Fur Thread! (No, not that kind... )

LtWigglesworth

New member
Jan 4, 2012
121
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
LtWigglesworth said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
American South c.1860 : "Society needs slaves. People are unwilling to change their way of farming, and they're not going to. "
All it took was a civil war to change that. That's all. But even then, slavery was already ending in countries all around America. So you're example is quite different. I'm not in a country that wants to keep eating meat while the rest of the world is changing. I'm in a country that completely supports meat and numerous industries that piss me off.
I'm merely saying that your statement that meat is necessary, is a) not necessarily true, and b) unrelated to the morality of eating meat.
 

Durgiun

New member
Dec 25, 2008
844
0
0
I am opposed to wearing fur simply because it's not needed. We can make clothes from zillions of materials that are super-warm for winter that we don't need fur.

So, I'm against for not because of a moral reason, but because of a pragmatic reason.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Shark testicles simply have too many calories.
Have you tried draining them first? You lose most of the salty flavour that way, but it's probably better for the waistline.
Usually, I read the OP, then post two, then post three, then post thirty-five.

Is is why I really should stop doing that.

OT: Animals are animals. If they're farmed for the fur, or if they aren't in danger of overhunting, then why not humanely kill them for fur?
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Actually having two beliefs that contradict each other is hypocrisy.

Wiki said:
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.[1]

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches
And my reasons - regardless of what you think of them - are my reasons. The honest truth is I want factory farming and fur farming gone. I just don't take up arms to go on a crusade against factory farming because - as I've said numerous times - it's relevant to our society and no ones ready to make that change. The time will come in the future, but for now very little can be done. Trying to argue against factory farming in todays world is like trying to argue against the treatment of slaves and homosexuals back in the dark ages. It's not going to fucking work, and I'd prefer not making every single person that eats meat my enemy.
Arguing against fur farming whilst not arguing against meat farming is hypocrisy. If the general consensus in today's society is that meat is fine but fur is bad, then today's society is hypocritical.

Fur farming is in no way comparable to the treatment of slaves or homosexuals back in the dark ages. And you saying that is just more evidence of your demonising people for making a choice you don't agree with.

It's relevant to our society. And given that every single issue we have is based on societies standing on it, you should close your pie hole about my argument being dumb.
As per your previous argument. Back in the 30's burning crosses on black peoples front lawns and stringing up homosexuals was relevant to society. Guess you wouldn't have wanted to make every cross burner or gay basher your enemy though.

Societies standing on an issue is irrelevant.

Fur has become a minority, it's a vanishing trend.
So basically you're alright attacking something aslong as it's already vanishing anyway. But you won't make an argument for something that you believe in if it's not held in common belief?

Yea, I might change my accusation from hypocrite to coward.

And it's sickening that people like you are trying to keep wank it off and keep it up. Fur is dead, so let it die already. Quit contributing to the needless deaths of 30 billion animals. You are nothing less than those same people that tried to keep dog fighting and bear baiting around on the basis that 'Waaaaaaaaah, I can't to do whatever I please!'
/showing complete lack of understanding of what I've been saying.

Sorry, but someone's freedom of choice to continue a dead old idea shouldn't triumph over another animals life.
So the only difference between meat and fur is that meat isn't a 'dead old idea'?

Gocha...

Particularly if that old idea is obsolete. And yeah, I already know your response. But before you do, let me bring up that I'm pretty sure those people that supported other forms of animal cruelty way back when argued the exact same thing.
Argument ad nauseam much? Your basic stance is that if society says it's okaydokay you're fine with it. You're a coward who can't even stand up for their own beliefs if they're not pre approved by your peers.

'Hurpity dee duuuuuurp We kill cows all the time, so how is doing it to a bear for entertainment any worse? WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM TO DO WHATEVER I WANT!'
No idea what that's in response to and I've frankly gone past caring.

I know, I know. I'm really pushing that. But really, the argument that people should be free to do whatever they want - even when it's harmful and obsolete - doesn't' so much come across as a cry for freedom, but more or less as a spoiled brat whimpering something among the lines of 'Whatever, I do what I want!'
Oh right I see, so yea. It's fine for you to demonise people because they wear fur. Because if you don't agree with it, it must be evil. Oh towering pillar of unwavering moral correctness...

Incase you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.

There's no point in arguing with me the ethics of factory farming versus that of a fur farm. Because that's far, far away from where my mind is set on this issue. I'm the animal rights guy that's a vegetarian, so you're supposed idea of wisdom 'that animals in factory farms get hurt :'<' isn't beyond anything I've ever thought of before. No, what I think about is how a better change for the future can be made today. Whether I like it or not, society needs meat. And since you pissed me off, you're damn well going to get your ass up and grab your pair of glasses. Because hon', this is going to be a fairly long read.
Nice rhetoric... lovely empty rhetoric.

Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to. This isn't just a small minority of people, this is pretty much everyone in the world.
*Western world.* Plenty of countries have moved on to mainly soy or fungus based staples and even insects and other invertebrates in others. Still a living creature granted, but not meat.

Now while you're giving me bull shit that meat isn't any less necessary than fur maybe you should take just a moment to consider a few things about meat. First of all, you know how I never shut the fuck up about meat being relevant? Well, it fucking is. And to furthermore elaborate my point on this I'm going to do you a favor and inform you that the consumption of meat is promoted everywhere. It's in our food guides we give to our children, it's at our cafeterias, and it's on T.V. You hear that? EVERYWHERE. Now lets consider taste. Once someone tastes that crazy ass meat; it never takes them long to realize that their mouth can cum. And after that, that shit is hard to give up. Trust me, being a vegetarian blows balls. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if cows started slaughtering each other; if only for their flesh.
Not really sure what the point of that... whatever you wrote is. Meat tastes good, stop the fucking presses. Pretty sure fur feels good too.

A lot of people don't stick with meat because they hate animals and think 'Whatever, I do what I want!' but because it's legitimately hard to give up on. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would stop eating meat if there was an alternative to it. And I'm not talking about some bull shit alternative that tastes like shit either, I mean something else that can make their mouths cum.
As a meat eater and a fairly decent home cook. Meat isn't even my favourite food. There are plenty of mouth watering none meat based meals.

Sure I loved me some ribs or steak. But I could equally go for some fritters or some roasted sweet potato. Meat usually makes the basis for some of my favourite meals. Such as curries or stews. But make no mistake, the flavour and substance comes from the spices and vegetables used. You could quite easily substitute beef for quorn in the Jamacan brown stew I made last night and there wouldn't be all that much of a difference. Barring the small amount of juice from cooking the meat that runs into the sauce.

People need to eat. And while it's true that people can live their lives without eating meat, I'd argue that in spite of that it's a necessity.
Listen, I love meat. Love it to death I do. But I'm not stupid enough to think that I couldn't live with out it. I eat meat because I make a choice to use an animal for my own comfort.

Because to be honest, I'm almost certain people can't live without meat.
Bullshit, people don't want to live without it because it tastes nice. They could and probably will at some point have to live without meat as we know it.

That's how much it matters to a lot of people and that's just how relevant it is to our society. and with all this in mind, humanity simply isn't ready to move on from it.
No, they don't need to move on whilst the choice is still available. One day, it might not be. But right now it is and people are damnwell gonna use that choice. If all meat was to suddenly vanish and be replaced with adequate crops and meat substitutes. Humanity would be fine, if a bit pissed off.

Then we talk about fur. It's not everywhere, it's vanishing, and last time I checked, I've never met a single person that felt the urge to wear a fur coat that's equivalent to someones hunger for a damn burger. Fuck, meat is so addictive that people will even eat Mcdonalds. Meat and fur are two completely different things. And covering the ethics behind meat versus the ethics of fur farming isn't really looking at the issue with a lot of depth. Changing the problems with factory farming is going to take some time. It'll take better technology, newer foods, and better business practices.Oh, and meat is harder to give up on. Where as fur, you simply need to decide that there's no reason to kill 20 animals when you can just wear a faux coat instead. Delicious resolution. What I find especially stupid is how you use the suffering of animals (within factory farms) to furthermore justify bringing suffering to other animals.
Your basic argument is that fur isn't backed by most of society so it's okay to jump on the people that do wear fur because you won't be accosted by the rest of the human race. Doesn't change the fact that you're being a hypocrite, and so is anyone who backs the meat farming industry whilst simultaneously condemning the fur farming industry.

And with utmost sincerity, I hope your ass fell asleep reading this. But don't worry though, you can stand up and take a break if you wish. No one's going to hold that against you.
Oh please, I read longer and more indepth chunks of text on the bog.
Just because I don't believe in taking up a crusade against meat that means I don't believe in my principles, that I pretend to believe in them? No, I don't pretend anything. So you're still wrong I'm afraid. I believe in ending suffering wherever possible. You're just making assumptions on what I believe in. Which besides being obnoxious, is kind of my thing. So congratulations, you've got the same faults as me. It's not possible to end the suffering that goes on in factory farms.It's only possible to lessen the suffering, for now anyway. Stop trying to twist everything around to make me up as some coward. It's called being realistic. Factory farming is a part of our society just how fur once was. There'll come a time when it starts to die and selfish people like you try to keep it around by discrediting people that are against it as cowards, but that time isn't now. Right now I got to focus on selfish self entitled spoiled children that try to keep fur alive.

So I suppose I undermine my self a bit too. Because it's not really just being realistic, it's called prioritizing. By your logic you're saying anyone that believes in helping all humans but chooses to spend their time saving specifically Africans is a hypocrite and a coward. Or basically anyone that chooses to set priorities on what things they should focus on fixing. The fact that you have to try and distort what I believe in into me being a cowardice hypocrite just go to show how honest you really are, now doesn't it?

Now you remember that part where I said making assumptions is my thing? Well, now it's time for me to do that. Do you have a dog? Now, I'm going to take a guess that you do. If I'm wrong than don't be a dick about it, because me being wrong about this ONE specific thing isn't going to invalidate anything I've said. Well, if you have a dog - while eating meat and especially being for the fur industry - doesn't that make YOU a hypocrite? Expecting other dogs to be skinned - in cases alive - but having one speaks volumes on contradictions and hypocrisy on your part.

'Arguing against fur farming whilst not arguing against meat farming is hypocrisy. If the general consensus in today's society is that meat is fine but fur is bad, then today's society is hypocritical.'

You know what's also hypocritical? Human welfare workers Telling people to help unfortunate children, but only wasting their time helping those African orphans as opposed to children being physically abused! Or maybe your logic is fragile, that could be possible too. Between meat and fur I believe both are bad, but I choose to take up arms against only one. There's nothing wrong with that. And if you think there is, then you're inadvertently saying someone that looks out to help people with aids is a terrible hypocrite if they don't look out to help people with another issue that's fairly the same.

Be honest, you're nothing but a child with a lollipop, and you don't want it taken away. You'll cry, kicking and screaming, until you've got your way. You're kind of like me, except I'm on the side that's not killing animals needlessly. Now that you pissed me off by calling me a hypocritical coward I'll gladly be paying you back in full by being even more of a self righteous twit. But you can't really complain, at least you're not being paid back in violence.

'Arguing against fur farming whilst not arguing against meat farming is hypocrisy. If the general consensus in today's society is that meat is fine but fur is bad, then today's society is hypocritical. '

EVERYONE'S A HYPOCRITE BUT MEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Jesus! and to think that I thought I was the conceited self righteous one here. Fuck, what a pleasant surprise. oh, and saying whilst doesn't make you smarter, I'm afraid. Don't believe everything you hear.

'Fur farming is in no way comparable to the treatment of slaves or homosexuals back in the dark ages. And you saying that is just more evidence of your demonising people for making a choice you don't agree with.'

Missed the point. No actually, you're helping my point. It was a pain in the ass for the government to acknowledge slaves as people, so why don't you take a moment to consider how much harder it would be to stop factory farming? Or hell, even gay marriage. These issues involve people, so maybe this should give you a clue how hard it is to ensure animals aren't being treated in a shitty way.

I demonize people because they literally can't grow up and they deserve to be so. Just take a moment to imagine how stupid you're going to look in the future when your grand kids here that these selfish, self entitled people wouldn't let fur die simply because it looked nice on them?
Meanwhile if I'm wrong, well, I'm an animal rights activist, so that certainly wouldn't be anything that's foreign to me. These people are children. And they'll just keep on with their ways until they eventually get the message to grow up. Telling them that they can do whatever they want because they're grown ups isn't doing the world any favors.


'As per your previous argument. Back in the 30's burning crosses on black peoples front lawns and stringing up homosexuals was relevant to society. Guess you wouldn't have wanted to make every cross burner or gay basher your enemy though.'

Exactly my point. That shit is clearly wrong, but you don't dare speak out of it. Meat is the same thing. It's wrong, but it's a part of our society, so there is little I can say to change that. You see, that's how society works and that's why I keep using my 'relevance' argument. The government doesn't give a fuck if something is right or wrong, they only care about saying what get them elected. Things will only ever change when people are ready for it. Fur is dying, so people are ready to end it. And this is furthermore why people who wear fur piss me off. They're just trying to resurrect a dead body.

Societies standing on an issue is completely relevant. It doesn't matter how many scientists say 'homosexuality is right and brings no harm!' If people are against it, nothing will change their minds. And this is very much so apparent with how long it took for gay people to acquire the privilege of not being arrested.

Right are wrong - irrelevent
Societies stance - completely relevant

'So basically you're alright attacking something as long as it's already vanishing anyway. But you won't make an argument for something that you believe in if it's not held in common belief?

Yea, I might change my accusation from hypocrite to coward.'

Move forward, not backwards, friends. Fur has lived past its use, by this point in time we should work our way towards better ethics.


'/showing complete lack of understanding of what I've been saying.'

Oh really? Because your lack of an explanation isn't too convincing. But all right, if you've got a shallow self entitled justification, then why don't you go ahead and share it.

'Argument ad nauseam much? Your basic stance is that if society says it's okaydokay you're fine with it. You're a coward who can't even stand up for their own beliefs if they're not pre approved by your peers. '

Funny that you never actually replied to my point but just went straight to calling me a coward. Please, if you've got anything else to say please go right ahead. I'm sure the Escapist would be interested in hearing it, hon'. No, my stance is if society is fine with it then I can't change it, so I shouldn't waste my time openly doing so. Telling someone straight to their face as their eating a burger 'that eating meat is evil!' isn't going to get them to change their mind. Just like how killing twenty animals and animal cruelty isn't going to give someone the clue that they might be bad people.


'No idea what that's in response to and I've frankly gone past caring.'

Sure, that's exactly why you continue to argue against me. Because you're gone past caring. That makes a ton of sense. You're gone past caring, I believe you, I really do, but why exactly are you still going on after that statement if you're gone past caring, exactly?

'Oh right I see, so yea. It's fine for you to demonise people because they wear fur. Because if you don't agree with it, it must be evil. Oh towering pillar of unwavering moral correctness.'

Still no actual refutation. I disagree with a ton of things, but I don't think they're evil. I demonise people that wear fur because they're a part of something that needs to just die already. The only thing they have defending them is their own selfish entitlement to do whatever they want, regardless of the suffering it brings and how outdated what they're doing is.


'Oh towering pillar of unwavering moral correctness.'

That's just my dick, actually.

'Not really sure what the point of that... whatever you wrote is. Meat tastes good, stop the fucking presses. Pretty sure fur feels good too.'

Try and not eat meat for a long, long time while not wearing well designed coat. Tell me which of the two is harder to give up.


'Your basic argument is that fur isn't backed by most of society so it's okay to jump on the people that do wear fur because you won't be accosted by the rest of the human race. Doesn't change the fact that you're being a hypocrite, and so is anyone who backs the meat farming industry whilst simultaneously condemning the fur farming industry.'

Teacher's talking, kid. Try listening in class. My point is that meat's a lot harder to give up than fur coats. Your want to eat meat greatly outweighs your want to wear a coat that slightly feels better. I bet the feeling of fur can easily be duplicated by things that don't kill 20 animals. And even than, I doubt there is a massive difference between how a substitute for fur would feel. Meat on the other hand; absolutely nothing can take it's place. Even if you don't like meat you cannot argue that only meat tastes like meat.


'Oh please, I read longer and more indepth chunks of text on the bog.'

Well, if you happen to live out in one that would certainly explain why you argue for fur. Don't let that worry you though, hon', I understand.
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
Every fur I have ever tried is just too fucking itchy.

With the single exception of this Alpaca vest I had as a kid.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
You're right. Not all fur farms do this. I am generalizing.
In other words, you've been lying. Which is a bit odd, considering that one of your complaints against the fur industry involves ethics.

Besides this - which is the utmost extreme of animal cruelty in fur farms - there are other things that go on that are pretty typical. Animals being thrown into small cages, animals being underfed to the point of cannibalism
Do you have evidence that these practices are typical?

and of course that entire part where they're killed for an out dated anachronism.
I'm not sure the fur industry is anachronistic. While the concept of needing fur clothing is an anachronism, wearing fur as a matter of preference is still widespread enough that I don't think it qualifies.

And since you didn't answer me last time: why is it unethical to make a business out of an anachronism?

Between meat and fur I believe both are bad, but I choose to take up arms against only one.
Why do you choose to take up arms against the practice you believe to be declining already? Isn't that a bit like helping to put out a fire that's practically burned down to coals already, instead of trying to put out an inferno? I'm not saying you're wrong for doing this, and I'm not saying it's hypocritical, I just find it a bit odd.
 

Nightmare99

New member
Aug 8, 2012
20
0
0
I'm partial to wild animals being harvested for fur and meat. They get all the benefits of being wild animals (running around and stuff), without the horrifying end that waits for them out there. With very few animal nursing homes, once they are old or sick they will be ripped to shreds by a predator, who will not bother with a clean kill before starting to eat. I think that if I were a seal I would rather get clubbed over the head than eaten by an orca. I feel the same about wild meat, though I do know there would not be enough to entirely sustain our global population. In terms of farming I don't have any particular issue with animals being used for either clothing or meat, so long as they are treated correctly.

I have a pair of deer skin gloves that are great, if I was still living up north I would probably also rock a fur hat. My wife has some rabbit fur slippers that she says are very comfortable.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
BrassButtons said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
You're right. Not all fur farms do this. I am generalizing.
In other words, you've been lying. Which is a bit odd, considering that one of your complaints against the fur industry involves ethics.

Besides this - which is the utmost extreme of animal cruelty in fur farms - there are other things that go on that are pretty typical. Animals being thrown into small cages, animals being underfed to the point of cannibalism
Do you have evidence that these practices are typical?

and of course that entire part where they're killed for an out dated anachronism.
I'm not sure the fur industry is anachronistic. While the concept of needing fur clothing is an anachronism, wearing fur as a matter of preference is still widespread enough that I don't think it qualifies.

And since you didn't answer me last time: why is it unethical to make a business out of an anachronism?

Between meat and fur I believe both are bad, but I choose to take up arms against only one.
Why do you choose to take up arms against the practice you believe to be declining already? Isn't that a bit like helping to put out a fire that's practically burned down to coals already, instead of trying to put out an inferno? I'm not saying you're wrong for doing this, and I'm not saying it's hypocritical, I just find it a bit odd.
No, I haven't been lying. Generalizing isn't lying. And I didn't really notice I was generalizing. That's why I admitted to doing so. It's unethical to make a business out of out dated practices when they involve unnecessary cruelty. I don't think you'd agree to dog fighting simply because 'people should have the choice' to spend their money however they like. I choose to take the fight to the one that's dying to help kill it faster. With the practices I informed you of along with the numbers soon just isn't soon enough.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
If you don't think it's hypocritical to have two cats and be for fur than maybe someone should inform you China has in the past shipped cat and dog fur as 'faux'. Or maybe I should inform you of the part where you have two cats and openly promote an industry that kills animals barely any different from them. Or how about I point out how you'd feel if someone skinned your cat because they thought it would look nice. A cat being your cat doesn't give it any more value than one that isn't.


'Because your entire argument is based on cognitive bias and hypocrisy.

I don't need to refute every single sentence you make, sometimes pointing out the bias is enough'

-I don't need to argue your points. I just have to point out that you're biased and that instantly invalidates everything you say!- You know what? You're pretty biased too. So I guess from here on I'm going to do things your way for a bit.

'You deem the fur industry to be worse than the meat industry based on some ludicrous 'relevance' argument. You're either a hypocrite or a coward.'

Cognitive bias. You're judging me based on your preconceptions of how you view 'people like me' or did you forget that you openly admitted that you said something among those lines?

'/missing the point yet again.'

Brick wall, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.


"People I disagree with = selfish spoiled children because I said so."

Closing statement to my argument before it, actually. You know, the one that you missed the point to. You only seem to want to hear my anger, not my points. Cognitive bias.

'It's not a case of prioritising though. It's a case of you being unwilling to stand by your convictions and only going after targets you know you have societies agreement on.'

You're right. Joining PETA and throwing paint at people WOULD make me a better person, wouldn't it? Furthermore speculated judgements of me based around cognitive bias.

No dog, but I have 2 cats.

And by no logic would owning a dog make me a hypocrite. Quite possibly the dumbest leap I've seen you make.

For that logic to make any sense I'd had to have argued that all animals should be used for fur and meat.

You on the other hand saying "farming for meat is fine but farming for fur isn't" is hypocrisy. Because you're calling the deaths and suffering of the animals farmed for fur more important than those farmed for meat. Based on some retarded relevance scale.

Really that was the dumbest thing I've seen you say and I'm disappoint.'


- You're a hypocrite and your argument is wrong because you're a coward. - I'm not declaring anything more important, I'm just putting my attention on one over the other. Now why don't you punch some doctors that choose to treat children in Malaysia instead of ones in Africa. Strawman. I never said animals dying in fur farms were more important.

'It's not the act of choosing a cause that makes you a hypocrite. It's your willingness to be okay with a practically identical issue because you think you can't do anything about it.'

Cognitive bias. you're speculating on what I am based around your own biased perception of me.


'I'm nothing like you. '

Obviously. But if saying that pissed you off then it did its job for me.

'No, you're on the side that kills infinitely more animals daily for the purpose of a luxury food item whilst simultaneously being on the side that condemns the killing of far fewer animals for luxury clothing items.'

By that logic you're saying Switzerland fought alongside the nazi's because they didn't join in against them. I'm not on the side of factory farming; I don't eat meat. So your entire claim is bull shit. I'm not for factory farming just because I don't fight against it. Oh, right. Cognitive bias.


'Still not seeing how that gives you some sort of right to compare slavery and prejudice to fur farming.'

I'm not comparing. I'll give you a hint; it's either a parallel or an analogy. Or maybe you're just putting words in my mouth. Strawman.

'Your opinion, thankfully you have no sort of power to enforce it. '

A shame I have no power to enforce it. End the deaths of 40 million animals yearly over a cruel, out dated practice that has no place in this world? I'd be making the world a better place. So what if people had to buy cheaper, alternatives that looked the exact same? I think the world could manage. Especially the fourty million animals that aren't bred and slaughtered.

'To a coward.'

- I don't have to argue every single one of your points. But by gosh, I certainly will resort to the name calling! - Didn't I warn you that I was going to wash your mouth out with soap if you kept this shit up, kid?

'Defeatist and cowardice.'

Could someone pass me a bar of soap?

'So yea, attack only the weak opponents.'

Cognitive bias. I also never said that was the reason why, so you're taking things I say out of context. Might be another strawman.

'Because your entire argument is based on cognitive bias and hypocrisy.'

Your argument that my arguments are based on cognitive bias are based on cognitive bias. You're being hypocritical in doing so. Wow, just slapping cognitive bias on someone elses arguments sure makes things a breeze. You've got no fur coat but you defend the practice so I guess we need to fix that, don't we? Why don't you borrow a page from the Chinese fur farm book of ethics and use your two cats to make your self one. Maybe then you can tell me how much you enjoy your fur coat afterwards.
 

TIMESWORDSMAN

Wishes he had fewer cap letters.
Mar 7, 2008
1,040
0
0
I don't own any fur, but I do have a lot of leather jackets and belts. However, I believe most of them are either cow or horse, so I assume someone ate the rest of the cow and the horse was either old or dead anyway.

It's okay to wear them as long as you do something with the rest of the bits.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
lacktheknack said:
SonicWaffle said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Shark testicles simply have too many calories.
Have you tried draining them first? You lose most of the salty flavour that way, but it's probably better for the waistline.
Usually, I read the OP, then post two, then post three, then post thirty-five.

Is is why I really should stop doing that.
...why post 35? Doesn't that pretty much guarantee you won't know what the conversation has progressed to?
 

LtWigglesworth

New member
Jan 4, 2012
121
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
LtWigglesworth said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
LtWigglesworth said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
American South c.1860 : "Society needs slaves. People are unwilling to change their way of farming, and they're not going to. "
All it took was a civil war to change that. That's all. But even then, slavery was already ending in countries all around America. So you're example is quite different. I'm not in a country that wants to keep eating meat while the rest of the world is changing. I'm in a country that completely supports meat and numerous industries that piss me off.
I'm merely saying that your statement that meat is necessary, is a) not necessarily true, and b) unrelated to the morality of eating meat.
Good luck cracking that walnut.

Only been at it for 3 days now.
You are a far more patient man than me then :p ( I'm making no presumptions of gender, it just flows better than man/woman/gender neutral term).
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
BrassButtons said:
The fact that people could change their diets and not suffer horrible consequences means meat isn't needed. It's strongly desired, but modern society could get by fine without it (in first world countries, at least--poorer areas may not be able to).
By that definition vegetables are not needed but desired as they could be replaced by nutritional supplements.

BrassButtons said:
So by your line of reasoning here, if some fur company launched a massively successful marketing campaign to make fur popular, and everyone started wanting to own fur, then you would have to stop opposing the fur industry because society would "need" fur. (This isn't an impossible scenario, by the way--diamonds became valuable because De Beers basically told the world "you love diamonds now").
To maintain a balanced diet while going without meat consumes time and effort and is not cost effective. It is a luxury to be able to afford going without meat and not the other way round (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying luxury meats don't exist, but meat in itself is not luxurious).
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
No, I haven't been lying. Generalizing isn't lying. And I didn't really notice I was generalizing.
If you know you're generalizing then it is a lie. And since you said "I will generalize as much as I please", I thought you were aware of the generalization all along and simply didn't care.

It's unethical to make a business out of out dated practices when they involve unnecessary cruelty.
First, isn't the problem the "unnecessary cruelty" part, not the "out dated practices" part?

Second, why is it unethical to engage in practices that are unnecessarily cruel to animals? And please explain what "unnecessary" means in this context (serious question--the concept of what's "necessary" is actually really difficult to pin down, so I need to know where you're drawing the line to be able to discuss this effectively). Note that I don't actually disagree with you here--I just have a hard time logically supporting my own views on ethics regarding animals, and so I like to see how other people handle it.

I don't think you'd agree to dog fighting simply because 'people should have the choice' to spend their money however they like.
I actually don't know about this. I hate the concept of dog fighting, but I don't like to make ethical judgements based on feelings.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
SonicWaffle said:
lacktheknack said:
SonicWaffle said:
DVS BSTrD said:
Shark testicles simply have too many calories.
Have you tried draining them first? You lose most of the salty flavour that way, but it's probably better for the waistline.
Usually, I read the OP, then post two, then post three, then post thirty-five.

This is why I really should stop doing that.
...why post 35? Doesn't that pretty much guarantee you won't know what the conversation has progressed to?
Because I zip to the bottom to reply, but my resolution is large enough that I can still see post 35.

It makes for some pretty amazing "wat" moments.