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

FamoFunk

Dad, I'm in space.
Mar 10, 2010
2,628
0
0
Real and Faux Fur is pretty horrible.

I don't hold any strong views about it, but I can't see why faux couldn't be used instead of real, seems a bit pointless to kill an animal just for fur I can understand if it was to be eaten as well, make the most of all the animal.
 

notyouraveragejoe

Dehakchakala!
Nov 8, 2008
1,449
0
0
Alternative said:
I misread the title as Fun Thread. Now i am disappointed.
You're not the only one. On topic, I don't mind fur and wouldn't judge other people for wearing it. I have personally never worn it because I stay in mostly warm places so it doesn't make sense. My stance is mostly that I haven't seen anything fur-based that looks nice.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Frankly I never wear fur.

I wear mostly t-shirts, jeans, combats, hooded tops, and sometimes a leather jacket. Does leather count?

If so then nah so long as it's humane, and frankly you only ever need one leather jacket they last forever :3 mine is inherited lol.

EDIT: I'm gonna also point out that I'm fairly set against the killing of wild animals like tigers or bears for their pelts. Especially if they're endangered animals and not in need of any kind of population control.

Also, fuck the bushmeat trade, fuck people who poach gorillas and their ilk. Fuckers should be made to wrestle silverbacks bare handed >_O

EDIT EDIT: Also it should be televised.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Casual Shinji said:
snip/quote]
snip
Fur is a product no different from meat. It's no less necessary to our survival than meat. It makes clothing, sure there are alternatives. But there are also alternatives to meat. We make a conscious choice to consume meat at an animals expense. Just like some people make a conscious choice to wear fur at an animals expense. To say one is wrong but the other is not is hypocrisy.

And Casual Shinji is totally correct. Most fur farms have it in their best interest to treat the animals as well as possible. Because the quality of an animals hide is dependant on its health.

A healthy and unstressed animal will have a healthier hide.

Personally I'd like it if all of the animal was used, but on principal, I have nothing against people wearing fur.
Abandon4093 said:
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.

snip
Snip
Snip
snip
snip
snip


Snip

I've contributed quite a few posts on this forum now. The main point of my arguments have been that meat and fur ARE different and that fur is simply not needed. You cannot eat fur, it will not sustain you. And the idea that it's actually needed is even more dishonest. No, nobody needs to purchase fur. Ever since the existence of coats that cost not even a quarter of the price the argument 'it's needed for our survival' has been just a lie. If someone truly needs a coat, I doubt they'll go out of their way to save up for a coat that kills a ton of animals and costs thousands of dollar. No, it's not needed for our survival. And you should wash your mouth out with soap for lying. Saying that someone in a nation with coats needs a fur coat to survive is equivalent to saying I need a mansion to survive. It's simply not true.

Fur is an anachronism, meat isn't. The latter is more relevant to our society just like fur coats once were before we had cheaper, less destructive alternatives. I'm sure in the future we'll ease our way out of meat when it's right, and that's why I'm not against it. Because we're just not ready to get rid of meat because it's relevant, and we still need it - in the very little way which we do. Meanwhile the time for fur has passed, and arguing 'whatever, I do what I want!' isn't an argument that illustrates that anyone deserves it. But I think it speaks far greatly of what kinds of people these folks are when they'd sooner go out of their way to pay for something that brings suffering and destruction besides an alternative that brings less suffering, less destruction and does the exact same function. In arguing that we should let people wear fur 'just because they want to' you inadvertently argue for absolutely any form of out dated and backwards forms of animal cruelty we'd have in the past. You know, like dog fighting, bear baiting, and fox hunting. Even more hilarious, I'm pretty sure they tried to use the same arguments too. Flailing their arms like spoiled brats, crying about how they should be entitled to causing suffering and torment based solely around the fact that they have the money to do so.

As for your argument about 'most fur farms have standards'. China is the fur trading capital. Since when has China ever cared about the quality of anything? To put it bluntly, they don't have a very great track record.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
him over there said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Casual Shinji said:
snip
snip
snip
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.
Depends on the fur farm. If we're speaking of Chinese fur farms in particular, then they have no grasp of neither quality control or of human/animal welfare. Otherwise, I will admit I'm wrong on this one, particular point.

Captcha - Which does a vegetarian eat?

Um, what the fuck?
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
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.
Whenever someone says that animals exist for humans, I just want to throw them in a forest without a spear, without a gun, without a bag and see how long they'll survive. No, animals don't exist for humans, as evidenced by the fact that back in a time lot of them could maul us before we discovered spears. The world doesn't exist solely to meet our every whim, it exists as a system. Never undermine the life of another creature that could easily kill you if you don't have a weapon. Oh, and we are resources. At a time we were food, in some countries we're still food, and for corporations and our countries alike we are resources that serve only to better corporations and countries. We are sentient, we're intelligent, and we've got ideas, but all of these are irrelevant outside of how we use them to better our nations and corporations. Your life hardly matters. If you get around to dying, maybe you can tell me how much longer people will remember you than an animal. Sorry, but you'll be forgotten about eventually. It'll probably take a bit longer than a random coyote that got hit by a car, but soon enough, no one's going to remember your name. And when you do die, if peacefully, you'll probably die with just as much dignity as a fly.

Much in the same way we use animals, our society is based around exploiting us. Or maybe you haven't heard about corporations making money off of peoples lives legally or perhaps how you can't even die without sinking a small fortune into some business. Sorry, you're a resource. And I guess it shows just how superior you are to an animal when your life is being used to serve a non living super organism that cannot feel nor question; but can only expand. That's your life ahead of you, no matter what ideas you have or how intelligent you are.

The next time you try to argue that you're superior over an animal because you've got an idea maybe you should consider that water is the most valuable, precious thing in our world and it certainly can't do even half of what an animal can.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
NuclearShadow said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
NuclearShadow said:
While fur certainly isn't my personal taste in clothing I have no problems with those that do.
The whole anti-fur stance just seems foolish to me even more so if the animal killed was used beyond just for it's fur. Are we are be to such a-holes that we should shun our ancestors for wearing the very furs that they would have most certainly perished without?

I think people who take these positions are just looking for a place to feel morally superior to others.
It's foolish to be against an industry that doesn't serve any purpose and kills millions of animals on a yearly basis? No, you're wrong. Even if fur is justifiable, it's not foolish getting upset about animal cruelty and an out dated form of fashion that involves the suffering of countless animals. I love on you berate those that are against fur based around the fact that our ancestors had to wear fur. If you're going to look down at someone, you need to learn the basics from a professional like me. You're going to need a better reason to berate these people. Because you you see, I'm against fur. But not just that, I happen to love my great grandparents very much. And trust me babe, it's not just because of their cookies.

It's quite simple, actually. I don't get pissed off at them and shun them like an asshole because I understand that they needed it. Allow me to me to emphasis - because they HAD to wear it where as today we don't. Really, we fucking don't. Today people wear it because of some fucked up fashion/social symbol that's not even needed. It's wasteful, it's expensive, and above all, it doesn't have any place in today's world. It's no less of an anachronism than a type writer. Seriously, this bull shit about fur coats should have stopped the moment we started selling coats at not even a quarter of the price (and minus the 20 dead animals) of a fur coat.

I'm pretty fucking stuck up *well, I am online anyway* but that's not not quite why I'm against fur. I'm against fur because it pisses me off, plain and simple. I believe that people should have the right to do whatever they want, up until it serves no purpose and causes needless suffering. Fur breaks both of these rules.

If you think fur is right, maybe you can go ahead and tell me your thoughts on it after some serial killer skins you alive just because he'd thought it'd look nice.
Your moral objection is hypocritical. Granted in most areas today people do not need furs. But I could point out countless things in your home that are destructive to the environment or
even made through unethical means involving the mistreatment of other humans beings. You simply do not have any right to try to take a moral high ground.

You also do not give two shits about those animals. If you actually valued those animals to any degree you would not sit back and do nothing while knowing they are being processed for their fur or skins. I don't know what level you put animals on compared to worth to humans but even if the animal was worth just 1/1000th of a person in your mind that would be the equivalent of a-lot of F'in people. According to this it's 40 million a year. http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/tp/How-Many-Animals-Are-Killed.htm

So even if you were the most cold hearted person with this mindset and put them at 1/1000th that would still be the equivalent of 40,000 human beings in your mind. Now if I were to learn that 40,000 innocent people were being slaughtered yearly and some of the locations of these mass slaughter houses were near me I would do something about it as I place a value on the lives of fellow human beings. The fact that 40 million animals yearly go through such and you sit and do nothing but whine about it shows you truly do not value the animals at all.

The reality is animals are a resource. Just like many other resources it can be used for a variety of reasons. This could range from a need such as food or a luxury like a fur coat. Just like how your house is filled with things you need and things that are luxury items yet made of the same or similar resources. Resources should be handled responsibly and the with 30 million of those animals that are used for skins in a year being bred and raised on farms I would say that is pretty damn responsible.

As for your wasteful and expensive comment is the last thing I want to touch down on. Again your house is full of things all made by the resources available. You really think all the luxury items in your home including the very computer you used to type your post in this thread couldn't have been used for a more beneficial purpose than to serve your needs? Who are you to protest against this when you are just as guilty? As for expense shouldn't you be glad fur is rather expensive is you were truly against it? As this limits the affordability thus lowering demand for it and thus less animals are killed, but we need not get into that we already know you don't care about the animals. Luxury items are expensive this is why they are luxury items and who are you to even protest against the expenses? Who are you to judge how others spend their money? You say this fur has no purpose and that simply isn't true it makes people happy, just as most luxury items aim to do in one way or another.

In closing if you want to try to take the morale high ground don't do it by being a hypocrite and a liar. You already proven to not only not be higher but rather beneath.

You're quite right that my existence alone is quite destructive to the environment. But the thing is, there's a huge difference between the destruction I bring and that of someone who wears fur. They have cheaper inexpensive alternative things called jackets where as I'm poor and my alternatives to cause less destruction actually cost more than what's causing it. And guess what? In spite of that I spend more on the things that promise less destruction. Oh, and at least the people that are being exploited aren't skinned alive for something that can be easily replaced with, say, an object that costs a ton of dollars less. I get clothes from these shitty places where people get underpaid because I can't afford any other places and because I honestly can't think of another place where I could purchase them.

So no, it's not hypocritical. These people go out of their way to cause suffering, I go out of my way to at least try and bring less of it. But above all, everything I do is a part of our current society. It's relevant. Fur isn't. We have reached a point where absolutely no one needs fur. Where as today, we're at a point where we practically need those people being given those shitty wages. There will come a time when we move past this bull shit with people being paid in slave wages. And when this does happen, I'll be embracing it.

Saying that I do nothing is quite an assumption on your part. Sorry babe, but I'm poor and I've ain't got the money to move over to a bat shit insane country like China and argue against their ethics. Seriously, how would getting shot help all the animals that are being slaughtered? What does help is information and simply not buying fur coats. Letting people know how fur farming is wrong will do far greater wonders. Though I don't know why I bothered responding to this point, because I fail to see where you're going with this. Right now, you seem to be giving me a nice helping of 'holier than thou' bull shit too, so now I'm beginning to wonder who's really the hypocrite.

Humans are no less of a resource than animals are. What, do you really think your life amounts to anything more than being exploited by something that thinks they're above you? Here's a hint - it's not. What separates living, breathing creatures from a rock is that we can feel pain. and that's why we should look towards ending pointless suffering. Because in spite of them being resources, we're nothing more than that either.

As for your argument on it going on for a long time automatically making it ethically responsible . . . You know what also went on for a long time? Burning gay people. Slavery. Maybe you can talk to me about ethical responsibility after an insurance firm that's been around for 100 years decides not to pay for your broken back. I've got a lot more arguments on the business ethics, but I'm just going to save you some time and inform you that you lost when you tried to argue that they have ANY ethical responsibility while including -IN THE EXACT SAME POST- about sweat shop children being paid in slave wages. You hear that, they don't have any ethical responsibility. So maybe, plain in simple, we shouldn't be giving them the power to farm fur when they clearly do that with blatant disregard to simple decency.

You're right that the objects in my home don't bring a lot of purpose. But you know, they also don't have extravagantly cheaper alternatives that produce the exact same results. Nor do the things I have cause greater suffering than these non existent cheaper things do. What I've got has no cheaper replacement. Just like my great grandfathers who'd wear fur before jackets were found. But once I do find a cheaper, less harmful alternative, I'll certainly be picking that over one that's expensive if only to serve as a needless status symbol.

I don't care for animals too much; I care about ending suffering. But what I won't stand for is having presumptions that I don't have any care about animals when I've probably done a lot more for them than you ever have. I mean, I certainly don't defend an industry that skins them alive anyway. Honestly though, I think I've got a good idea of what you're up to. You're just trying to piss me off. And to that, I've only got this to say: stop trying to piss me off, hon'. attacking people passive - aggressively is my thing. You got that? Stop it. I understand that you're probably just trying to give me a taste of my own medicine. But dude, stop it, it's not going to work out for you. You got that baby cheeks?

Who am I to protest the expenses? Try the life of twenty animals over an anachronism. It's funny that you never bothered to take a shot at my core argument that it's pointless, out dated thing. Who am I to tell people how they should spend their money? Try that people shouldn't be able to spend their money on pointless, expensive things that bring suffering when they have far cheaper alternatives that bring virtually the same results. And finally, happiness shouldn't come at the price of 20 lives. If this is what makes people happy, than they're nothing but sick minded individuals that get off to dead animals, and we shouldn't be supporting their habit.

Edit - I don't believe you've ever addressed at all on how I'm a liar. I believe the point you've been trying to make is that I'm a hypocrite, do try to keep that in mind next time you reply, please. As for you saying that I'm beneath the morale high ground, you ain't got a whole lot to stand on outside of wild speculations that I - the annoying outspoken vegetarian who wishes to end the deaths of 40 million animals yearly - somehow doesn't care about animals. I don't know, but that versus the guy that supports an industry that kills 40 million animals definitely makes me seem to care about animals, ending suffering, and life just a bit more than you. If I have to possibly be a hypocrite to see this through than I guess I can live with that. I mean, I'm definitely not supporting animal cruelty.


manic_depressive13 said:
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".
Sorry about that accidentally quoting you, manic.
 

Aurora Firestorm

New member
May 1, 2008
692
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
You missed the entire point of what I said at the end there, which was "the current fur trade is probably suboptimal at the very least, but in *principle* the idea of wearing the fur of another creature does not bother me." You can argue about the ethics of the current practice, but I was talking about the ethics of the whole *concept* of raising animals for fur. Not the details of what's going on in our current incarnation of the fur trade. There are absolutely arguments for fixing the system, not so much in the way of "waaaahhh don't ever kill an animal for fur." (You're probably unsurprised to learn I'm a serious carnivore and probably eat twice as many animals as most people I know, in a year.)

Also, I only have so many mental points to give to various issues, and unfortunately, fur just isn't one of them. That is my own personal thing, and there isn't much that can be done.

(As for cost, rabbit skins are actually cheap. Fur coats and such are where the serious money goes. You can buy rabbit-lined gloves or something, for normal prices. Designer clothes are the problem, not the fur per se, unless it's rare or upscale fur. Rabbit is common.)


Edit: Oh good grief, thread. Animals are not Africans on a slave boat. Animals are not Jews in a concentration camp. Animals are not sweatshop laborers. Animals are not *any of these analogies.* It pretty much shames all of the above for you to even make a comparison.

This has been the case for years. Hitch an ox to a plow and make it farm for you, and you call that agriculture. Hitch a human to a plow, and you call it slavery.

Stop with your double standards. Either go full on crazy PETA or admit you're being hypocritical about your overblown metaphors.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I've contributed quite a few posts on this forum now. The main point of my arguments have been that meat and fur ARE different and that fur is simply not needed. You cannot eat fur, it will not sustain you. And the idea that it's actually needed is even more dishonest.
I've contributed quite a few posts on this forum now. The main point of my argument have been that meat and fur ARE different and that meat is simply not needed. You cannot wear meat, it will not keep you warm. And the idea that it's actually needed is even more dishonest.

Do you see the cognitive bias here?


No, nobody needs to purchase fur. Ever since the existence of coats that cost not even a quarter of the price the argument 'it's needed for our survival' has been just a lie.
No, nobody needs to purchase meat. Ever since the existence of meat substitutes that cost not even a quarter of the price the argument 'it's needed for our survival' has been just a lie.

Jesus, I could go on all day with this post.

Also, you're neglecting the human suffering in the making of that cheap coat. Sure, no animal likely died to make that coat. But the spirit of the millions of disenfranchised children who get paid 3cents an hour probably did.

If someone truly needs a coat, I doubt they'll go out of their way to save up for a coat that kills a ton of animals and costs thousands of dollar. No, it's not needed for our survival. And you should wash your mouth out with soap for lying. Saying that someone in a nation with coats needs a fur coat to survive is equivalent to saying I need a mansion to survive. It's simply not true.
Jesus.... seriously? I don't have the stomach to go through this and point out all the stupid.

I didn't say it was needed for our survival. I said it was no less necessary than meat.

What is it with you people on this thread and rampant pedantry?

Or can you just not process information correctly?

Fur is an anachronism, meat isn't. The latter is more relevant to our society just like fur coats once were before we had cheaper, less destructive alternatives. I'm sure in the future we'll ease our way out of meat when it's right, and that's why I'm not against it. Because we're just not ready to get rid of meat because it's relevant, and we still need it - in the very little way which we do. Meanwhile the time for fur has passed, and arguing 'whatever, I do what I want!' isn't an argument that illustrates that anyone deserves it. But I think it speaks far greatly of what kinds of people these folks are when they'd sooner go out of their way to pay for something that brings suffering and destruction besides an alternative that brings less suffering, less destruction and does the exact same function. In arguing that we should let people wear fur 'just because they want to' you inadvertently argue for absolutely any form of out dated and backwards forms of animal cruelty we'd have in the past. You know, like dog fighting, bear baiting, and fox hunting. Even more hilarious, I'm pretty sure they tried to use the same arguments too. Flailing their arms like spoiled brats, crying about how they should be entitled to causing suffering and torment based solely around the fact that they have the money to do so.
None of this means anything to what I was saying.

Saying one product being made for our convenience at the expense of animals is evil whilst another is fine is hypocrisy.

If fur is evil then so is meat.

You can't have it both ways.

As for your argument about 'most fur farms have standards'. China is the fur trading capital. Since when has China ever cared about the quality of anything? To put it bluntly, they don't have a very great track record.
I'd also imagine a fur coat that had 'made in China' on the label probably wouldn't go for much.

And if you're going to start using China's questionable processes as part of your argument.... Sweat Shops.

Suddenly that cheap coat that absolutely no animals died during the making of, seems slightly less like the innocent alternative.
Sorry, I'm not seeing your point behind your first comment. I honestly don't know how putting meat in the place of fur changes anything. Fur and meat aren't the same, so you can't just throw meat in the same place as fur (especially when I argued that they're different) and expect an argument to come out of it. I'm arguing that meat does something, where as fur does nothing.Yeah, you can't wear meat - of course you can't - but you can eat it and it can sustain you.

I can't really name a whole lot lot of meat substitutes that cost a quarter of its price. Sorry. Tofu you basically have to dip it in meat to make it taste like meat, so as an alternative it's self defeating. Peanuts are what come to my mind when I think of a legitimate alternative, and they're quite costly. But not just that, but I've also argued again and again on the relevance of meat in our society versus Fur. Meat is still a part of our society, meanwhile we're moving away from fur.

Also, I'm sorry but if you're trying to argue workplace ethics that involve under paying children versus work place ethics that underpay adults and kill 20 animals then you can't really say that coats are worse. Less killing is involved. And once again, I bring up my beautiful 'relevance' argument. Cheap labor and slave wages is still a part of our society, like it or not. And not just that, but we have no control over it. We can stop the suffering of animals and people making pennies at these places by simply not buying fur. Everything else, we can't because we actually need a lot of those things they're selling to some particular degree. You know, things like coats.

'No less necessary than meat' Tell me again, about that 'stomach for stupid'. If you need to sink low enough to have to criticize how I say something - as opposed to the context of it - then I don''t think your in any position to say my point is stupid. But don't worry hon' I'll take good care of you.


It's a lot less necessary than meat is. Meat is a part of our society, fur isn't. Meat is only a bit more expensive than it's alternatives, fur is unimaginably more expensive than it's alternatives. If someone were to say to you that a mansion is no less necessary than a slab of meat than you'd probably think they retarded. But honestly, they'd be using exactly your logic. 'Fur may be expensive, but it's still necessary because we need to keep warm even though we have outrageously cheaper alternatives!'

'My mansion may be expensive, but it's still no less necessary than meat because I need to kepe warm even though I have outrageously cheaper alternatives!'

The fact alone that you can afford a fur coat with coats around or a mansion with houses around just shows you how 'necessary' it really is.

I'm saying that one is fine and one is evil because one of them is outdated where as the other is at least relevant to our society. We're past fur, we're not past meat. That's one point I keep trying to make. To be a hypocrite, I'd have to turn my back on the context on why I believe they're different.

You're right, it isn't the innocent alternative. It's the lesser of two evils. I already addressed this on this post, but I'll say it again. You can't argue that the sweat shops are worse than fur farms when the fur farms is killing. I don't know, but I'd probably put needless death just a bit higher on my list of bad things than paid slavery.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I don't like fur I think it's a vain and foolish waste of a creatures life. At least with meat you are doing it to keep yourself alive rather that just look nice.

I have to eat meat because I get seriously anemic if I refrain.
 

Grathius22

New member
Jul 6, 2010
97
0
0
I don't support the fur industry unless they get their materials from something that is going to be used anyway, like leather from a cow or what ever. If I were to stop buying fur alone, it wouldn't do anything but if thousands did it would change the industry and make them realize what they're doing is wrong. I try not to argue about it with people and will buy fur products until I find an organized boycott I agree with.

Same stance I have on meat.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
DRes82 said:
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.
"I posted a reply to you ignoring what you said and cherrypicking out one sentence and placing it out of context so my comment would have a point... Goddddd, why did you take that so seriously!"
I think the one thing that we can agree on is that this issue is waaay more serious for you than it is for me.


Abandon4093 said:
... is this what you're entire argument is going to be? Pedantry?
Pedantry? No. Semantics? Maybe.

Abandon4093 said:
Where did I say fur is necessary to our survival?

I said it's NO LESS NECESSARY than meat. We could all eat beans, fungus and the thousands of other meat substitutes on the market. We do not need to eat meat. There are tons of viable alternatives.
I figured this maybe to be common sense. Meat is more important than fur. Even 300 or so years ago when fur was a legitimate trade item, it wasn't necessary for survival. Meat, however was actually a staple, and if you didn't have it you would probably die. As such, it is still imperative that people are able to get meat from somewhere.

The difference is Fur is a luxury item. Meat is a food staple. There is a fundamental difference, regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Its like comparing grain to diamonds. Sure you don't need a diamond, but it sure makes you more comfortable to wear one. There are alternatives to grain...you don't need it to survive, so diamonds and grain are equally important to survival of the species?


Abandon4093 said:
There are hundreds of viable alternatives. You even mentioned one 'Soy', there are also tons of different fungi such as Mycoprotien. Corn is an effective protein substitute. Tempeh, Tofu even Crickets are about a thousand times more efficient than beef. Still meat I grant you, but not as we consider it. Closer to shrimp than cow.
Right, so is this where I accuse you of being illiterate? Because I'm certain that I said name an effective substitute for meat and I'll believe you. Crickets? Not an effective replacement for a steak.

Abandon4093 said:
So yea, not relevant to anything I said.
Semantics. You're talking about fur, so its relevant.

Abandon4093 said:
More along the lines of "I can't make a valid counter argument to the points you made so I'm going to simply give you my opinion of people who wear fur."
Actually, more along the lines of, "This is my opinion of the topic being discussed." My opinion of people who wear fur isn't relevant in a thread about people who wear fur?

Abandon4093 said:
Not even close, you also continue to show an inability to read.
Think very carefully about your next reply, because the one I just combed through was weak
By the way, I'd like to compliment you on your forum technique. Misuse of the word 'pedantry'? Check. Use of 'Cherrypicking'? Good form! Personal jabs at the person you're arguing with that are innocuous enough to stay under the moderator radar? Nice. You've been here a while, haven't you?

edit: I must say, though, I miss 'generalizations' and 'straw man'. You work those in and I'll give you a 10 next time.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
I'm pretty much against it. Back in the day a trapper'd kill a wolf or whatnot and make a hat out of him, but that was quid pro quo. Now it's like KFC, which just won't do.