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

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Casual Shinji said:
My dad had a mink and fox farm and I never saw the harm of it, but that's probably because I grew up in that environment.

One thing I can say for certain, any decent fur farm treats its animals like queens. It might seem morbid, but the better you treat the animals the better the fur will end up looking. And mink and fox fur is generally a luxery item, so any potential buyer will see when animals are mistreated because the resulting fur will look like shit. Skinning a mink or a fox that's dead is already a tough job. Skinning one that's alive is impossible without seriously destroying the value of the fur you're trying to sell.

I don't even understand how one could skin a mink or a fox alive. I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to catch one of these animals with their hands, but without a sturdy pair of gloves your mits will be shred to pieces. I know that these practices do occur in countries like China, but it didn't on the farm my family had, and I'll be damned if we were the only fur farm in the world that treated its live stock humainly.

So yeah, bring on the red paint.
I'm more accustomed to fire. Being the rabid animal rights activist I am I've contributed three posts to this thread, amounting to 'Fur farming is evil'. I do, however, have one question, how along ago was it your family did these things, exactly?
Do you think normal farming is evil too?

I'm guessing you do, I just want to get a handle on you.

And if you're actually insinuating that you'd set people alight because they own a farm. Well.... I can't really say anything about that which wouldn't get me a ban.

Captcha thingy: vegan zombie wants grains!

Hilarious and relevant. You've one uped yourself solve media, well done... well done.
Actually, I'm not against normal farms. How they take care of their animals is usually far more pleasant than that of a factory farm or that of a fur farm. My understanding has always been that eating meat is still relevant in our society and there's no point in going on a crusade against it. Fur farming, however, has outlived its purpose. At a time it was acceptable, but that time is long past. Oh, and I'm not a vegan. I'm a vegetarian. I have no qualms with exploitation; I've got qualms with needless suffering. If only because we're all just being exploited anyway.
That's quite funny that you claim normal farms are better than fur farms. Fur is a luxury item which is raised with quality in mind, not quantity. Also that every aspect of an animal's health, especially their emotional state is important for the quality of the coat. ON the other hand have you ever seen a normal chicken farm? No windows save for one to adhere to health guidelines, stuffed to the brim with birds that can barely walk and kill each other by getting tired and end up trampled. Fur farms are far more animal friendly than any normal farm, save for perhaps an independent proprietor.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
God damn, man. Its 12:30 in the morning here, I didn't expect you to take the post so seriously. I'll bite, though.

Abandon4093 said:
Fur is a product no different from meat.
Yes it is. Its fur, not meat. You can't eat it.

Abandon4093 said:
It's no less necessary to our survival than meat.
How does this make sense to you? We can wear down, polyester, wool, leather, or just stay the fuck inside and drink hot tea...how is fur necessary to survival? Meat on the other hand provides protein and energy.

Abandon4093 said:
It makes clothing, sure there are alternatives. But there are also alternatives to meat.
If there was a practical alternative to meat, it'd be in use. Meat farming is incredibly inefficient in terms of providing food. The farmers are in it for the money, and so will do whatever it takes to be most efficient. Soy is a hugely more efficient way to provide protein, but how are you going to convince a species to switch from cow to soy? You name one effective alternative to meat, and I'll believe you.

Abandon4093 said:
Relevance to anything I said?
You're talking about fur, are you not? So it's relevant. You drape yourself in dead animals and I'll tell you to your face that you look like a creeper.

Abandon4093 said:
Yo guys... found someone who can't read here... gonna have to bold out the important bits and hope for the best.
Yo guyz. I found someone here who requires validation from you for his baseless assumptions.

I hope I covered all the 'important bits' for you.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Firstly, I'm going to go ahead and give everyone some numbers. 30 million animals are killed every year for fur. To clarify; this is some where's around how many people have died of aids since it's discovery. To make a single fur coat, it can take quite a few animals. Now, I'm no taxidermist so I wouldn't happen to know exactly how many it takes, but from what I understand depending on what animal is being killed, it can take up to twenty of them.
OK. So what? Unless you're arguing that these animals have a right to life (in which case you should also oppose leather, which you admittedly don't) the numbers don't matter. It's simply an emotional appeal.

Firstly, let me complain about the fur industry its self. You can never trust a business with ethics
My mom owns a business, which makes this generalization an attack on her character. So, got any evidence that my mom's business practices are unethical?

some places even skin the animals alive.
Unless "some" means "all of them" this is an argument against specific fur farms, and not the industry as a whole. After all, some restaurants will serve food that was dropped on the floor, but that doesn't make the restaurant industry unethical.

And it gets even better. In the past there have been issues where China has been selling fur as faux - fur.
Again, isn't this an argument against specific businesses within the industry, and not the industry itself?

So, basically, they don't just skin animals alive, they're also being completely dishonest about it. They don't care about decency or honesty, they just don't. And with ethics like this, it simply cannot be argued that they don't deserve anyone defending them. There is no moral gray area, absolutely none. The fur industry is vile and it needs to end.
You're generalizing again. You've gone from talking about "some" fur farms, to talking about the entire industry as though the "some" comprises the entire whole. Unless you have evidence of this, you're argument fails (and may also be considered libel, depending on where you are).

And once we end it; I can assure you the world will be a better place. The cure to cancer won't be found and your life will still be meaningless; but at least you can rest your head in knowing that fox plushie you bought for your daughter that loves animals isn't made of those precious animals.
This assumes that I think those animals are precious. If I don't, then this knowledge will not make the world a better place from my perspective.

Now we get to the arguments that defend this awful industry.
You've yet to demonstrate that the industry is awful.

There's 7.7 billion people. And a single one of us causes far greater harm to this planet than any animal.
How do you determine what is harmful to the planet? What does the planet look like when it's healthy?

The reason why fur is such a horrible thing isn't just because of the cruelty involved alone, but because of two other factors.The first of them being that we leave ethics in the hands of business (which is NEVER a good idea)
Another generalization accusing my mom of being unethical because she runs a business.

and the second one being that fur is an anachronism.
Anachronisms are horrible? Really?? Do you also oppose the Society for Creative Anachronisms? I mean they have "anachronism" right in the name.

Fur is wrong because it serves absolutely no purpose.
Making people happy is a purpose. Just because you don't consider it a good purpose doesn't mean it isn't a purpose.

Fur has no reason to exist. Absolutely none.
People like wearing it, and think it looks good or is comfortable. Those are reasons. They don't stop being reasons just because you consider them insufficient.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I got to the point where you said that animals and humans are both resources. That's just incredibly wrong on so many levels. Humans are the only thing on this planet that have true sapience. We don't just feel, we comprehend and acknowledge, think not just feel. We are the reason for which something exists. We are not a resource because we are what the resources sustain and serve. Animals exist for the sake of humans, we are better, we have a point by the simple fact we can even understand the concept of a point.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
him over there said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I got to the point where you said that animals and humans are both resources. That's just incredibly wrong on so many levels. Humans are the only thing on this planet that have true sapience. We don't just feel, we comprehend and acknowledge, think not just feel. We are the reason for which something exists. We are not a resource because we are what the resources sustain and serve. Animals exist for the sake of humans, we are better, we have a point by the simple fact we can even understand the concept of a point.
Bleehhh. This line of thought is just so fundamentally flawed. Arrogant and short-sighted. Its like religious dogma. "Humans are innately superior to all life, because we say we are". Its no different from saying "The universe revolves around Earth" or "God created man in his image". Its all beyond ridiculous.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
DRes82 said:
him over there said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I got to the point where you said that animals and humans are both resources. That's just incredibly wrong on so many levels. Humans are the only thing on this planet that have true sapience. We don't just feel, we comprehend and acknowledge, think not just feel. We are the reason for which something exists. We are not a resource because we are what the resources sustain and serve. Animals exist for the sake of humans, we are better, we have a point by the simple fact we can even understand the concept of a point.
Bleehhh. This line of thought is just so fundamentally flawed. Arrogant and short-sighted. Its like religious dogma. "Humans are innately superior to all life, because we say we are". Its no different from saying "The universe revolves around Earth" or "God created man in his image". Its all beyond ridiculous.
We are better than animals through sapience. Our lives matter because we make them matter, an animal might feel pain but it doesn't understand pain. An animal gets hurt, it doesn't undergo torment. An animal mates, it doesn't love. Humans are better through the fact that we understand, we give things a reason. I fail to see any lack of logic in that.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
him over there said:
DRes82 said:
him over there said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I got to the point where you said that animals and humans are both resources. That's just incredibly wrong on so many levels. Humans are the only thing on this planet that have true sapience. We don't just feel, we comprehend and acknowledge, think not just feel. We are the reason for which something exists. We are not a resource because we are what the resources sustain and serve. Animals exist for the sake of humans, we are better, we have a point by the simple fact we can even understand the concept of a point.
Bleehhh. This line of thought is just so fundamentally flawed. Arrogant and short-sighted. Its like religious dogma. "Humans are innately superior to all life, because we say we are". Its no different from saying "The universe revolves around Earth" or "God created man in his image". Its all beyond ridiculous.
We are better than animals through sapience. Our lives matter because we make them matter, an animal might feel pain but it doesn't understand pain. An animal gets hurt, it doesn't undergo torment. An animal mates, it doesn't love. Humans are better through the fact that we understand, we give things a reason. I fail to see any lack of logic in that.
Its as logical as any religious text describing how humans are all innately superior by way of divine word. If that's logical to you, then who am I to tell you otherwise?

As for animals not being tormented or being incapable of love, I challenge you to prove that. I believe thoroughly that my dog loves me and that if she is hurt, she is sad and upset about it. I've spent my entire life around animals, so I feel like I have a good amount of experience to reference.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
DRes82 said:
Its as logical as any religious text describing how humans are all innately superior by way of divine word. If that's logical to you, then who am I to tell you otherwise?

As for animals not being tormented or being incapable of love, I challenge you to prove that. I believe thoroughly that my dog loves me and that if she is hurt, she is sad and upset about it. I've spent my entire life around animals, so I feel like I have a good amount of experience to reference.
You don't understand what I mean. Of course your dog may be sad or upset or love you but it isn't the same as the full fledged array of emotions that a human carries. Like I said, we go beyond feeling. We understand the implications of what we feel. This unique trait is what gives us precedence over something that only vaguely understands and feels based off of raw instinct and conditioning.

Of course this arguement that we're having is rooted in a disagreement on a fundamental level based on principles so it is destined to go nowhere.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
him over there said:
DRes82 said:
Its as logical as any religious text describing how humans are all innately superior by way of divine word. If that's logical to you, then who am I to tell you otherwise?

As for animals not being tormented or being incapable of love, I challenge you to prove that. I believe thoroughly that my dog loves me and that if she is hurt, she is sad and upset about it. I've spent my entire life around animals, so I feel like I have a good amount of experience to reference.
You don't understand what I mean. Of course your dog may be sad or upset or love you but it isn't the same as the full fledged array of emotions that a human carries. Like I said, we go beyond feeling. We understand the implications of what we feel. This unique trait is what gives us precedence over something that only vaguely understands and feels based off of raw instinct and conditioning.

Of course this arguement that we're having is rooted in a disagreement on a fundamental level based on principles so it is destined to go nowhere.
True, I've tried this argument before and it always tends to end up with an agreement to disagree.

Its differences in life experience, I suppose, that causes the different views on such a base level. Maybe living in a city versus growing up in a rural area? I don't know. Its an interesting thing to think about, anyways.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
LtWigglesworth said:
slaughtered
Wot.

No, seriously, wot?

I've never got the "humane slaughter" thing. If you're going to kill something, kill it. Don't mince about.

That being said, I don't own fur and I don't oppose it either. Just wonder why people cling to the concept of humane killing.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
DRes82 said:
him over there said:
DRes82 said:
Its as logical as any religious text describing how humans are all innately superior by way of divine word. If that's logical to you, then who am I to tell you otherwise?

As for animals not being tormented or being incapable of love, I challenge you to prove that. I believe thoroughly that my dog loves me and that if she is hurt, she is sad and upset about it. I've spent my entire life around animals, so I feel like I have a good amount of experience to reference.
You don't understand what I mean. Of course your dog may be sad or upset or love you but it isn't the same as the full fledged array of emotions that a human carries. Like I said, we go beyond feeling. We understand the implications of what we feel. This unique trait is what gives us precedence over something that only vaguely understands and feels based off of raw instinct and conditioning.

Of course this arguement that we're having is rooted in a disagreement on a fundamental level based on principles so it is destined to go nowhere.
True, I've tried this argument before and it always tends to end up with an agreement to disagree.

Its differences in life experience, I suppose, that causes the different views on such a base level. Maybe living in a city versus growing up in a rural area? I don't know. Its an interesting thing to think about, anyways.
Yeah I definitely think it mostly comes down to life experience. I grew up with plenty of animals when I was little, not like a farm or anything but still I spent a lot of time in the forest near my house. I remember especially being interested in birds.

I think the main thing though was how much I talked to people. All of my relatives lived very far away so I spent a lot of time on the phone. I identified people by their voices, I empathized with people based on what they said and how they said it. I think that was what drew the line in the sand for me, people talk animals don't.

Also don't get me wrong I'm not out to say that all animals exist only for man like I would see an entire species extinct before one human child goes hungry. It's just I divide humans from animals because we're "people". We have our own classification that defies the natural world based on how much higher we are. I don't think animals are worthless or incapable of suffering, just that for the most part I am going to prioritize people over animals.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
MasochisticAvenger said:
SonicWaffle said:
MasochisticAvenger said:
Damn, I thought the title said "Fun Thread". Can we stop with all the killing animal threads? They are, and always will be, entirely opinion-based so what's the point of even discussing it?
Well, by that logic, what's the point of discussing anything? If you're going to dismiss a subject because opinions are being brought to the table, you're not going to have a lot to talk about.
I think you might have accidentally missed half of what I said there. .

MasochisticAvenger said:
It's always going to devolve into an argument that only ends when people get too bored/disinterested to continue, until someone makes a new thread and the whole damn thing starts over again.
To clarify: threads of whether it's alright to kill animals to the sake of X have been done to death. They are entirely opinion-based, so there is really no reason to keep bringing it up again and again.
judging by your name, it sounds like you should totally be into this cycle of threads.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
LtWigglesworth said:
slaughtered
Wot.

No, seriously, wot?

I've never got the "humane slaughter" thing. If you're going to kill something, kill it. Don't mince about.

That being said, I don't own fur and I don't oppose it either. Just wonder why people cling to the concept of humane killing.
By humane slaughter, I mean don't fucking torture the thing to death. If you are going to kill it for food, kill it quickly, and as painlessly as possible, There is no reason to make something suffer anymore than it has to, unless you are some kind of sociopath.

not all that hard to understand.
 

manic_depressive13

New member
Dec 28, 2008
2,617
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
-epic snip-
Just letting you know that you quoted me, though I'm sure the person you're after is NuclearShadow. May want to fix that if you want him to get the notification.
him over there said:
I got to the point where you said that animals and humans are both resources. That's just incredibly wrong on so many levels.
If humans aren't resources why is there a department at my work called "human resources".
 

MasochisticAvenger

New member
Nov 7, 2011
331
0
0
Darkmantle said:
MasochisticAvenger said:
SonicWaffle said:
MasochisticAvenger said:
Damn, I thought the title said "Fun Thread". Can we stop with all the killing animal threads? They are, and always will be, entirely opinion-based so what's the point of even discussing it?
Well, by that logic, what's the point of discussing anything? If you're going to dismiss a subject because opinions are being brought to the table, you're not going to have a lot to talk about.
I think you might have accidentally missed half of what I said there.

MasochisticAvenger said:
It's always going to devolve into an argument that only ends when people get too bored/disinterested to continue, until someone makes a new thread and the whole damn thing starts over again.
To clarify: threads of whether it's alright to kill animals to the sake of X have been done to death. They are entirely opinion-based, so there is really no reason to keep bringing it up again and again.
judging by your name, it sounds like you should totally be into this cycle of threads.
I don't mind them usually - even very similar threads can offer something different - but the killing animals for X threads always seem to go down the same path. There is no point for discussion because the people who are against killing animals act so morally superior, any argument them makes them think you're a heartless monster with no morals. I just wish I could knock them all down a peg.

(Side Note: When I'm talking about people who are against killing animals, I am talking only about the ones who make a big deal trying to change people to their point of view. To those vegetarians/vegans/people against fur that have their beliefs, but choose not to bother everyone about it, I thank you; we need more people like that in the world).
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
I wear leather, but it's mostly to prevent MY skin from ripping off if I come off my motorbike. I appreciate the irony.
 

LtWigglesworth

New member
Jan 4, 2012
121
0
0
Darkmantle said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
LtWigglesworth said:
slaughtered
Wot.

No, seriously, wot?

I've never got the "humane slaughter" thing. If you're going to kill something, kill it. Don't mince about.

That being said, I don't own fur and I don't oppose it either. Just wonder why people cling to the concept of humane killing.
By humane slaughter, I mean don't fucking torture the thing to death. If you are going to kill it for food, kill it quickly, and as painlessly as possible, There is no reason to make something suffer anymore than it has to, unless you are some kind of sociopath.

not all that hard to understand.
This.

Humane slaughter means that you kill the animal going through all possible precautions to reduce stress, pain and discomfort.

Basically the animal should be raised well, in a way that makes their life un-stressful, and then killed painlessly. This is probably more pleasant than wild life - After all, plentiful food, shelter, veterinary care if injured or sick, removal of parasite, and then a painless death. Much better than starvation due to a broken leg, teeth troubles death by infection, of being killed/ wounded by a predator.
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
MasochisticAvenger said:
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning cruelty to animals under any circumstances. Just that I've never quite gotten the justification that eating meat/wearing fur is acceptable only if the animals used were killed in a humane manner. It just always comes off as a pointless justification to make people feel better about themselves.
Well, yes, but so are a lot of things humans say or do. Self-justification may be one of the most powerful forces in the universe :p