuflete and maxiogee that it is not a matter of being better or more moral than others, it's just that once you open your eyes you cannot shut them again.


I have opened my eyes to the complexity of choice.  You may have opened yours, and based on what you have seen—I have no way of knowing the breadth of your visual horizons—you have chosen to focus on certain things, and these have led you to particular choices.

Few people look very far or wide in choosing footwear.  If they are against wearing leather, for whatever reasons and reasoning, they probably wear some kind of material made from petroleum.  The pollution involved in extracting the raw material, the conversion to plastic or other material, the fabrication of the shoes, the burning or landfill consequences when they wear out...all of these things are seen by few, considered by fewer.
They too have their effects on two- and four-footed animals.

I don't wear fur, real or fake.  That's for reasons of personal taste, cost, practicality, and mostly inertia.  I just haven't considered wearing fur.  I do wear things made of cotton.  I am aware that much of the cotton grown in the world is grown with intense irrigation of desert-like lands, with lots of artificial fertilizer.  The fiber is often shipped many times, ending up in places where  relatively inexpensive labor converts fabric to clothing. It is then shipped again to end user markets.  From start to finish, there is a lot of energy consumed, pollution produced, to result in people comfortably wearing "natural" fibre clothing.  I have not yet opened my eyes to consideration of the possibility of genetically modified cotton seeds, nor the residual production of cotton-seed oil, nor the uses of cotton-seed oil.  That might give me eyestrain at this moment.  

I think it's time to listen to a violin concerto.


----------



## Mike P.

emma42 said:


> Is that, perhaps, a USA thing?  I get the impression that real fur is more acceptable in certain states of the USA than here in England.  I am particularly thinking of "rural" states.  Also, I believe there is a generation factor.  I remember from American films of the 40s, 50s, 60s, that the heart's desire of lots of female characters was a mink coat.



I believe so.  I think that it is a fortunate thing.  I eat meat, wear and use leather goods, support hunting, fishing, trapping, lethal vermin control, animal agriculture, and enjoy animal sports such as horse racing and rodeo.


----------



## Mike P.

AngelEyes said:


> Mike,
> 
> Emma's from England and I'm from the US, and we both agree here that if you're a woman who is against the wearing of fur coats, you wouldn't want anyone mistaking your faux for real.
> 
> It's strange, I know, but that's how a lot of us feel. I admit that logic doesn't play a very important part for me over this, but I still feel the way I do, and I understand how Emma feels, too. I agree that real fur is beautiful, but it's more than looks that I take into consideration when it comes to this type of clothing.
> 
> I've also noticed that women of my mother's generation are much more tolerant of wearing real fur. They grew up appreciating it as a form of status and style.
> 
> And they all say their fur coats are much warmer than any other.
> 
> By the way, I can think of one thing - no, make that two - where a LOT of people prefer the fake over the real.
> 
> Seriously, I know what you're saying, but it's just not for me.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*
> 
> *EDIT:*
> *I was writing my post as Emma was writing hers. It's amazing how we chose similar words and thoughts!*



There are probably more that would prefer the real thing or simply could care less if someone wore the real thing.  It is the vocal and at times violent minority that oppose real fur to such a degree that have forced others simply not to wear it or to cease selling it.


----------



## Mike P.

maxiogee said:


> Don't generalise.
> Not everyone sees the 'price' of fur as being a price too high to pay. And many who _do_ know how it gets to the shops _don't_ look at fur in disgust.
> 
> Don't forget that "nature" is all about life and death and nature is more cruel than you could ever imagine. The use of furs for clothing is just recycling dead animal matter.
> Does not eating meat or wearing fur/leather make one more moral than those who do? Why?



I know how fur comes to the market, from trapping and farmed sources.  I know how meat ends up on the table whether its from a deer shot in season or feedlot raised steer slaughtered at a large packer.  There is nothing in either process that would make the final product disgusting to me.  It is all simple facts of life.  I don't hold a minority opinion amongst my real life my peers.  Outside of extremely urban areas on the East and West Coast, animal rights extremism as experienced in Western Europe and the UK simply isn't very prevalent.


----------



## AngelEyes

Mike P. said:


> There are probably more that would prefer the real thing or simply could care less if someone wore the real thing. It is the vocal and at times violent minority that oppose real fur to such a degree that have forced others simply not to wear it or to cease selling it.


 
I think that it's in the more affluent sections of our big American cities that it's more acceptable to buy and where real fur coats.

Although, more and more, even those ladies are opting not to buy real fur. Negative social peer pressure probably does figure into it, but also more public awareness of the cruelty involved in getting to the end product has a lot to do with it, too.

And, Mike, what you said about the "at-times violent minority", I take it you're referring to those who throw paint on the coats when they protest. I sure wouldn't advocate doing that. I think anyone can wear whatever they want. I just wish a lot more people didn't want to, that's all. 

Do you think it's a very small vocal minority who's against wearing real fur in the US? I would say the opposite, but that's based on my social circle, and they all feel the way I do.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Mike P.

AngelEyes said:


> I think that it's in the more affluent sections of our big American cities that it's more acceptable to buy and where real fur coats.
> 
> Although, more and more, even those ladies are opting not to buy real fur. Negative social peer pressure probably does figure into it, but also more public awareness of the cruelty involved in getting to the end product has a lot to do with it, too.
> 
> And, Mike, what you said about the "at-times violent minority", I take it you're referring to those who throw paint on the coats when they protest. I sure wouldn't advocate doing that. I think anyone can wear whatever they want. I just wish a lot more people didn't want to, that's all.
> 
> Do you think it's a very small vocal minority who's against wearing real fur in the US? I would say the opposite, but that's based on my social circle, and they all feel the way I do.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*



Yes.  But they are probably more prevalent in the upscale market for fur.  By violence with fur, I was considering assault and battery with chemical agents (paint) and vandalism that some anti-fur people resort too.  Who wants to wear fur if some unstable invidual is going to assault them and destroy their property?  Or even just get in their face or call them names?

I don't see anything particularly cruel about harvesting fur naturally or from farmed sources either.  I am intimately familiar with both.  I am also familiar with animal rights extremists paying a drunk sealer to skin a live seal so that they could capture it on video.  They did the same thing in China with raccoon dogs too.  Anyone with experience dealing with skinning animals, knows that skinning a live animal is not practical.  Those are the two most prevalent videos circulated by animal rights extremists who wish to force their views on others by using false propaganda.


----------



## AngelEyes

Mike P. said:


> By violence with fur, I was considering assault and battery with chemical agents (paint) and vandalism that some anti-fur people resort too.


 
I'm totally opposed to violence of this sort. I believe that people have the right to choose. I just wish they'd choose not to.

And the seals? That's a whole other thread and another one of my nightmares. We just won't go there.  



*AngelEyes*


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Mike P. said:


> Anyone with experience dealing with skinning animals, knows that skinning a live animal is not practical.



Agreed to a certain point - but immobilize a live animal sufficiently and it can't interfere much with the process, I suspect.   Sadly, there are always some people in every society, including hunting and gathering ones, who enjoy doing this - it makes for the odd hideous court case.

When I was a child my neighbour used to skin catfish alive.  This was out of character, because normally he was a very humane killer.  I remember pleading with him to kill them first.  He did so to humour me, and then commented that it sure made his job easier, and that the fins froze in place into the bargain.  After sixty years of doing them the same way, he changed his method then and there.

I have several friends from mainland China.  They are kind and caring people when it comes to members of their own species, but are carelessly cruel to animals.  Their childhood was spent with animals that were strictly for food.  I could easily believe that people who see animals as nothing more than a commodity would not be too careful about ensuring that an animal was dead before skinning it.

I don't mind when the entire animal is used.... BUT the killing of a lynx for its pelt, a brown bear for its paws and gall bladder, a polar bear for a trophy, or a rhino for its horn is an abomination.


----------



## AngelEyes

Chaska Ñawi said:


> ...a brown bear for its paws and gall bladder, a polar bear for a trophy, or a rhino for its horn is an abomination.


 

Chaska Ñawi:

What do they do with the paws of brown bears?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Mike P.

AngelEyes said:


> I'm totally opposed to violence of this sort. I believe that people have the right to choose. I just wish they'd choose not to.
> 
> And the seals? That's a whole other thread and another one of my nightmares. We just won't go there.
> 
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*



That's cool.  I'm pro-choice in a lot of areas too.  It's a great thing about freedom.  I'd like for fur business to remain a choice and not some mandated law or choice not made out of fear of reprisal.

The seal issue is one of my nightmares too.  My nightmare is that animal rights instead economic and biological logic might put a stop to it.  

The whole animal use business is a very important issue to me.  I take the attacks on it personally because they attack my culture, my heritage, and my economics as well as the culture, heritage, and economics of those that I consider brothers in a way.  I view the whole animal rights movement is basically a movement of cultural intolerance.  And I'm generally a pretty tolerant fellow.

I'm not saying not to try to change peoples mind.  But just don't try to force that change on others who aren't convinced to change.


----------



## AngelEyes

Mike P. said:


> ...just don't try to force that change on others who aren't convinced to change.


 
Mike,

We can agree on this.  

Still, I would be very happy if they did.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Mike P.

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Agreed to a certain point - but immobilize a live animal sufficiently and it can't interfere much with the process, I suspect.   Sadly, there are always some people in every society, including hunting and gathering ones, who enjoy doing this - it makes for the odd hideous court case.
> 
> When I was a child my neighbour used to skin catfish alive.  This was out of character, because normally he was a very humane killer.  I remember pleading with him to kill them first.  He did so to humour me, and then commented that it sure made his job easier, and that the fins froze in place into the bargain.  After sixty years of doing them the same way, he changed his method then and there.
> 
> I have several friends from mainland China.  They are kind and caring people when it comes to members of their own species, but are carelessly cruel to animals.  Their childhood was spent with animals that were strictly for food.  I could easily believe that people who see animals as nothing more than a commodity would not be too careful about ensuring that an animal was dead before skinning it.
> 
> I don't mind when the entire animal is used.... BUT the killing of a lynx for its pelt, a brown bear for its paws and gall bladder, a polar bear for a trophy, or a rhino for its horn is an abomination.



I can assure you, that amongst animal skinners everywhere, we certainly want death instead of just immobilization.

There is nothing at all abdominal to me about taking pelts as part of animal management plan of predators.  Meat has never been a prime reason for their taking.

Rhino hunting is almost always illegal and unethical.  In the US, taking bear for just for paws or bladder is also illegal.  We can't even sell those parts even though I believe that it might actually cut down on poaching for those item.  I think any hunter who shoots his legal prey in a fair chase hunt should be able to keep it as a trophy.


----------



## Veggy

It might be out of theme of this thread but I would like to ask Mike P: don't you think that an animal suffers just like you do if you get cut or hit very hard  or burnt or skinned?


----------



## Bridgita

I haven't been online since I started this thread, but I'm glad to see so many responses. I can't remember who exactly said it, but someone made a comment about wearing leather. If you read in the original post, I stated, that Yes, I do wear leather, and I do eat meat. The difference is, cows aren't killed just so we can wear their skin. It's merely using ALL of the animal. In the wild, animals don't kill each other just for "sport", but for food, why should be different in that aspect. 

I also said this in my first post (Sorry, I don't know how to post a quote, once I've already started)

*I am an animal lover and I don't need the skin off their backs (literally) for mere fashion and vanity.*

That disgusts me and I find it ridiculous.  We can use satellites to make phone calls, but then say that you're wearing Chinchilla for warmth.  WHAT A CROCK!  There are plenty of others materials/sources to keep us warm.  I like my skin, I want to keep it . . . I imagine those poor animals feel the same way.


----------



## _forumuser_

Mike P. said:


> I believe so. I think that it is a fortunate thing. I eat meat, wear and use leather goods, support hunting, fishing, trapping, lethal vermin control, animal agriculture, and enjoy animal sports such as horse racing and rodeo.


 
Thanks for sharing all this with us but, frankly, I don't see how it is relevant to this thread.


----------



## Brioche

Bridgita said:


> In the wild, animals don't kill each other just for "sport", but for food, why should be different in that aspect.


 
Cats certainly torture and kill for "sport". 

A cat will catch a mouse, knock it around a bit, then almost let it go, and catch it again, and repeat the process until the cat is bored or the mouse is dead.  Cats do similar things with birds.


----------



## maxiogee

Bridgita said:


> In the wild, animals don't kill each other just for "sport", but for food, why should be different in that aspect.


 
There have been many observations of animals in the wild killing 'needlessly' - if hunger is the yardstick for 'need'. Whether this needlessness is enough to qualify the killing as 'sport' for the predator species involved is difficult to say, but David Attenborough seems to think it does for at least some of them.

I fail to see what this point has to do with killing-for-clothes, as there is no 'needless' or 'sport' angle to it. It may be that there are alternatives to fur when one is seeking clothing, but that doesn't make wearing fur 'needless'.

I really fail to see the difference between keeping an animal in captivity for its companionship and keeping another in captivity for its fur.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> I really fail to see the difference between keeping an animal in captivity for its companionship and keeping another in captivity for its fur.


Well, even if this might be off-topic, the difference is what kind of animals are kept and how the animal is cared for. There are species like dogs and cats that are suitable to be kept in what you call captivity, and what others would call as family member. Of course, keeping ermines for fun or fur is not significantly different.

I think what most of the "anti-fur people" are opposed to is the cruelty of killing and taking their fur alive as shown in the links provided. Most of the non-extremists are not opposed to using e.g. lamb fur or cow leather, they are moved by excessive cruelty.

I agree that many viewpoints are based on a far-away perspective where meat, fur, leather and all commodities of life come effortlessly and best without knowing how exactly they are produced. Hunting and animal farming are a natural part of human civilisation. But again, there are differences in how humanely or how cruelly someone kills animals. I agree that it is a fine trait of people to support handling animals as humanely as reasonably possible.

Kajjo


----------



## Brioche

Far more animals are killed for leather than for fur, but it's much easier to attack women in fur than bikers in leather.

In Australia, considering the damage that foxes and feral cats [introduced species] do to native animals, people should be happy to wear fox and cat fur.

Kill a feral cat or fox and save hundreds of lizards and birds


----------



## Kajjo

Brioche said:


> Far more animals are killed for leather than for fur, but it's much easier to attack women in fur than bikers in leather.


Good one!  I agree that rich and maybe sometimes even decadent society women make a much easier target than grimly bikers.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> Good one!  I agree that rich and maybe sometimes even decadent society women make a much easier target than grimly bikers.
> 
> Kajjo



Careful!  The PC Pole-eece will be after you for suggesting that rich, decadent society women cannot also be grimy bikers.

and...What about these guys?  http://www.sclibrary.ab.ca/images/gallery/cooncts.jpg


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Careful!  The PC Pole-eece will be after you for suggesting that rich, decadent society women cannot also be grimy bikers.
> and...What about these guys?  http://www.sclibrary.ab.ca/images/gallery/cooncts.jpg


Thanks a lot, Cuchuflete. Those were two very important aspects and I maybe I should consider to re-consider my views! 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

mytwolangs said:


> Rest assured that "faux" fur really is false.


Well, I believe it is possible that products labelled as fake fur might indeed are real fur.



> Real fur is expensive as hell and they are not going to sell real fur at fake fur price.


It strongly depends on which type of fur we are talking about. Certainly, nobody can afford to claim authentic ermine to be fake -- dimensions between.

But lamb fur is so cheap, they produce disposables made of lamb fur (see), and the story about Chinese raccoon dogs is not at all unbelievable. Labor is very cheap and fake fur clothes are not that low-price.



> Now me, I hate how they come up with fur also, I have a fake fur jacket, it goes to about my knees and it was $90.


With lamb and goat fur no problem at all to get cloaks with real fur decorations for $90,00. Maybe no entire-made-of-fur clothes, but as a trim on the hood or seams?



> no matter what one buys, cruelty was somehow invloved. There is not really a way to avoid it, just minimize it.


You are right. However, I would not call every suffering "cruelty". But yes, minimizing, instead of entirely avoiding is the right aim.

Kajjo


----------



## AngelEyes

cuchuflete said:


> ...What about these guys? http://www.sclibrary.ab.ca/images/gallery/cooncts.jpg


 
Cuchuflete,

Your picture gives new meaning to our "Smokey the Bear."




*AngelEyes*


----------



## Mike P.

_forumuser_ said:


> Thanks for sharing all this with us but, frankly, I don't see how it is relevant to this thread.



This is Cultural Discussion.  It's part of my culture.  A culture in which animal rights extremists wish to discriminate against even to extent that they want the State  to sanction that discrimination.


----------



## Mike P.

Veggy said:


> It might be out of theme of this thread but I would like to ask Mike P: don't you think that an animal suffers just like you do if you get cut or hit very hard  or burnt or skinned?



If you hit them hard in the head, you kill them.  They are dead when they are skinned for personal or commercial consumption. I can think of no mammals that are cooked (burned) alive in my regional culture.


----------



## Veggy

Hi, Mike P, nice of you to quote my post and answer but you did not answer my question. I asked you if you know that an animal suffers just like we suffer when we get hurt. Many people just don't know/think/care about it, I was wondering if you knew.
You say the animal is dead when he gets skinned and I add that many are killed to be skinned so that humans can wear leather, furs or faux when these are made of cats or dogs or monkeys. 
Another question: Why do you seem to hate animal lovers?


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> Many people just don't know/think/care about it, I was wondering if you knew.


Lumping all those in together, the don't know and the don't think and the don't care is painting with a v-e-r-y broad brush. _Even _if it is true (and I doubt that the don't knows are even a considerable minority in that "many"), what does it tell us about fur and or meat eating?





Veggy said:


> Another question: Why do you seem to hate animal lovers?


I don't see any hate in what he wrote.
I do see an intolerance of those who would try to push their point of views onto others. That is not an uncommon reaction to such people.


----------



## GenJen54

Veggy said:


> Another question: Why do you seem to hate animal lovers?


I would ask that you define "animal lover."  By its strictest definition, I have deep sympathy and care for the well-being and dignity of the animals in the world, and as such consider myself an animal lover. My politics regarding the issue of fur, zoos, etc. seem to be far from yours, however, in that I am not as radical or fervent in my "love."  I also am a happy carnivore, so obviously my concern for animals only goes as far as my dinner plate.

My "love" for animals has manifested in itself in not only the personal care I have extended to my own pets, but the various animal funds I have supported, including internationally known wildlife funds as well as local shelters, from which I adopted my two cats and dog.

My guess is there are many levels of animal appreciation or "love" , and I don't believe Mike P. necessarily hates animal lovers, so much as the politics radicalism many so-called animal lovers espouse.


----------



## cuchuflete

I hereby take the pledge: I shall neither eat nor wear the fur, faux or real, of any vegetarian, real or alleged.
My dog sheds enormous amounts of fur or hair or whatever you call the blonde fibers that fall from a rescued Chessie.  I do not make thread, fabric or clothing from said fur/hair.  I feed it to the compost bin or vacuum cleaner.  Is this the humane thing to do with a shedding river dog?

Suppose I were to make a coat from this hair of the dog?  Would anyone be offended by that?



CD mods, feel free to delete this faux message.


----------



## emma42

Not if it had a matching hat.


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> Lumping all those in together, the don't know and the don't think and the don't care is painting with a v-e-r-y broad brush. _Even _if it is true (and I doubt that the don't knows are even a considerable minority in that "many"), what does it tell us about fur and or meat eating?
> 
> I don't see any hate in what he wrote.
> I do see an intolerance of those who would try to push their point of views onto others. That is not an uncommon reaction to such people.


 
Hi, maxiogee, I meant that _some _people don't know, _some _don't care, _some _do not even think about this issue, and _some _all of these together. For instance personnally I have always loved animals but never questionned where the steak in my plate came from, or the milk in my glass. I did not _know._ Now, I do and I see things differently. My love for animals goes as far as not wanting to support or be an accomplice to those who mistreat them. It goes to the estent of considering all animals at the same level. This is what it tells _ME_ (I'm talking only of my point of view) about furs and meat eating.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> My love for animals goes as far as not wanting to support or be an accomplice to those who mistreat them. It goes to the estent of considering all animals at the same level. This is what it tells _ME_ (I'm talking only of my point of view) about furs and meat eating.


 
And does it go to the extent of considering animals as being at the same level as, or at a higher level than, humans?

Does killing an stock-animal so that a human can eat fall within your definition of 'mistreat'? Does the human's survival have a greater merit than the stock-animal's?


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> And does it go to the extent of considering animals as being at the same level as, or at a higher level than, humans?
> 
> Does killing an stock-animal so that a human can eat fall within your definition of 'mistreat'? Does the human's survival have a greater merit than the stock-animal's?


 
I meant that as far as my feeling is concerned, I love all animals at the same level, I love my dogs and I love horses, pigs, cows, etc not less.
Killing an animal is a form of mistreatment but much worse.
Secondly, man can eat and live well without hurting or killing animals.
What do you mean by "does the human's survival have a greater merit"?


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> Secondly, man can eat and live well without hurting or killing animals.


In many places this is not so. There are places on earth where meat/fish-eating is the only serious option.



Veggy said:


> What do you mean by "does the human's survival have a greater merit"?


I mean do you consider that it is wrong for a human to maintain their own health at the expense of an animal's? Is it wrong to kill an animal for food? You seem to have answered this already when you said ...



Veggy said:


> Killing an animal is a form of mistreatment but much worse.


 
I was just wondering at the level of concern some radical 'animal-lovers' seem to have for animals yet they don't seem to have the same level of concern for humans. In my opinion, world hunger is a terrible thing and should not be denigrated by claims that meat-eating is a greater - or even a similar - offence.


----------



## elpoderoso

maxiogee said:


> In many places this is not so. There are places on earth where meat/fish-eating is the only serious option.
> 
> 
> I was just wondering at the level of concern some radical 'animal-lovers' seem to have for animals yet they don't seem to have the same level of concern for humans. In my opinion, world hunger is a terrible thing and should not be denigrated by claims that meat-eating is a greater - or even a similar - offence.


 
I agree with the above, I also wonder what position these ''animal lovers'' take with regards to indigenous peoples who live their lives in hunter gatherer systems.
Do these animal activist take these people into consideration? Are there any efforts made to turn them from their ''evil'' ways?

I wonder what an Amazonian tribesman armed with a blowpipe would do were he covered in paint by a well meaning activist.


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> In many places this is not so. There are places on earth where meat/fish-eating is the only serious option.


-----
Very few, one or two only. Perhaps you know more than I do, but then I'm not sure if in these places food is not being sent in some ways.





maxiogee said:


> I mean do you consider that it is wrong for a human to maintain their own health at the expense of an animal's?


----
maintain? in the western society, it is easier to die because we eat too much meat rather than because we eat vegetables and fruit. It is healthier not to eat meat.




maxiogee said:


> Is it wrong to kill an animal for food?


----
It is wrong to kill an animal.
It is wrong to kill.






maxiogee said:


> I was just wondering at the level of concern some radical 'animal-lovers' seem to have for animals yet they don't seem to have the same level of concern for humans. In my opinion, world hunger is a terrible thing and should not be denigrated by claims that meat-eating is a greater - or even a similar - offence.


 
I cannot speak for radical animal lovers. I speak for myself.
Hunger is such a terrible thing that it would be good to convert cereal cultivations which are used to feed the animals some will eat afterwards, to cultivation for people. If we did not keep animal farming in order to eat those animals, forests would not be destroyed. A cow eats tons of cereals during his life, if those cereals were given to people,  many would have  food. 
If more people became vegetarians it would be good for people, animals and environment. Men would lose nothing or very little.


----------



## Veggy

I would like to add to what I just wrote, that when I say it is wrong to kill, I mean that in my opinion I think it would be a better world a nicer place to live in if we could avoid killing and do whatever we need to do without hurting anyone. 
As far as extremists or radicals are concerned, it's a question of approach to the problem, not everyone reacts the same way.


----------



## Mike P.

Veggy said:


> Hi, Mike P, nice of you to quote my post and answer but you did not answer my question. I asked you if you know that an animal suffers just like we suffer when we get hurt. Many people just don't know/think/care about it, I was wondering if you knew.
> You say the animal is dead when he gets skinned and I add that many are killed to be skinned so that humans can wear leather, fur or faux when these are made of cats or dogs or monkeys.
> Another question: Why do you seem to hate animal lovers?



They don't suffer in the same.  They are animals and not humans.  I don't really care either.  I'm glad that they are killed for our use.  It is proper.  The products obtained are good products.  One of the worst things in society today is animal rights.   It attacks cultural rights, economic well being, and science.  It has no use in scientific animal management.  I don't hate animal lovers.  I don't hate animals.  I feed hummingbirds every year.  I take care of other's animals, including pets when they are out of town.  There are many people who love their dog or cat while wearing leather shoes and eating a steak after going hunting in the early morning.  I do hate animal rights extremism, mainly because they are almost all cultural bigots who wish for their bigotry to be state sanctioned.  If animal rights extremists wouldn't try to destroy others' livelihoods and cultures; my extremely low opinion of them wouldn't exist.  I would disagree with them and take the attitude of "live and let live."  But with their active involvement in destroying my culture and other cultures that I respect while at the same time causing economic harm, it's hard to do anything but hold them in disdain.


----------



## emma42

Of course animals "suffer in the same[way]".  They have neurological systems - they suffer.  I am talking about mammals principally here.

There seems to be a fundamental difference here in that one forer@ believes that animals should have the same rights that humans have conferred upon themselves, and others disagree.  I don't think either "side" is about to change its mind.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm wondering, as an animal, what the last dozen posts have to do with faux fur.  Isn't it amusing that the vegetarians would have Eskimos give up carnivorism and the wearing of real fur?  They could import lots of fine grain, build airports and roads to facilitate such imports, and generally screw up the animals' habitat in the process.  Or maybe they should just move to Rimini or Kansas, where they will have easier access to grain.

As to the so-called "rights" activists who think it's cool to throw paint on other human animals, if we were to apply their standards,
"it's for a noble cause I believe in deeply, hence it's ok for me to do it", then I guess the hunters would be well within their own rights to throw animal blood and guts on the animal rights activists.   I don't agree with either form of activism, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I'm wondering, as an animal, what the last dozen posts have to do with faux fur.


 
To me the 'problem' is that faux fur doesn't always advertise itself, and so the wearer can appear to be endorsing the wearing/production of real fur.
That's their choice.
The activist who intends lobbing a pot of paint at a fur-wearer is unlikely to politely ask to see the label before doing so.
My concern is with the mentality of the anti-fur lobbyists who tend to go all the way with their pro-animal-rights argument to the detriment of the pro-human angle of food & clothing which farming provides.
I have yet to meet a vociferous anti-fur/anti-meat-eating campaigner who can honestly acknowledge that humans have any superior rights in the debate, or who can accept that there are places and reasons when animal agricutlure is the right way to do things.
When I come across someone who seems to be anti-animal agriculture I usually query their reasoning.
It is not uncommon to get the following responses....
"A cow eats tons of cereals during his life, if those cereals were given to people, many would have food."
Which seems to totally ignore the fact that, when given the choice, most humans choose flesh over grain. Grain just doesn't provide the diet people either want or need. When people avoid eating flesh they tend to need dietary supplements to ensure that they get the RDA of mahy vitamins and minerals.

"If we did not keep animal farming in order to eat those animals, forests would not be destroyed."
Which ignores the fact that forests are being needlessly destroyed for this meat production because it is cheap land. If it were to turn out that humanity wanted vast amounts of grain then the agriculture industry would just destroy forests to grow it - the industry will always go for the cheapest options.

"If more people became vegetarians it would be good for people, animals and environment. Men would lose nothing or very little."
Which ignores the fact that these farm animals are bred to be killed. From Daisy the cow's point of view, her existence is better than her non-existence, if there were to be no animal agriculture there would be no Daisy the cow, and this non-existence would not be good for her.
As to whether the environment would be better off, I cannot comment. I don't know how much fertiliser would be used to produce the needed grain, nor do I know the requirements which would be placed on water resources. I do know that the conversion of cereals into appealing products for the marketplace is likely to be more production-intensive than the processes involved in getting a steak into my local butcher's shop. That this would be good for the environment is highly debatable.​


----------



## cuchuflete

More faux reasoning:



> "A cow eats tons of cereals during his life, if those cereals were given to people, many would have food."


  OK, just kill the cow, which is eating up all those tons of cereals, so that people may eat them.
Don't want to kill the cow?  OK, give the cereals to people to eat, and let the cow starve to death.  Once the cow has died a 'natural' death from starvation, use its hide to make coats and shoes.  Don't want to wear leather because it may send a signal that killing cows is ok?  Very well, drill oil wells, with splendid environmental effects, extract the petroleum.  Ship the petroleum to a refinery (burning refined petroleum with the usual air pollution effects to accomplish the transport.) and turn it into a form that can, burning more hydrocarbons and further polluting, be converted into plastics.  Use the plastics--of course burning more hydrocarbons--to make footwear and coats.  For reasons of humanoid nostalgia, be sure that some of these
have the appearance of fur, in honor of our primitive hunter-gatherer culture, which preceded vegetarians.

Still unhappy with the solution of plastic to replace leather?  OK, dedicate the land to growing cotton and linen,
making it unavailable to livestock for grazing, or to farmers for cereal growing.

OR....just go naked and sleep with a shiver and a clear conscience.



PS- In my town it is illegal to shoot vegetarians.  They too are animals and have a right to live.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Very well, drill oil wells, with splendid environmental effects, [...] use the plastics--of course burning more hydrocarbons--to make footwear and coats.  For reasons of humanoid nostalgia, be sure that some of these have the appearance of fur, in honor of our primitive hunter-gatherer culture, which preceded vegetarians.


Excellently told and very reasonable!

Yes, modern vegetarians do not even realise how much they depend on modern civilisation to be able to afford such a basically unsufficient and unsuitable diet.

People should not forget that humans are after all rightful species on this planet. We may kill other animals to eat and keep ourselves warm. Nothing fundamentally immoral here.

Kajjo


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> PS- In my town it is illegal to shoot vegetarians.  They too are animals and have a right to live.



I'm quite sure that if vegetarians knew how many products of animal origin they unconsciously have eaten, touched, consumed, used, worn, you wouldn't need to shoot them because they would top themselves..
But we don't want to be mean, do we?  so we will just not let them in on it..


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's not forget to avoid listening to good violins while throwing paint on faux faux fur (how does one write fofofur in IPA?) wearers.  Let's tell the lions not to kill and hurt the antelope for food.  They should just eat cereals instead.  Vegetarians should not be allowed to use good tennis racquets either. No portable organ playing is allowed. The bellows are made of leather. Pianos of a certain vintage are forbidden--ivory keys.  No sponges. No silk.  No feather quilts or pillows.

I must go now and instruct my cat not to kill mice for food or for sport.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I must go now and instruct my cat not to kill mice for food or for sport.




But perhaps the mice enjoy being hunted. Maybe it's even the very reason for their existence. Would you deprive your cat of it's God-given livelihood and enjoyment? The Egyptians held cats to be sacred to Bast, and it is said that all cats remember this and act as if they were still sacred.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> But perhaps the mice enjoy being hunted. Maybe it's even the very reason for their existence. Would you deprive your cat of it's God-given livelihood and enjoyment? The Egyptians held cats to be sacred to Bast, and it is said that all cats remember this and act as if they were still sacred.



I cannot speak for Egyptian or Irish mice, who I'm sure are very nice, but around here the mice
eat grain and carry deer ticks, which cause Lyme disease and great pain and suffering for people and dogs.
I still refuse to eat mice or wear frog fur.


----------



## Veggy

> Isn't it amusing that the vegetarians would have Eskimos give up carnivorism and the wearing of real fur? They could import lots of fine grain, build airports and roads to facilitate such imports, and generally screw up the animals' habitat in the process. Or maybe they should just move to Rimini or Kansas, where they will have easier access to grain.
> 
> As to the so-called "rights" activists who think it's cool to throw paint on other human animals, if we were to apply their standards,
> "it's for a noble cause I believe in deeply, hence it's ok for me to do it", then I guess the hunters would be well within their own rights to throw animal blood and guts on the animal rights activists. I don't agree with either form of activism, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


 
cuchuflete, is yours sense of humor? or sarcasm? Nobody (among animal protection activists)I know would think Eskimos should do what you say. They care very much not to "screw up the animals' habitat"
I do not agree with throwing paint or doing anything violent against people who don't have the same ideas or life style that I have.
But I understand that when someone is trying to say something he beleives in and he is in no way listened to, he might act radically to draw attention. There are also very violent people but beleive me it is NOT everyone.


----------



## Veggy

cuchuflete said:


> More faux reasoning:
> 
> OK, just kill the cow, which is eating up all those tons of cereals, so that people may eat them.
> Don't want to kill the cow? OK, give the cereals to people to eat, and let the cow starve to death. Once the cow has died a 'natural' death from starvation, use its hide to make coats and shoes. Don't want to wear leather because it may send a signal that killing cows is ok? Very well, drill oil wells, with splendid environmental effects, extract the petroleum. Ship the petroleum to a refinery (burning refined petroleum with the usual air pollution effects to accomplish the transport.) and turn it into a form that can, burning more hydrocarbons and further polluting, be converted into plastics. Use the plastics--of course burning more hydrocarbons--to make footwear and coats. For reasons of humanoid nostalgia, be sure that some of these
> have the appearance of fur, in honor of our primitive hunter-gatherer culture, which preceded vegetarians.
> 
> Still unhappy with the solution of plastic to replace leather? OK, dedicate the land to growing cotton and linen,
> making it unavailable to livestock for grazing, or to farmers for cereal growing.
> 
> OR....just go naked and sleep with a shiver and a clear conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> PS- In my town it is illegal to shoot vegetarians. They too are animals and have a right to live.


 

Strange you should say what you said in your first lines: in fact, the way animals are bred for food is a threat to the planet, it pollutes the environment while consuming huge amounts of water, grain, petroleum, pesticides and drugs. It takes 30 lb of cattle feed to produce 1 lb of beef. In Britain, 8% of cultivated land is used to grow food for direct human consumption. Most of the remaining 92% is used to grow food for animal consumption. It takes 10.000 ltrs of water to produce 1 kg of beef, while it takes only 500 ltrs of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.
A cow produces 50 kg of protein by eating 790 kg of vegetable protein.
If men ate vegetable proteins instead of having it processed through a cow, it would save earth, water, energy, pollute much less it would be very positive for everybody. 
I'm glad it is illegal to shoot vegetarians where you live, but what about listening to them sometimes?


----------



## cuchuflete

I am happy to listen to vegetarians say that they have a preference, and try to follow it.  When they start saying that eating meat is unnatural, I start ignoring them.  When they start saying that eating meat is wrong, for a biologically omnivorous creature such as a human, I think that it must be something in their diet that has frazzled their brains.  When they suggest, however gently, that "...someone is trying to say something he beleives in and he is in no way listened to, he might act radically to draw attention." as if this were any kind of rational justification for the paint throwers, I state that such notions are hogwash.   

If you prefer to subsist on potatoes and cereals, I have no argument with you.  I have no argument with the gentleman from Texas who likes to hunt some of his food.  Moralistic, preachy declarations about what we should and should not eat are as boring as they are unconvincing. 

Omnivorous animals eat meat when they can. Objections to the way some animals are raised is another matter.


----------



## Veggy

You see, cuchuflete, I think it's all a matter of approach and communication. Also a matter of how one says something. This is why I do not agree with violent actions whoever they come from (on the opposite side, I consider mistreating and killing a very violent action) and in no way I want to give justification to it, and I don't think I made any moralistic declarations or told someone what he should do. If I gave this impression I'm sorry, this is not my intention at all.The few facts I gave so far in my last post are taken from articles by scientists, anyone can read them and form his own opinion.


----------



## faranji

Most so-called animal lovers and ‘animal rights’ activists are guilty of a sin every bit as heinous as racism, namely specism, i.e. the idea that certain animal species are worthier or have a higher value than others. Believe it or not, many of those so-called animal lovers and 'animal rights' activists don’t have the minimum decency to simply drive windshield-less cars that would save zillions of innocent insects from a most violent, splotchy death. ​ 
I find it extremely cruel as some of these poor creatures (think pom-pom bumblebees) are even somehow furry on their own right.​ 
(I might come to accept it if they killed the bugs for food, but most of them animal lovers are vegetarians anyway.)​


----------



## winklepicker

Thank you faranji. I don't notice any anti-fur posts from the Inuit forum*, do you? At least the Buddhists and Jains respect ALL life.

And of course, there's Cleve Backster's famous research with the galvanometer that showed that plants feel pain - more recently backed up by new thinking that the plant's phloem act as its nervous system. How many plants were harmed in the making of that fake-fur coat, ladies?

_* Now there's an idea!_


----------



## _forumuser_

Never heard so much nonsense in a debate. The issue here is if in affluent societies wearing animal skin for the sole purpose of looking good when there are good alternatives is morally questionable or not, especially when how the skin is procured inflicts more pain on the animals than should be necessary. 

How much it costs to make fake fur, whether it is natural or not to eat meat, whether animals have feelings, whether animal activism is subliminal racism or vegetarianism is environmentally sustainable in Iceland has nothing to do with the issue. Many in what appears to be a pro-real-fur party in this discussion still have to give a plain answer to the main question: Do you support the industrial (hunting enthusiasts please note it is factory killing it is being discussed here) killing of animals solely for their fur? Do you find it morally objectionable? Answer the question please and don't tell us everything else you agree or disagree with in this world. One question per thread, that is our motto here.


----------



## nieyt

_forumuser_ said:


> Never heard so much nonsense in a debate. The issue here is if in affluent societies wearing animal skin for the sole purpose of looking good when there are good alternatives is morally questionable or not, especially when how the skin is procured inflicts more pain on the animals than should be necessary.
> 
> How much it costs to make fake fur, whether it is natural or not to eat meat, whether animals have feelings, whether animal activism is subliminal racism or vegetarianism is environmentally sustainable in Iceland has nothing to do with the issue. Many in what appears to be a pro-real-fur party in this discussion still have to give a plain answer to the main question: Do you support the industrial (hunting enthusiasts please note it is factory killing it is being discussed here) killing of animals solely for their fur? Do you find it morally objectionable? Answer the question please and don't tell us everything else you agree or disagree with in this world. One question per thread, that is our motto here.


I'd say faranji's point was just as relevant as yours (which I think I managed to pick out from your slightly pompous rant).

Do you think that certain animal species are worthier or have a higher value than others? If so, why? If not, don't you care about the billions of innocent insects who are slaughtered every day in the name of clean windshields?


----------



## cuchuflete

_forumuser_ said:


> Never heard so much nonsense in a debate. The issue here is *if in affluent societies* wearing animal skin *for the sole purpose of looking good* when there are good alternatives is morally questionable or not, especially when how the skin is procured inflicts more pain on the animals than should be necessary.
> 
> How much it costs to make fake fur, whether it is natural or not to eat meat, whether animals have feelings, whether animal activism is subliminal racism or vegetarianism is environmentally sustainable in Iceland has nothing to do with the issue. Many in what appears to be a pro-real-fur party in this discussion still have to give a plain answer to the main question: Do you support the industrial (hunting enthusiasts please note it is factory killing it is being discussed here) killing of animals solely for their fur? Do you find it morally objectionable? Answer the question please and don't tell us everything else you agree or disagree with in this world. One question per thread, that is our motto here.



Have you been authorized by popular acclaim to restate the thread topic such that it is so limited to
*if in affluent societies??

*And...in many not so affluent parts of the world, in addition to "*for the sole purpose of looking good" *people wear fur because it's warm, and this may well be true in affluent places too.

What you blithely declare to be "good alternatives" are not so good, when you take a closer look.

"Morally questionable" all depends on the basis of both your morals and your personal preferences.
I've no interest in checking your personal moral credentials, nor do I see why you have the right to judge the morality of anyone else in this conversation, whether they share your personal opinions or not.   I'll just assume that you are a morally righteous and decent and upstanding person, and I'll make the same assumption about everyone else who is participating in this thread.  I have no reason to do otherwise.  Do you?


----------



## faranji

Ok, dear forumuser, more to the point. 

Is the killing of mammals solely for their fur more objectionable than the killing of scale insects such as cochineal solely for their carminic-acid, the main ingredient of the so-called 'artificial colouring' WE ALL consume in an enormous variety of products?: 

_(warning: extremely vivid descriptions of cruel farming practices and industrial killing)_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal

Do you support _that_? Any moral qualms about it?


----------



## winklepicker

nieyt said:


> Do you think that certain animal species are worthier or have a higher value than others?


 
Yes. The fluffy ones command higher prices.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> It takes 10.000 ltrs of water to produce 1 kg of beef, while it takes only 500 ltrs of water to produce 1 kg of potatoes.



The water is only 'passing through' in the beef production system. It is largely returned to the water-cycle rather rapidly. In the potato production system the water is largely retained in the plant matter and not released into the system again until the potatoes are consumed and the green matter is recycled.





_forumuser_ said:


> Never heard so much nonsense in a debate. The issue here is if in affluent societies wearing animal skin for the sole purpose of looking good when there are good alternatives is morally questionable or not, especially when how the skin is procured inflicts more pain on the animals than should be necessary.


Surely the animal industry in question is based in China - one of the least affluent societies in the world. Haven't they the right to do what they can to raise their standard of living, and having done so by means of fur production haven't consumers in affluent societies the right to buy what they produce. It is 'supply and demand' note, and not 'demand and supply'. There's a difference.

As to the question whcih you seem to feel you have the right to demand we answer - I don't wear fur, I do wear leather, I eat meat. I don't do any of these things from moral rights or feel that others have moral rights in the matter. My 'rights' are few and self-set. I allow others to set their own moral standards and their 'rights'. Only when their 'rights' impinge on me do I tend to point out that their 'rights' are not pre-ordained nor are they writ in stone.


----------



## _forumuser_

nieyt said:


> I'd say faranji's point was just as relevant as yours (which I think I managed to pick out from your slightly pompous rant).
> 
> Do you think that certain animal species are worthier or have a higher value than others? If so, why? If not, don't you care about the billions of innocent insects who are slaughtered every day in the name of clean windshields?


 
You are honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between the two?


----------



## maxiogee

_forumuser_ said:


> You are honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between the two?


 
Just in case nieyt, or anyone else, can't - could you tell us what you see as the difference?


----------



## _forumuser_

maxiogee said:


> Just in case nieyt, or anyone else, can't - could you tell us what you see as the difference?


 
Sorry, but before I invest valuable time in writing a response I would like to know whether I am dealing with heartfelt convictions or clever sophistry.


----------



## _forumuser_

cuchuflete said:


> Have you been authorized by popular acclaim to restate the thread topic such that it is so limited to
> *if in affluent societies??*


 
Is it unreasonable to assume that no animal activist has ever asked Inuits at the Polar Circle to stop wearing real fur? We all know that there are situations when you have no choice, and that basic needs have precedence over principles. Under certain conditions even mass-murder can seem justified (think of what history textbooks say about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: kill 100,000 to save millions). So it is simple common sense that tells me that it only makes sense to debate which is ethically better between faux and real fur if you are actually in the position to choose between the two, i.e. you live in an affluent society where wearing real fur is not indispensable for your survival.



cuchuflete said:


> "Morally questionable" all depends on the basis of both your morals and your personal preferences.
> I've no interest in checking your personal moral credentials, nor do I see why you have the right to judge the morality of anyone else in this conversation, whether they share your personal opinions or not. I'll just assume that you are a morally righteous and decent and upstanding person, and I'll make the same assumption about everyone else who is participating in this thread. I have no reason to do otherwise. Do you?


 
Where have I mentioned my or anyone else's morality in my post? If I recall correctly I simply said that the issue is whether wearing real fur is morally questionable *or not.*


----------



## maxiogee

_forumuser_ said:


> Sorry, but before I invest valuable time in writing a response I would like to know whether I am dealing with heartfelt convictions or clever sophistry.


 
Aaah, your time is too valuable to explain yourself, but you feel others ought to explain themselves.
Right.
We can ignore you from now on. We normally don't ask people here to do things we wouldn't do ourselves.

Byeeee!


----------



## Kajjo

_forumuser_ said:


> Never heard so much nonsense in a debate.


We have somewhat got carried away, I agree.



> The issue here is if in affluent societies wearing animal skin for the sole purpose of looking good when there are good alternatives is morally questionable or not, especially when how the skin is procured inflicts more pain on the animals than should be necessary.


Well, that topic was not the primary issue of this thread, too. The original topic was about "fake fur being actual real" and about the "horrors of skinning living animals". Do you agree?



> Do you support the industrial (hunting enthusiasts please note it is factory killing it is being discussed here) killing of animals solely for their fur? Do you find it morally objectionable?


However, I agree that we could once again address the question you reminded us about, because it is indeed quite central to this topic.

Yes, I believe it is OK to kill animals just for their fur. Or just for their meat as well. Neither is morally objectionable. Humans and other predators kill other species for food (and clothing, in t he case of humans). That's life.

Yes, I do believe that breeding and killing animals should be done in a manner that avoids as much pain and stress as possible. Back to this topic, I cannot understand at all how people are able to skin living dogs. It is horrible and absolutely unnecessary.

Kajjo


----------



## _forumuser_

faranji said:


> Ok, dear forumuser, more to the point.
> 
> Is the killing of mammals solely for their fur more objectionable than the killing of scale insects such as cochineal solely for their carminic-acid, the main ingredient of the so-called 'artificial colouring' WE ALL consume in an enormous variety of products?:
> 
> _(warning: extremely vivid descriptions of cruel farming practices and industrial killing)_
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal
> 
> Do you support _that_? Any moral qualms about it?


 
Well I have mixed feelings about this. I hate bugs but then I hate artificial colorings even more. I would say make all artificial colorings illegal and only kill the things if they come too close. Otherwise, leave them alone.


----------



## Veggy

Mike P. said:


> They don't suffer in the same. They are animals and not humans. I don't really care either.
> the worst things in society today is animal rights. It attacks cultural rights, economic well being, and science. It has no use in scientific animal management.



They do, Mike P. they suffer exactly in the same way since the nervous system is identical. I would ask you what are "cultural rights in your point of view and what exactly is your culture (how would you define it?) and in what way it is threatened but since you said you _don't care I suppose there is no possibility of discussion with you._


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> "A cow eats tons of cereals during his life, if those cereals were given to people, many would have food."​
> Which seems to totally ignore the fact that, when given the choice, most humans choose flesh over grain. Grain just doesn't provide the diet people either want or need. When people avoid eating flesh they tend to need dietary supplements to ensure that they get the RDA of mahy vitamins and minerals.​





Hi maxiogee, How do you know that _given_ the choice _most_ humans _choose_ meat??
It is true that grain by itself does not provide complete diet necessities but I would not be so sure about the "want" you use. 
In a diet which all of non-animal products are included, the only element wich might be in default (not enough of ) is vitamin B12. All the other necessary elements are present.
​


----------



## Kajjo

Veggy said:


> In a diet which all of non-animal products are included, the only element wich might be in default (not enough of ) is vitamin B12. All the other necessary elements are present.


If you are opposed to eating meat on political or social-moral grounds, then you should elucidate whether a sufficient diet is possible using only homeland products, i.e. without importing rare fruits or soy products from oversee, which is in itself very unnatural and environmentally disadvantegous.

By the way, I have never met a bodily hard-working, strict vegetarian. Have you? I suppose your information about sufficient nutrients is sort of a half-truth to phrase it positively. Humans by nature choose a full-balanced diet of meat, fruit and carbohydrates. Eating meat was one of the decisive elements of successful evolution to the modern human species.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Veggy said:


> They do, Mike P. they suffer exactly in the same way since the nervous system is identical. I would ask you what are "cultural rights in your point of view and what exactly is your culture (how would you define it?) and in what way it is threatened but since you said you _don't care I suppose there is no possibility of discussion with you._


_
I believe it is unfair to intentionally misinterpret quotes. Mike did not say that he did not care about the discussion, but he expressed his opinion that he does not care whether animals suffer when being hunted and killed. His opinion.

He also stated in a former post that he believes having a farm with animals and going hunting is part of his culture -- as it is part of almost every culture with the exception of our very modern lifes where breeding and farming are done "away from us". 

Personally, I do care if animals suffer and I believe they do. We should try to employ methods of slaughtering that minimised pain and suffering in an adequate manner, i.e. which is efficient and economic, but which is not unnecessary cruel or ignorant.

Kajjo_


----------



## Kajjo

_forumuser_ said:


> Well I have mixed feelings about this. I hate bugs but then I hate artificial colorings even more. I would say make all artificial colorings illegal and only kill the things if they come too close. Otherwise, leave them alone.


I take that as joke. I hope it was.

Can you imagine a world without color? Cars, clothing, houses? Everything is greyish-brownish?

There are not enough natural colouring agents, most of them are not compatible to modern procedures and materials and many natural colors are more toxic, irritiating or harmful than modern chemical colourings. 

Further, natural dyes are in many cases rare and harvesting necessary amounts could easily endanger species. Think about the marine snail _hexaplex trunculus _which in ancient times was the main source of purple and subsequently became almost extincted. We should be glad to have so many non-toxic, artificial dyes today.

However, I agree that food colors are mostly unnecessary and should and could be avoided. Yellow as beta-carotine is healthy and there are several other natural dyes that would sufficiently color our meals.

Kajjo


----------



## Veggy

Kajjo said:


> I believe it is unfair to intentionally misinterpret quotes. Mike did not say that he did not care about the discussion, but he expressed his opinion that he does not care whether animals suffer when being hunted and killed. His opinion.



I must politely tell you you are wrong in saying "intentionally misinterpret" I know that Mike said he did not care about the pain but until five minutes ago, I did not know HOW to quote. Now I do, having been helped by a very nice forumer.




			
				Kajjo said:
			
		

> Personally, I do care if animals suffer and I believe they do. We should try to employ methods of slaughtering that minimised pain and suffering in an adequate manner, i.e. which is efficient and economic, but which is not unnecessary cruel or ignorant.



There are, in my opinion, NO nice ways to kill


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> Hi maxiogee, How do you know that _given_ the choice _most_ humans _choose_ meat??
> It is true that grain by itself does not provide complete diet necessities but I would not be so sure about the "want" you use.
> In a diet which all of non-animal products are included, the only element wich might be in default (not enough of ) is vitamin B12. All the other necessary elements are present.


 
From the website of the Vegforlife
"*Vegetarians* *account* *for* an estimated 5.7 million adults in the U.S., and this number is increasing every year"​5.7 is not exactly an argument against my use of the word 'most' 

You say that "in a diet in which all of non-animal products are included" - but the 'problem' is that we humans resolutely refuse to eat properly and dont' make the effort to balance our diets. Meat eaters tend to not to have to do that - eating 'regular' foods is, by and large, enoguh to maintain most people in "good enough" health. This is not true of vegetarians who are regularly advised by their own organisations and doctors to ensure that they 'make up for' the things they miss from flesh.

As to the 'want' - I believe that if cereal products "satisfied" most people, they'd eat them as they are (generally) cheaper than meat.


----------



## Kajjo

Veggy said:


> Hi maxiogee, How do you know that _given_ the choice _most_ humans _choose_ meat?


I do not understand your question, or better phrased, I do not see how you cannot be aware of that maxiogee is right.

All adults in Western societies _actually have_ the choice nowadays.
Obvioulsy the vast majority chooses to eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy products.
Obvioulsy the vast majority even enjoys eating meat, eggs, fish and dairy products.
Obviously the vast majority does so in spite of economic considerations and contrary to vegetarian  publicity. 

Vegetarians are a minority. 

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Dear Veggy, in fact you did quote, by using [!] around the words.

Edit:  Newsflash!  Real fur is again appearing on the catwalks.  Not much faux in sight, although plenty on the high street.


----------



## AngelEyes

Mike P. said:


> They don't suffer in the same. They are animals and not humans. I don't really care either. I'm glad that they are killed for our use. It is proper.


 

Does someone have the right to say that? Yes. Does someone have the right to do that in our modern world? Yes, apparently.

Do you all have the right to post and make jokes and give your own opinions? Yes.

But if you think I'm going to laugh or sit at my screen and nod and smile at the above words and shrug off the unbearable pain and cruelty they entail, all without further thought and consideration of what that says about us, I have to tell you I can't do it.

Did you read those words? He said he doesn't care that they suffer. That's a totally different situation from killing in the kindest way possible.

That's what I'm objecting to. 

He doesn't care.

I want to puke when I read that. 

Why don't you?



*AngelEyes*


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> From the website of the Vegforlife"*Vegetarians* *account* *for* an estimated 5.7 million adults in the U.S., and this number is increasing every year"​




Given the current US population of ≈300 million, and assuming (wild guessing) that some 2/3 of them are adults, that gives us 200 - 5.7=194.3 million non-vegetarians, and this number is increasing every year!

​


----------



## cuchuflete

AngelEyes said:


> He said he doesn't care that they suffer.    That came after a statement that "they don't suffer_ (in)_ the same way."  That's a totally different situation from killing in the kindest way possible.



I've watched some of the local animals, four-footed variety, hunt and kill other animals. They seem to make no provision for avoiding pain and suffering on the part of their victims/prey/food source.

They chase, bite, rip flesh, and sometimes start eating the animal they catch before it is dead.

As far as I know, slaughter of livestock by humans is usually more "humane" than that.

This topic reminds me of those who discuss the relative 'humanity' of killing with spears, bows and arrows, bullets or bombs.  In all cases, pain is inflicted, and the victims end up wounded or dead.
Unless someone intentionally inflicts needless pain on a animal while killing it—which nobody here has advocated— the argument goes in circles.


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> From the website of the Vegforlife"*Vegetarians* *account* *for* an estimated 5.7 million adults in the U.S., and this number is increasing every year"​5.7 is not exactly an argument against my use of the word 'most'
> 
> You say that "in a diet in which all of non-animal products are included" - but the 'problem' is that we humans resolutely refuse to eat properly and dont' make the effort to balance our diets.



I agree.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> Meat eaters tend to not to have to do that - eating 'regular' foods is, by and large, enoguh to maintain most people in "good enough" health.



It was found that many illnesses -leading to death-come from eating too much meat



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> This is not true of vegetarians who are regularly advised by their own organisations and doctors to ensure that they 'make up for' the things they miss from flesh.



I do not agree, if you wish you can go into the exellent site you mentioned, vegforlife and see nutritional aspects of veganism 


			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> I believe that if cereal products "satisfied" most people, they'd eat them as they are (generally) cheaper than meat.



Meat and milk production has an incredible power of publicity and convincing means to actually convince people it is necessary to eat meat. It is not 
perforce true. A lot of money is involved in those productions.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> This topic reminds me of those who discuss the relative 'humanity' of killing with spears, bows and arrows, bullets or bombs. In all cases, pain is inflicted, and the victims end up wounded or dead.


 
And you have reminded me of Pope Innocent II who ruled that the crossbow was not to be used by Christiand against Christians as it was  "deathly and hateful to God and unfit to be used among Christians."

Has any Pope ever spoken out about fur - faux or otherwise? I seem to recall that the current one wearing a touching 'santa hat' with a white fur trim on it.


----------



## Veggy

Kajjo said:


> I do not understand your question, or better phrased, I do not see how you cannot be aware of that maxiogee is right.
> 
> All adults in Western societies _actually have_ the choice nowadays.
> Obvioulsy the vast majority chooses to eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy products.
> Obvioulsy the vast majority even enjoys eating meat, eggs, fish and dairy products.
> Obviously the vast majority does so in spite of economic considerations and contrary to vegetarian publicity.
> 
> Vegetarians are a minority.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Hi, Kajjo, I think maxiogee intend people not in western societies or at least I think he thought of people in very poor countries. This as far as choice is concerned. I am always careful when it goes to talking for people we do not know really, so I do not think that all the things you stated are obvious. It is true that vegetarians are a minority, that does not mean they are wrong. (I don't mean YOU intended that) 
In fact in Western societies where people have choice in an incredible amount of products, vegetarians and vegans increase every year.


----------



## Veggy

Kajjo said:


> If you are opposed to eating meat on political or social-moral grounds, then you should elucidate whether a sufficient diet is possible using only homeland products, i.e. without importing rare fruits or soy products from oversee, which is in itself very unnatural and environmentally disadvantegous.
> 
> By the way, I have never met a bodily hard-working, strict vegetarian. Have you? I suppose your information about sufficient nutrients is sort of a half-truth to phrase it positively. Humans by nature choose a full-balanced diet of meat, fruit and carbohydrates. Eating meat was one of the decisive elements of successful evolution to the modern human species.
> 
> Kajjo


 
This is a great problem, in Italy we have all sorts of good non animal products I personnally never have to buy somthing imported but if it happened I would be very careful. We are being very careful with enterprises that according to suffering of animals or exploitation of people are not considered "good" ones. But generally we stop buying their products, I know of no one who used violence against them.
I have never asked the few bodily hard working persons I know what do they eat. But I will.
Anything meat gives you as nutrition can be found in cereals and beans. You can have a very well balanced diet eating no meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, honey at all.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> Hi, Kajjo, I think maxiogee intend people not in western societies or at least I think he thought of people in very poor countries.


 
No, I was speaking of the population of the world as a whole. It's a gross generalisation I know, but one I feel it is valid to make, as I cannot think of any culture which does not have a largely flesh-based diet - be it meat, fish or poultry. Any small communities which might exist are massively outnumbered by the general tendency of humans to eat meat where they can get it.




> In fact in Western societies where people have choice in an incredible amount of products, vegetarians and vegans increase every year.


So is the population as a whole. 
At what rate is any _percentage_ increase proceeding and when - if ever - will they outnumber the flesh-eaters?


----------



## faranji

Veggy said:


> You can have a very well balanced diet eating no meat, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, honey at all.


 
OMG, _honey_? Is honey on the black list too? What's wrong with honey?


----------



## maxiogee

faranji said:


> OMG, _honey_? Is honey on the black list too? What's wrong with honey?


 
It is regarded, I imagine, as being 'stolen' from the animals which produce it, and a sugary substitute is left in its place.
I presume that the animals-rights lobby see this as being 'wrong' in some way.


----------



## faranji

maxiogee said:


> It is regarded, I imagine, as being 'stolen' from the animals which produce it, and a sugary substitute is left in its place.
> I presume that the animals-rights lobby see this as being 'wrong' in some way.


 
Stolen??  Silk anyone?

(Thanks for answering, Maxiogee)


----------



## AngelEyes

cuchuflete said:


> I've watched some of the local animals, four-footed variety, hunt and kill other animals. They seem to make no provision for avoiding pain and suffering on the part of their victims/prey/food source.
> 
> They chase, bite, rip flesh, and sometimes start eating the animal they catch before it is dead.


 
My goal is to be a bit more superior to animals in this area. Not to let them be my teachers and role models.

Regarding your point with this:
_He said he doesn't care that they suffer. That came after a statement that "they don't suffer (in) the same way." That's a totally different situation from killing in the kindest way possible._

Geeze...(she writes, shaking her head) I don't know, cuchuflete. Sometimes I think you just _try_ to rile me up.

I didn't make up that sentence. That was a direct quote. And he wrote it very clearly, too. It was simple and direct. "I don't care if they suffer." And your reasoning for ho-humming it is because he prefaced it with telling us that's because *he *knows that "they don't suffer in the same way."?

Well, I feel better. I'm down to the dry-heaves now.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Veggy

faranji said:


> OMG, _honey_? Is honey on the black list too? What's wrong with honey?


 
Vegetarians do not have any problems eating honey or wearing silk but vegans do. Honey -like maxiogee rightly said - is a product of the bees that use it in those periods when they cannot find flowers, that is food-. The bees are very intelligent and able to build a very practical "house" and have a wonderful policy of living and working together.
Silk is something a vegan will not buy or wear because in order to produce it the cocoons are boiled containing the moths larvae alive inside. 
If we let them be, they will become butterflies, a very beautiful sort of insect.


----------



## maxiogee

Veggy said:


> If we let them be, they will become butterflies, a very beautiful sort of insect.



No - if we let them be they will die out because nobody would want mulberry bushes - they serve one purpose, which is that they are the only food the silkworms eat. Remove the use of silk and the farmers would plant something else altogether and the silkworms and their butterflies would be gone within a generation.


----------



## Veggy

maxiogee said:


> No - if we let them be they will die out because nobody would want mulberry bushes - they serve one purpose, which is that they are the only food the silkworms eat. Remove the use of silk and the farmers would plant something else altogether and the silkworms and their butterflies would be gone within a generation.



that's not a good excuse. I would be very sorry if we had to lose the beauty of butterflies


----------



## AngelEyes

Veggy said:


> that's not a good excuse. I would be very sorry if we had to lose the beauty of butterflies


 
veggy,

I doubt if conservationists will let that happen. We are in danger of losing butterflies because of the pesticides farmers are using.

But there will always be private funding available to PAY people to keep the families of butterflies from becoming extinct, by running butterfly farms.

One way or another, the beautiful butterflies are protected in the forseeable future.

There's a place on Mackinac Island in northern Michigan that's called the Butterfly House. I love to visit there every year. It's a peaceful and serene place to be.

I sound like a tree-hugging environmentalist, don't I? I'm not. Not really.  



*AngelEyes*


----------



## Veggy

AngelEyes said:


> veggy,
> 
> I doubt if conservationists will let that happen. We are in danger of losing butterflies because of the pesticides farmers are using.



I doubt conservationists have such power. Unfortunately the money is somewhere else. 



			
				AngelEyes said:
			
		

> But there will always be private funding available to PAY people to keep the families of butterflies from becoming extinct, by running butterfly farms.



I hope so.



			
				AngelEyes said:
			
		

> One way or another, the beautiful butterflies are protected in the forseeable future.


 
I'm not so optimistic. Remember how this thread started? Finding out that faux fur was probably not faux at all. Did someone go into it to try to find out if real cat was to be considered faux fur or not? No one wrote in this thread to say so. I admit I don't do much myself only trying to read the more I can on internet though reading about those practices is very hard and painful for me.



			
				AngelEyes said:
			
		

> There's a place on Mackinac Island in northern Michigan that's called the Butterfly House. I love to visit there every year. It's a peaceful and serene place to be.
> 
> I sound like a tree-hugging environmentalist, don't I? I'm not. Not really.



I'm glad you go to nice places, bring your good friends too. I don't know if you sound like a tree-hugging env., you sound perfectly OK to me!


----------



## TRG

Where is the topic discipline here? I declare you all out of order.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> Where is the topic discipline here? I declare you all out of order.



There is a certain subtlety to all of this, TRG.  The topic has evolved into a discussion of faux butterfly fur.  You have to look really closely to see it, but it's there, I promise.  It's easier to find the thread topic while listening to a fine Stradavarius...see earlier posts for the vegetarian references to fiddles.


----------



## Benjy

Butterflies <-> Faux fur. Hmm. Not really seeing the connection. I am now going to humanely and kindly with as much dignity and as little pain as possible close this thread.


----------

