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:
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.