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

iAmNothing

New member
Feb 22, 2012
66
0
0
I own a variety of fur based items including fur lined coats, a fur hat and several fur pelt tails.
I don't particularly see much of a problem with using animal fur, as long as it's within reason; like it's 'harvested' in a reasonably humane manner (I mean, you can't really be very humane if you're going to be killing and skinning an animal).
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
BrassButtons said:
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 knew I was generalizing after you called me out on it. Not a lie. I said 'I will generalize as much as I please' purely out of emotion to the issue. I'm not going to argue against how amazingly biased I am against fur industry, because I am. But I wouldn't think that should invalidate anything else I say outside of anything that makes me foam out the mouth.

My idea of unnecessarily cruel is any form of cruelty that's out dated. Back at a time no one would think Bear baiting and dog fighting is cruel, but now we do in thanks to the advent of animal rights. I think it's bad enough that animals have to die purely to satisfy someone's appetite, but it's unjustifiable when animals start dying for something that's backwards and out dated. My concept 'unnecessary' is basically anything that's backwards. Analogy - if you've got a big screen T.V that can use up less resources to make and less energy then an older T.V that uses more resources and energy is completely unnecessary.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
LtWigglesworth said:
So, after browsing the thread about the ethics of eating meat, I was interested in probing the community's feelings about the morality of fur.

I myself have no real problem with it as long as its produced in a humane manner and the animal is slaughtered in a humane manner. In that way it is morally no different than the raising of animals for food and leather. I can understand the opposition to cruel fur in Chinese fur farms etc. and fully support that opposition.

And for full disclosure, I have some fur items (antique mink and fur fox coats/stoles) that are family heirlooms, and have hunted possums for their fur ( in NZ they are also a noxious pest).

What are your thoughts?
How exactly do you SLAUGHTER something in a HUMANE manner? Pretty sure those two terms contradict eachother.

That being said, I don't give a fuck about the morality of wearing fur. The fur is taken from lesser creatures that aren't even sapient, so it's not like they're AWARE they're going to be killed and skinned.
 

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'.
I'm not seeing the logic in how that's hypocritical.

I also have chickens that I don't plan on eating. Yet I still buy chicken from the supermarkets.

If I'd have said that all animals that can be used for fur should be used for fur, and then went and got myself a cat. Then that would be hypocrisy. However accepting that some animals are used for fur whilst owning fury pets myself does not hypocrisy make.

Your logic is lacking.

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.
There's a difference between an animal being bread for fur and being raised as a housepet.

To say you're not allowed to form an emotional attachment to specific animals if you can't form the same emotional attachment to every animal is insanity.


-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.
Except I can point out reasons why I'm not biased. You're unable to do that for your arguments.

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?
Factually incorrect. I'm judging you on what you've said.

Brick wall, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
I'd already explained it at other points during that post and many, many times before.

To much repetition turns into ad nauseam.

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.
Factually incorrect, I've addressed all of your points. You also still don't seem to understand cognitive bias.

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.
Implying joining PETA is the only way to stand up for your beliefs.

Again not judgement based on speculation but on words you've said. And again you misuse cognitive bias.




- You're a hypocrite and your argument is wrong because you're a coward.
Nice try, but you're doing it wrong.

- 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.
You aren't simply prioritising though. Actively demonising people who wear fur whilst being okay with people who eat meat isn't a priority. It's you being hypocritical.


Cognitive bias. you're speculating on what I am based around your own biased perception of me.
Again misuse of the term and no speculation based on anything but what you've said. The arguments you've made and the way you've made them.


Obviously. But if saying that pissed you off then it did its job for me.
Me correcting you doesn't imply that it effected me. Simply that I saw it as another chance to correct one of your inaccuracies.

By that logic you're saying Switzerland fought alongside the nazi's because they didn't join in against them.
That's some faulty logic you've got there.

Switzerland never said they were okay with the Nazis because they were relevant to society.

You on the other-hand...

Also nice, Godwin's law has finally been invoked.

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.
You have said countless times that you're okay with meat eaters because they're socially relevant, but not with people who wear fur because they aren't.

Please try again, you might actually hit the mark with your accusations of cognitive bias one of these days.

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.
Both of which require a basis for comparison for them to be relevant.


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.
Pretty sure Hitler thought he was making the world a better place too.

Thankfully your opinions aren't law.

.... What? You've already invoked Godwin's law.


- 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?
It's honestly so cute that you think your words carry any sort of weight in my eyes.

I'm just having a blast pointing out all the bullshit you're touting.

Could someone pass me a bar of soap?
Oh no! Empty threats on the internet... whatever will I do?


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.
And here we go again. Yadda yadda yadda, not using the term correctly, yadda yadda yadda, based on your own words.

Your argument that my arguments are based on cognitive bias are based on cognitive bias. You're being hypocritical in doing so.
Except you haven't managed to make one of those accusations stick.

Wow, just slapping cognitive bias on someone elses arguments sure makes things a breeze.
Would do if you understood the meaning behind it and knew when to apply it.

You've got no fur coat but you defend the practice so I guess we need to fix that, don't we?
Oh yes, can't have people arguing from a point of logic. Everything has to be emotionally driven. If I don't have an actual stake in the argument then I can't have an opinion.

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.
Implying I want one, that I wouldn't just go out and buy one if I did, and completely ignoring emotional attachment forged by taking care of a pet over the lack of emotional attachment for animals you'll never see.

Also that two cats could make a coat for me.

Maybe then you can tell me how much you enjoy your fur coat afterwards.
Implying I've ever once said I enjoy fur coats.

Weakest entry in this argument to date.

Please try harder next time.
Ahh yes, clearly you're such a cool, unbiased person on every issue. Aren't you? Or maybe you're just being completely dishonest. I'm not buying any of your BS that your unbiased. You can argue your less biased than me, but that's a pretty low bar you're setting. Having two cats and expecting two others to be skinned alive in China is the epitome of being a hypocrite. You want pathetic? Try having two cats and justifying the existence of an industry that would have them skinned if they had the misfortune of being born their alone.

You 'also having chickens you don't eat' furthermore makes you a hypocrite. It doesn't argue anything, it just means you do the same thing to chickens. You can have animals be food, fur, or friend but you can't have all three without being -if I were to be lenient - ironic.

'There's a difference between an animal being bread for fur and being raised as a housepet.'\

Yeah, the difference is where they're born. Clearly that warrants their to be a massive difference in how they're treated. A cat's a cat, no matter where it's from. And it just furthermore shows how much you truly deserve to have a pet.

'To say you're not allowed to form an emotional attachment to specific animals if you can't form the same emotional attachment to every animal is insanity.'

Or how about you shouldn't expect an animal to be treated like shit just because it's not your pet if it's the exact same animal? I don't know, just seems kind of hypocritical to me.

Nope. Biased. I remember you saying 'I hate people like you, bla bla bla' which implies quite a bit of bias against me. So you kind of stabbed your self in the knee on that one. It's quite sad that you try to pretend that you're completely neutral on this when you gave me quite an impression of how you actually feel on the issue. I'm foaming out the mouth and it's true that I'm letting my emotions get the better of a lot of my arguments. But you know, at least I can damn well admit my bias. So really, you're just dishonest. Sorry.

'Factually incorrect, I've addressed all of your points. You also still don't seem to understand cognitive bias'

Illogical interpretation. You didn't understand my point but you got straight to arguing against a closing statement I had following it. You don't understand any arguments I try to make but you get straight to criticizing anything - that isn't an actual argument - following as if it's a legitimate argument.

'
Implying joining PETA is the only way to stand up for your beliefs.

Again not judgement based on speculation but on words you've said. And again you misuse cognitive bias.'

You're saying anything you can to discredit everything I've got to say. You know, things like I'm a hypocritical coward? Outside of how I think that's complete bull shit, that's also fairly irrelevant. You're twisting everything I say to try and shape me into something that I'm really not and your reshaping everything I say into whatever you want me to be. Cognitive bias.


'You have said countless times that you're okay with meat eaters because they're socially relevant, but not with people who wear fur because they aren't.'

Yes, I'm 'okay' with people who eat meat. I don't support the industry by eating meat, nor do I promote the industry. I don't mind them because at least what they're doing isn't supporting an anachronism that needs to die already. Want me to bring up that wonderful argument again? It's relevant. And screw you, it's not a terrible argument. Every change we make is based around whether or not society is ready for it. By arguing against my relevance argument you're calling every woman before womans rights a coward, every gay man that didn't come out before they stopped being arrested a coward, and you're calling every single black man that didn't speak out against slavery a coward. So, from this you just prove how privileged and entitled you are, how spoiled you are, to not be any of those.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
DragonLord Seth said:
Did someone say... fur thread?

Oh shit not that kind, uh, uh, ABORT!
But either way, that is my reaction to seeing people throw gigantic shitfits about these things. If you don't want people to wear furs of legal-to-kill animals, then go protest leather or any form of meat.
There's a difference between leather, meat, and fur. Go ahead and tell me all the uses you have for leather and meat versus all the uses you've got for fur.

Leather wallets
Boots
Shoes
Jackets
Couches

All of these objects are inexpensive and durable.

Fur - Well, you could probably get fur of all five of these things too, but they'd call a fortune and kill a ton of animals each. That and they're far from being practical and used by everyone on a daily basis. I doubt it would take 20 cows to make a leather jacket.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Ahh yes, clearly you're such a cool, unbiased person on every issue. Aren't you?
It's impossible to be truly unbiased. The mere act of having an opinion creates a certain level of bias.

I do however accept that.

Or maybe you're just being completely dishonest.
You make that judgement based on what?

I'm not buying any of your BS that your unbiased. You can argue your less biased than me, but that's a pretty low bar you're setting. Having two cats and expecting two others to be skinned alive in China is the epitome of being a hypocrite.
Hardly, I've provided rationale why it's not, now it's up to you to tell me why that rationale is wrong.

You want pathetic? Try having two cats and justifying the existence of an industry that would have them skinned if they had the misfortune of being born their alone.
Again, proof that you completely missed the point.

I'll explain my point again this time around so you can't accuse me of just brushing you off.

I'm not justifing the existence of anything, just like I'm not supporting it.

All this argument has been about is the fact that you won't recognise that your acceptance of the meat industry and simultaneous vivification of the fur industry is hypocritical because they're both similar trades that serve a similar purpose.

Your entire argument is built on societal relevance which has no weight in an argument about morality. As per your examples of the widespread prejudicial treatment of black people and homosexuals in the 30's.
'I understand your points perfectly, they're just faulty and full of shit. '

Bull shit. You downright said you didn't understand the very point above that statement I made. And frankly, I'm not going to take your words as honest ones, liar.

'Not once have you admitted your bias or hypocrisy or I'd have bowed out of the argument, seeing as that was exactly what I was pointing out by the second/third post.

And I've been nothing but honest from the get go. Admitting that I like meat and that my choice to eat meat is a selfish one considering it isn't a necessity to my survival. A fact I accepted a long time ago.'

Condemning my bias and using your own is hypocrtical.


'What I hate is people who impose their own ideals onto other people. The kind of condescending toad that thinks they can make judgements about other people based on relatively small and innocuous choices they make. '

Killing 40 million animals for an out dated practice is not a small choice.


'I've already said I'm categorically against animal cruelty on more than one occasion, but I guess because that didn't fit into your opinion of me you just deleted that bit of inconsequential information and just made something up that fit your idea more?'

What piece of inconsequential piece of information?


'I've got to point out how hilarious it is that all this time you're accusing me of making leaps of judgements because I take the very clear and telling statements you make and form opinions relevant to the discussion with them. Whilst you're actually making massive judgements about my personality and apparently my right to have pets, based on little to nothing that I've actually said.'

What's that son, calling someone a cowardly hypocrite pisses them off enough to make them say rude things? I would have never guessed!

'I'd argue the difference is why they were born.'

Born to be murdered in an outdated practice. That sounds really pleasant. If there is reincarnation (and I'm sure there isn't) then you deserve nothing less than being skinned for that argument. If only you understand just how heartless and cruel it sounds. The entire argument just is nothing but self entitlement because you happened to be born a human.

'There may be double standards in there but a hypocrite that does not make.'

Apparently you can pick and choose what makes a hypocrite.

'You have to back up your claims, I've backed mine up on more than one occasion. Simply saying you're hypocritical without explaining the logic behind it makes you look silly.'

'Last person in the fucking world that should say that, hon'.

Your entire argument is built on societal relevance which has no weight in an argument about morality. As per your examples of the widespread prejudicial treatment of black people and homosexuals in the 30's. '

You want an argument on morality do you?

How's this for morality; as a race we do horrific things and justify it with some abstract notion that being born human somehow gives us superiority over everything else in the world; coming out of a humans alone gives us a sense of value. But no matter what justifications we bring for our actions that'll never serve to defend the things we do. It doesn't matter our reasons; if we start being slaughtered and eaten we're going to deserve nothing less than that; because we ourselves did those things.

If you want to argue morality with me, I can easily argue that the world would be a better place if humans were wiped off the face of the world. And you can't argue against me on this. There isn't a single animal in this world with exception to humans that this world can exist without. Take the humans away, the world still functions. Not just functions, but functions better. We don't have humans introducing foreign animals to places they shouldn't be, We don't have humans killing animals and upsetting balance, and we damn well won't have overpopulation problems. No Pollution. And that's without mentioning all the horrible shit we humans do to other humans.

Morality doesn't matter. It's an abstract idea and one - you're going to love this next word - that's completely based on the relevance it has to society. Back at a time it was moral to burn gay people. Now it's not. So the only true value morality actually has is the completely nonexistent subjective value we give it. Which, lets be honest, basically means nothing. But you already knew that didn't you, so why am I bringing this up?

The notion of 'morality' begins to start sounding like bull shit when you begin to realize the bias we give to human life above animal life; when our existence isn't anymore meaningful. When you die, you're fate's not going to be any different. And outside of a few people who strive to completely change our world, a lot of us don't look for much more than an animal. Food, living, fucking. Just because you feel humans are more valuable, that doesn't make it so. My own opinion is that nothing has any value. But if you want to argue value, then perhaps we should equate it to what contributes the most to this world. Humans most certainly don't, we only contribute to our selves. Animals on the other hand, though completely inadvertently, are needed for this world. I fucking detest flies, but they've probably done more for the world than even our most environmentally minded people have. Because these flies in question haven't been damaging the world.

One way you can argue the value of morality is based on the good and bad it brings. This is the form of morality I'm using when I argue humanity's worth. The other way you can is subjective morality. If we're going to bring that into play then it's what one person believes is right versus another person.

Right, morality doesn't fucking matter. And if it does, then perhaps we should just stop existing completely. There would be no greater justice we could bring to the world than that. Ending humanity would end every single problem humanity brings. That's a lot of fucking problems. And being a human, I don't want that to happen. Then again I don't believe in consequentialism, so despite all the suffering we bring -even then - I wouldn't agree to the notion of letting 7 billion humans die for a countless amount of animals. Now, I know what you're thinking. 'But crazy insane guy, why do you want to end fur if it doesn't matter?'

Because I'm against suffering. Does it matter? No, probably not. I'm not going to pretend that it does. But what I do know is that regardless of how nothing matters, absolutely everything can feel pain. We can't fix every single issue; but we can fix one at a time. And we can only fix an issue when society is willing to fix it. When society feels that it would be moral to fix it. And despite what you may think of it, animal rights is no different from human welfare. You can't just skip past people black people and get right to helping gay people; the way had to be paved. You're not the gay animal rights activist, so I guess I'll educate you. I'm not sure what sexuality/gender you are, but if you are a part of any group you should be aware of how hard it is to get basic fucking rights. It took a long fucking time for black people to just take any seat they want on a bus; so maybe you should consider how tough it'll be to end factory farming.

It took decades, fucking decades of fighting for us to let the chickens be held in bigger cages. So with that in mind, you better be damn sure it's going to take some time for factory farms to stop existing. I believe in arguing against factory farms ethics, but not banning them out right. Because as I said, in a society that eats meat, that's just not going to happen. Not yet anyway. Fur is different because a lot of people are against fur. And because of that, we can end it. Society is sick of fur. And because of that, we can move past it. It's not attacking a weak enemy, it's paving the way forward for a better future.

Fur can end. And it's time it did. Factory farming will still be around. In regards to both issues, what we can do is spread information on the ethics that are involved and hope that more people - of society - know. And that's why I don't argue against people who eat meat. Because I know it's not going to change their minds. I still believe it's wrong - but I keep that part to my self. What we can do is let them acknowledge that suffering went into their food and hope that they'll strive for better ethics. You know, that instead of justifying it because they should because people should be able to do whatever they want.

One thing at a time. That's how every single issue relevant to a creatures well being - human or not - is achieved.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I knew I was generalizing after you called me out on it. Not a lie.
Right, I get that now. I was just explaining why I had thought you were lying, and also correcting your statement that generalizations aren't lies (they can be, but aren't always).

I'm not going to argue against how amazingly biased I am against fur industry, because I am. But I wouldn't think that should invalidate anything else I say outside of anything that makes me foam out the mouth.
I never claimed that everything you say is invalid because you are biased, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say this.

My idea of unnecessarily cruel is any form of cruelty that's out dated.
So what makes something "out dated"?

Back at a time no one would think Bear baiting and dog fighting is cruel, but now we do in thanks to the advent of animal rights.
So those practices are cruel because they are out dated, and they are out dated because people decided they were cruel?

And this sounds a lot like your ethics are determined by popular opinion.

My concept 'unnecessary' is basically anything that's backwards.
So what does "backwards" mean, and how does it apply here? Are you saying that fur is backwards and unnecessary because other forms of clothing exist?

And you're still not explaining why these practices are unethical. Let's just accept that you're correct about fur being out dated, backwards, and unnecessary. Why does that make it unethical? Why should I be morally opposed to fur?

ETA: I just have to address this point:

There isn't a single animal in this world with exception to humans that this world can exist without.
This world can exist without every creature currently alive. And it has. Earth has gone through multiple mass-extinction events, and the majority of creatures to have existed are all extinct. The world (and life) continued to exist without all of those creatures, and there's no reason to think it couldn't continue without modern ones. Sure, removing some species would wreak havoc on the ecosystem, but the modern ecosystem isn't the only viable one (as proved by all the previous ecosystems). Nature is not nearly as delicate as people make it out to be. It's only when you want to preserve nature as it exists right now that things get dicey.
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
Starik20X6 said:
Colour-Scientist said:
Well, first and foremost, I think fur clothes look rotten. That's just personal taste though.


Unless you're a proper fashion zealot, I don't see why faux-fur can't be used instead. I'd be lying if I said I felt strongly about it though.
Pretty much ninja'd my entire train of thought.

I can understand (and would support) using the hides/fur of animals that are already being used for food, but when we have faux-fur that's nigh-on identical to real fur, killing animals just for the fur seems pretty wrong.
Damn it. And you just ninja'd my train of thought. Well some of it. If the animal is already being killed for meat then why not skin it and use every part of the animal? I mean to my understanding that's what the indigenous NDNs of America used to do......But if you're killing an animal just for the fur that's ridiculous.....especially if you hunt said animal to extinction. I own a leather jacket that I inherited from a friend but that's about all I have in the animal skins category. And I use it for motorcycle riding. On the rare instances I get to go.
 

Navvan

New member
Feb 3, 2011
560
0
0
I have absolutely no ethical distaste for fur clothing so long as it is both legal and produced as humanely as possible. I do however hate the feel and look of fur clothing so I do not purchase or wear it myself.

Also this is exactly the kind of fur thread I thought it would be =(
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
And then the sentence later I said 'Ohh' and replied to it.
No, you replied to the one after it.

The way you're posting is making the discussion needlessly confusing. You just have floating replies and sometimes it's hard to tell what they're in response too.
And now I just literally found out how to quote.

Condemning my bias and using your own is hypocrtical.

I'm not using my own, I'm admitting it. And my choice to eat meat has nothing to do with the discussion. It's context for me admitting that I'm being selfish by eating meat. So the practice of eat meat is selfish, a luxury food item that isn't necessary for survival.
You didn't admit it until literally just now. Congratulations, hypocrite. Took you awhile.


What piece of inconsequential piece of information?


That I'm against animal cruelty, it kind of makes a good 2 thirds of your previous post moot.
No, you THINK you're against animal cruelty.


What's that son, calling someone a cowardly hypocrite pisses them off enough to make them say rude things? I would have never guessed!


You've been doing it since before I called you a coward.
I haven't called you a coward.

Born to be murdered in an outdated practice.

By that logic then the meat industry is an outdated practice. Which contradicts everything you've said thus far.
Meat is relevant to society. Fur isn't. Outdated, just like type writers.

That sounds really pleasant. If there is reincarnation (and I'm sure there isn't) then you deserve nothing less than being skinned for that argument.

More evidence of it being fortuitous that you're not in a position of power.
'Last person in the fucking world that should say that, hon'.

Prove it, I've got rationale for all my arguments, you've yet to make a compelling argument against one.
The fact that you have to tell your self you've got good arguments proves otherwise.


You want an argument on morality do you?
This entire argument has been about morality. Where the fuck have you been?


Same self deprecating bullshit every misanthrope touts.
Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not a misanthrope. My point is once you start arguing the morality of something you're instantly going to fall flat on your ass because your existence alone causes a lot of immoral suffering. It's hypocritical.

Without humans there would be no context. Things would just happen because they happen. Our ability to contextualize is what makes us special.
How's this for context; you'll die. It doesn't matter what meaning you give your life or what context you give your actions. You're going to die in a mess of your own filth. Try and find some beautiful context for me there, please. We live in a bubble of abstract ideas and shallow diversions. I hardly think that justifies all the suffering we bring.


Not just functions, but functions better.


Depends on your definition of better, if pure chaos is your definition of better. Then yea.
Society is pure chaos. At least in this world without humans there'd be no pollution, population problems, over fishing, and slaughter. Animals have the opportunity to at least 'try' and live. we strip that away from them, and this is morally abhorrent.

We don't have humans introducing foreign animals to places they shouldn't be.

That's a relatively minor concern and ecosystems recover quite quickly from such things in most cases.
Tell that to all the Australians.

Or the fantastic stuff we do either.
That's not an argument. You wanted morality so here it is; the terrible things we do greatly out weigh the good things. A few 'fanastical' things being lost would hardly be a big price to pay.


Then by your own admission fur doesn't matter.
Nihilist. Or so I consider my self to be one. I don't believe anything matters. But in spite of that I'm still against causing needless suffering. We're all going to be dead eventually, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to live a life without an incredible amount of suffering. I believe in ending suffering if only because of the privilege I have, and because it wouldn't feel right for me to say that other creatures should suffer something I'd be unwilling to.

Sure morality changes depending on society, but so does everything. I'm not seeing how that's an argument.
That's my entire fucking argument against fur. We're changing and we're past fur. It's no longer relevant, meat is. Let it die.

And by your logic you'd have been fine and dandy with that. After all, you wouldn't want to argue against something that was socially relevant.
I probably wouldn't even know I was gay due to the incredible amount of stigma against it. If I were to speak out against it, I'd be set on fire. It wouldn't matter if I was the greatest psychologist in the world; people will believe in whatever they want to. Trying to push for gay rights would fail, badly, with me being burned at a stake. People are only willing to make a change for the better when society is willing.

Our own personal morality dictates all of our actions.
True




But my life will have been.
Sleep. Eat. Fuck. Yup, so different. The only difference is that humans like to romanticize everything with a bunch of bull shit.





Entertainment, spiritual enrichment, questions for the sake of questions, discovery, exploration, testing our limits and our desire to take everything apart just to see how it works.
Let me translate everything you just said. Shallow distractions, abstract bull shit, pretension, and two things that animals can do, but to a lesser degree. Oh, and last time I checked most people aren't making discoveries, exploring, and taking things apart. Animals are always testing their limits. It's called living.


The fact that we understand a concept such as value makes it so.
I'll file that under the 'abstract bull shit' cabinet.



Ohhhh, so dark and edgy. It's not like I read that on every awkward kids myspace page's "about me" section like 6 years ago.
I'm not trying to be dark and edgy. I'm trying to say that value is nothing but an abstract idea that isn't worth anything outside of humanities little bubble that's made completely out of bull shit.


Entirely debatable.

Without human life what would this world be? Pure chaos without an ounce of culture, history or direction.
Ohhhh, so dark and edgy. It's not like I read that on every awkward kids myspace page's "about me" section like 6 years ago.
Remember when you said that not too long ago? Well, funny because you sound exactly one of those atheist humanists who go on about science and humanity, as if they're extraordinary spiritual experiences. Okay, Thunderfoot. Want to show us clips of how beautiful life is while you monologue about how amazing and spiritual science is?

You see, that's the problem I have with humanity. We're like a mentally handicapped child looking at a glass of colored water, assuming that just because it's colored that it's something more than water, that it somehow has more meaning. Even with no religion, people try to be spiritual. It's sad really. George Carlin said it best. Society is built around bull shit. Not too much, but just enough.

And as far as I'm concerned, the humans have brought far greater chaos than animals ever will. It's true that you need to fear for your life every second as an animal. but us humans, holy fucking shit, now that's chaos.

We have guys running into theaters shooting people. We have wars. We have bombs. We have missiles. We have riots. We have all these people walking around, driving cars, taking planes, taking trains. We've got Laws, crimes, businesses, charities. Can you please tell me again about this 'pure chaos'.

Culture and history doesn't give our lives any more meaning. They're merely distractions. I love history and it's a good thing to consider, but I'm not going to pretend it gives our lives meaning nor value. The world would definitely be different without humans. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just something that's unknown to us. So perhaps you're just scared.




No, you're just being nihilistic and self deprecating.

What are you? 12?
Missed the point. We're in no place to argue what is and isn't moral with all the amount of suffering we cause. That's the point. Or does my notion that you're not too important hurt your feelings?

All morality is subjective, that's the point.



Then your entire argument has been meaningless.
Sounds just about right.


And all the great things we bring too.
A fair price to pay.


Which wouldn't have the faintest notion of how things had changed anyway. Except the billions of animals that now depend on us for their survival because of domestication. They'd probably have a gay old time trying to reintegrate into the wild.
They'd integrate, regardless. Having a city destroyed by a war doesn't stop people from rebuilding it.


Because I'm against suffering.
A moral stance...
Does it matter? No, probably not. I'm not going to pretend that it does.
OHMAIGAWD! More morally based decisions?

But what I do know is that regardless of how nothing matters, absolutely everything can feel pain. We can't fix every single issue; but we can fix one at a time.
Yea, it's not like I said at anypoint that by my own personal morality that I'm opposed to animal suffering or anything is it?



That's the same argument you called a piece of shit earlier on. So no, apparently it's not 'no shit'.


Again, no shit. I've not been against your prioritising, I've been against your hypocrisy. You know, your ability to say one set of animal killers are cool beans because society says so whilst simultaneously demonising another set because society doesn't like them anymore.
I don't say factory farming is cool. I just don't attack them because it's relevant to our society and anything I say isn't going to stop them from eating meat. Common fucking sense, kid. Should learn a thing or two about it. It's too early to demonize them. And if we lived back when fur was mandatory I wouldn't be demonizing those people either. For a guy that loves arguing on how valuable context makes us you sure have a grasp of it. The context of why don't demonize meat eaters while demonizing people that wear fur should matter a hell of a lot more than the fact that I only demonize one of them. Maybe it's not so much that I'm a supposed 12 year old nihilist (your half right though, congrats) but that you're oversimplifying the two issues and undermining the role that society plays.

I feel sorry for the guy who you have to educate. Hypocritical values followed by a notion that morality doesn't matter whilst moralizing a subject and then saying all life is meaningless because *pouty face*
Life doesn't matter. And my reasons for believing that aren't simply because 'LIFE IS NOTHING!' (Slits wrists) No, I'm just a very cynical person that has absolutely no spirituality. At all. You're quite right that I do moralize while saying that morality doesn't matter. The honest truth is it's just hard for me to turn my back on my ethics. Even if they're completely pointless. I'll continue to moralize; but if anything I can at least acknowledge that there's no reason behind them. In regards to this, I'm not going to argue against being a bit of a hypocrite.

The person I'd be educating would only know of the ethics that are involved. Nothing else. Anything past that are my views. Believe it or not, but when people don't piss me off I'm not a completely abhorrent person.



Thanks for the history lesson, I'd never heard of Rosa Parks before... how does this effect anything I've said.
Try closing your pie hole and actually waiting for me to actually complete a thought, k'ay?
.

Keyword here being fighting, not saying "You guys are cool beans because society says so"
I have been fighting, hon'. I've been fighting against their ethics. It's just unreasonable to take on the entirety of factory farming. You really don't understand the notion of biting more than you can chew, do you?


You wouldn't believe it from what you've said.
Then I guess to be kind I'll just say it was a misunderstanding. It happens.

Because as I said, in a society that eats meat, that's just not going to happen. Not yet anyway. Fur is different because a lot of people are against fur. And because of that, we can end it. Society is sick of fur. And because of that, we can move past it. It's not attacking a weak enemy, it's paving the way forward for a better future.

And like I said before, no issue with a person choosing a battle. But to be okay with a very similar practice because it's relevant to society is hypocritical.
I hate factory farms. They're relevant to society, so I can't argue against them. All that can be done is arguing for better ethics. I can't stop people from eating meat, but I'm sure better ethics for animals is something everyone can get behind. Well, except for the odd ball that thinks helping animals is standing in the way of humans, somehow. I am, however, fine with their existence despite what I think of them. Because they're relevant to todays society. It's too much of a big part of our culture. Just like fur once was. So, to clarify:

I hate factory farming, but I'm fine with their existence. Because society isn't ready to move past them. I'm not capable of that much hatred, and that's why relevance matters. It's hard to hate that many people, so you just have to accept it and fight -one small thing at a time - to making things better for everyone and everything. I'll be probably be dead before we move past factory farms. But oh well, one small issue at a time. Fur is past it's time. Norway banned fur, so I might be around to see it die. I guess that's another reason why it pisses me off. Because with people trying to keep fur around, I might not be given that privilege either.

So why can't they strive for better ethics in the fur industry?

Personally that's all I'd be interested in.
Because I truly believe we're ready to completely end fur. Save for a few nations here and there. I feel that we've reached that point in time.


Would I wear a fur coat? No, don't think it'd suite me anyway. Doesn't mean I'm going to call people evil because they do wear fur coats.
Then I apologize for calling them evil. I guess what I mean to say is that they're spoiled, backwards, and barbaric. Save for the few people that wear fur because they're just backwards and barbaric.
 

Airsoftslayer93

Minecraft King
Mar 17, 2010
680
0
0
There is no such thing as 'slaughtering in a humane way', the animal is now dead, their life is extinguished so that you can have a nice coat, one that can be replicated with modern technology. Fur is immoral, so is meat, so is leather.