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

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
You'd actually have to highlight the semantics you took issue with for it to be an argument based on semantics. So what word do you disagree with my definition of?
Relevancy springs to mind. That and what constitutes a staple and what a luxury. This whole argument has been over semantics, from the first post. Your definition of pedantry is wanting, in my opinion.

You're not going to convince me that fur is equally important as meat, so I guess we can just stop at this point. You do come off as unnecessarily hostile towards people you don't agree with, though. Also, there were some points in your post to the Fox guy that I'd love to dig into. Maybe next time.

Edit: You might find this interesting. I'm a compulsory vegetarian. I can't eat any complete protein, including any meat or meat by-product. Which includes dairy products. Medical reasons.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Ugh, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
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.
'Fur and meat aren't the same thing herpa derpa' doesn't even begin to address the point I was making.

Fur is luxury clothing. Meat is luxury food.

You see the parallel here?

I'm arguing that meat is not necessary because of all the viable and in most cases, more efficient substitutes available. Just like fur isn't necessary because of the viable and in most cases, more efficient substitutes available.

They both use animals as products. To say one is okay and the other is not is hypocrisy. You can ignore that as long as you want but it doesn't change the fact.

Yeah, you can't wear meat - of course you can't - but you can eat it and it can sustain you
By that logic you can wear fur and it will keep you warm. If simply justifying why you want the product is enough rational for it to be okay, then fur is perfectly fine because you can justify it as much as you can justify meat.

I can't really name a whole lot lot of meat substitutes that cost a quarter of its price.
Anything Soy or fungus bases.

Sorry. Tofu you basically have to dip it in meat to make it taste like meat, so as an alternative it's self defeating.
Why the fuck does it's taste matter? An alternative to meat doesn't have to taste like meat. You can't make fake fur feel anything like real fur either. So again, by your logic it's perfectly okay to wear fur because the alternatives aren't quite as nice.

Peanuts are what come to my mind when I think of a legitimate alternative,
Peanuts are nice but they're not as efficient as soy or fungus.

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.
How does this impact the argument that they're both industries that use animals as a product for out convenience? No seriously, I'm waiting for an answer.

Your entire argument is just one big mound of cognitive bias.

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.
Bullshit. I'm more concerned about maltreatment of children than I am of animals. And any sane human being would back me on that.

Less killing is involved.
Killing animals all of a sudden trumps the veritable titanic scale of child labour now?

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.
You need to drop that argument because it's beginning to undermine your credibility.

"It's part of our society so it's okay skip."

Quite honestly the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time.

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.
We can stop the suffering of human children making pennies at these places by simply not buying from companies that use them.

Seriously, you need to stop with the cognitive bias. It's becoming tiresome pointing it out.

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.
Implying there aren't alternative methods of making coats.

Cheapest =/= only.

'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.
I'm sinking by simply conversing with you. Your arguments are pathetic and you seem to be completely unable to undestand a point no matter how many times it's explained to you.


It's a lot less necessary than meat is. Meat is a part of our society, fur isn't.
Again with the 'ees owa societiesisis, noo?' argument.

There are tons of viable alternatives that a much, much cheaper than meat.

Both meat and fur are luxury products that we gain at the expense of animal lives. To say one is fine whilst the others a crime is hypocrisy and you should feel bad about touting it.

And if you say "it's part of our society' one more time I'm going to flip. How you think that that somehow justifies anything is completely beyond me.

Meat is only a bit more expensive than it's alternatives,
The end product is expensive because it's not produces on the scale of beef or chicken.

It's infinitely cheaper to make and a lot of the alternatives are thousands of times more efficient per meter of space used.

fur is unimaginably more expensive than it's alternatives.
And bald eagle eggs are unimaginably more expensive than crickets... what's your point? People make luxury items an extravagance. Go figure.

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!'
No, I'd think that they weren't using an apt analogy because you don't build a mansion out of animals. You do however make a fur coat out of animals, just like you get a slab of meat from an animal.

Meat is a luxury item, fur is a luxury item. Both of them require the death of an animal to provide.

How is one worse than the other?

'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!'
Same goes for meat luv.

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.
The fact that we could all live on meat alternatives but choose to eat meat instead shows how necessary that is too.

How the fuck aren't you getting that?

Meat is a choice, no different from fur.

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.
That argument is fucking asinine. Relevance to society doesn't change the fact that they're both luxury items that use animals as products. You're being a hypocrite by ignoring this.

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.
Then you're a fool.

On most fur farms the animals are treated with dignity. And by your argument the poultry industry is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of mankind because one day's death-toll quite easily eclipses the holocaust.

I put the well being of a child over the death of a non sentient animal any day of the week.

And the mere fact that you don't highlights everything I can't stand about people like you.

Bleeding hearts for anything but a human.
You need to read a dictionary. These animals ARE sentient. In fact, it's because they're sentient that animal rights even exists. I got your first point so we can move on from that. The reason why I keep on bringing up that 'eating meat is relevant.' is simply because people aren't ready to move on from that. I'm not too particularly fond of it, but I don't argue against it on the basis that society isn't ready. Fur on the other hand, only a small minority of people purchase it. And by now, fur benefits nothing. If we rid the world of the fur industry, it'll be better

'Bullshit. I'm more concerned about maltreatment of children than I am of animals. And any sane human being would back me on that.'

Funny that you completely missed the part where I said the fur industry also mistreats the people working within it. *Well, in china THE FUR CAPITAL it does anyway* I'm the brick wall so nothing gets in, so what's your excuse? Oh well, in one ear and out the other I guess. What I'm saying is that it's worse, because it both mistreats people AND it kills animals over something that a coat can easily do. And that's without mentioning the amount of animal cruelty that goes on.

As for a personal slice of philosophy, killing over something pointless and unneeded will always be worse than underpaying someone for something that is needed. Now allow me to bring up that particular word you don't understand, sentience. Don't feel too bad, though because I didn't understand cognitive bias my self either up until I looked it up on Wikipedia. You see, it doesn't matter what value you put on an animal life, because there's no way you can truly measure worth outside of your own bias. What we do know of animals and humans is that they can feel pain - they are both sentient - and it is because of this it's best to look to ease their suffering as well. A creature shouldn't be beneath you just because you came out of a humans vagina, and because of that I wouldn't think a child working to make me a coat is any worse than killing an animal for something that is nothing but an overpriced coat and unnecessary.

I'm not saying it's okay because it's a part of our society, I'm saying we can't do anything because it's a part of our society. We can't fix those problems, but we can fix fur. And you are opposing the solution to a problem that we very much so can solve. China is the fur trading capital of the world. So you're idea of 'most fur farms' is quite wrong, actually. The few small ones here and there that don't shit all over human welfare/animal welfare laws are vanishing, because fur is becoming/has become obsolete.

I feel sorry for humans. I just think killing an animal for an obsolete industry is worse than paying a kid slave wages to make someone a coat that's going to keep them warm so they don't freeze their asses off. If it were the other way around, I'd sooner spare 30 million kid's lives than have a bunch of fox's making slave wages. I judge it on context, not the species involved.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Used to have fur-lined boots (hand-me-down) when I was a kid.
Worked great.

Haven't touched the stuff since.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
China is the fur trading capital of the world.
So what? If they're not the ones doing most of the farming (and they're not) then how is this an argument against the fur industry? Sure, the farms China does run may have bad practices (I say "may" because I haven't seen much evidence thus far), but since most of the farming is done in other countries this isn't much of an argument against the industry as a whole.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of fur farms in the US, Denmark, Finland, Canada, and Russia all engage in unethical practices? Or are you content to simply generalize all fur farms as being like the bad Chinese farms because it supports the conclusion you want?
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
BrassButtons said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I will generalize as much as I please. Greater corporations are a pleasant thing to have and are quite convenient, but the moment you ask them to have any ethical responsibility they're simply not going to follow up on that. Which is quite apparent from their ethics on when we intrust them with animal testing, factory farms, or virtually anything else. There may be a few fur farms here and there that aren't massive entities, but I'm pretty sure that number is small because fur is becoming obsolete. The thing is, even if these fur farms have the decency to follow up on not treating the animals like shit (which I'm doubtful of given a corporations track record with literally everything else) it's still wasteful and unneeded. Hell, I'll even say that their unethical practices started the moment they made a business off of an outdated anachronism.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I will generalize as much as I please.
Then your logic will be wrong (and your conclusions will probably be wrong as well).

Since the rest of your post doesn't offer any evidence that animal cruelty is practiced in most fur farms (or even evidence that it is practiced AT ALL) I'm guessing you don't have any. Which means there's no reason to accept that line of argument.

Hell, I'll even say that their unethical practices started the moment they made a business off of an outdated anachronism.
Why on earth is that unethical?
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
You need to read a dictionary. These animals ARE sentient. In fact, it's because they're sentient that animal rights even exists.
Sorry, I meant sapient.

I got your first point so we can move on from that. The reason why I keep on bringing up that 'eating meat is relevant.' is simply because people aren't ready to move on from that.
And that doesn't effect the point I'm making in any way shape or form. Whether people are ready to move on, or whether they ever should be ready is irrelevant.

To say that one is fine because 'lul society' and the other isn't because 'lul no society' is retarded.

I'm not too particularly fond of it, but I don't argue against it on the basis that society isn't ready. Fur on the other hand, only a small minority of people purchase it. And by now, fur benefits nothing. If we rid the world of the fur industry, it'll be better
But they're both born of the same ideal. They're convenience at an animals expense. If you're so vehemently against one but generally okay with the other then you're being a hypocrite.

Funny that you completely missed the part where I said the fur industry also mistreats the people working within it.
Nowhere near the same scale.

*Well, in china THE FUR CAPITAL it does anyway*
So are you against the fur industry as a whole or simply the side of it that maltreats animals?

Because maltreatment of animals is still an issue in the cattle and poultry farm industry. And it's probably more prevalent than the fur farming industry.

I'm the brick wall so nothing gets in, so what's your excuse?
I assumed you'd be able to see the difference between the couple thousand or so adults on low paying jobs and the millions/billions of children on low paying jobs.

Oh well, in one ear and out the other I guess.
Ditto.

What I'm saying is that it's worse, because it both mistreats people AND it kills animals over something that a coat can easily do. And that's without mentioning the amount of animal cruelty that goes on.
What I'm saying is that it's worse, because it both mistreats people AND it kills BILLIONS of animals daily, over something that soybeans or fungus could easily do. And without mentioning the amount of animal cruelty going on.

Sorry, I know that's got nothing to do with sweatshops. But I just couldn't pass up a chance to show you how you're being hypocritical with the meat industry.

You also by know should know why I think sweatshops are worse so I don't need to go over that again.

As for a personal slice of philosophy, killing over something pointless and unneeded will always be worse than underpaying someone for something that is needed.
It's hardly just underpaying them though if we're not being disingenuous. It's practically slave labour as there are no alternatives. Not to mention the suicide rates in these places.

Now allow me to bring up that particular word you don't understand, sentience. Don't feel too bad, though because I didn't understand cognitive bias my self either up until I looked it up on Wikipedia.
Make a brain fart, get jumped on for it. I meant sapience.

You see, it doesn't matter what value you put on an animal life, because there's no way you can truly measure worth outside of your own bias.
There is, it's based on it's level of awareness and ability to judge events contextually. Maybe not worth exactly, but we surely can measure a creatures ability to understand what's happening around it.

Which is why we most sane humans make obvious distinctions between something such as coral or a sponge and dogs, dolphins and primates, eventually to ourselves.

There probably is an argument to be made on bias. Because we clearly care about the Pandas plight more than we did the Yangtze river dolphins. Or the myriad of cavelife which is going out of fashion quicker than Punk.

But there is still a mostly objective scale for which to judge awareness and eventually base intelligence.

What we do know of animals and humans is that they can feel pain - they are both sentient - and it is because of this it's best to look to ease their suffering as well. A creature shouldn't be beneath you just because you came out of a humans vagina, and because of that I wouldn't think a child working to make me a coat is any worse than killing an animal for something that is nothing but an overpriced coat and unnecessary.
Any sane individual places the suffering of their own specifics over that of another.

But I do firmly agree that animals shouldn't suffer either. But that is not an issue that exclusive to the fur industry.

I'm not saying it's okay because it's a part of our society, I'm saying we can't do anything because it's a part of our society. We can't fix those problems, but we can fix fur. And you are opposing the solution to a problem that we very much so can solve. China is the fur trading capital of the world. So you're idea of 'most fur farms' is quite wrong, actually. The few small ones here and there that don't shit all over human welfare/animal welfare laws are vanishing, because fur is becoming/has become obsolete.
The way I see it we shouldn't be dictating to people what is and isn't okay as far as what they like to wear and eat goes.

Stopping the suffering of animals over all should be the priority. Not demonising people because they're wearing animal hide. I myself have a few leather coats. And they're probably my favourite items of clothing.

I feel sorry for humans. I just think killing an animal for an obsolete industry is worse than paying a kid slave wages to make someone a coat that's going to keep them warm so they don't freeze their asses off. If it were the other way around, I'd sooner spare 30 million kid's lives than have a bunch of fox's making slave wages. I judge it on context, not the species involved.
The context is that millions/billions of children live in appalling conditions for our convenience.

That isn't less of an issue than a few thousand foxes dying to make some coats.
You love throwing that word 'hypocrite.' around quite a bit. But the thing is, I'm never going to be one unless I start wearing fur. If I were to be lenient, then I'd say that eating meat would make me a hypocrite. But well, I don't do that either. Hypocrisy springs from committing an action that contradicts a belief, not having two beliefs that contradict each other. And my reasons - regardless of what you think of them - are my reasons. The honest truth is I want factory farming and fur farming gone. I just don't take up arms to go on a crusade against factory farming because - as I've said numerous times - it's relevant to our society and no ones ready to make that change. The time will come in the future, but for now very little can be done. Trying to argue against factory farming in todays world is like trying to argue against the treatment of slaves and homosexuals back in the dark ages. It's not going to fucking work, and I'd prefer not making every single person that eats meat my enemy.

It's relevant to our society. And given that every single issue we have is based on societies standing on it, you should close your pie hole about my argument being dumb. Fur has become a minority, it's a vanishing trend. And it's sickening that people like you are trying to keep wank it off and keep it up. Fur is dead, so let it die already. Quit contributing to the needless deaths of 30 billion animals. You are nothing less than those same people that tried to keep dog fighting and bear baiting around on the basis that 'Waaaaaaaaah, I can't to do whatever I please!'

Sorry, but someone's freedom of choice to continue a dead old idea shouldn't triumph over another animals life. Particularly if that old idea is obsolete. And yeah, I already know your response. But before you do, let me bring up that I'm pretty sure those people that supported other forms of animal cruelty way back when argued the exact same thing.

'Hurpity dee duuuuuurp We kill cows all the time, so how is doing it to a bear for entertainment any worse? WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOM TO DO WHATEVER I WANT!'

I know, I know. I'm really pushing that. But really, the argument that people should be free to do whatever they want - even when it's harmful and obsolete - doesn't' so much come across as a cry for freedom, but more or less as a spoiled brat whimpering something among the lines of 'Whatever, I do what I want!'

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

Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to. This isn't just a small minority of people, this is pretty much everyone in the world. Now while you're giving me bull shit that meat isn't any less necessary than fur maybe you should take just a moment to consider a few things about meat. First of all, you know how I never shut the fuck up about meat being relevant? Well, it fucking is. And to furthermore elaborate my point on this I'm going to do you a favor and inform you that the consumption of meat is promoted everywhere. It's in our food guides we give to our children, it's at our cafeterias, and it's on T.V. You hear that? EVERYWHERE. Now lets consider taste. Once someone tastes that crazy ass meat; it never takes them long to realize that their mouth can cum. And after that, that shit is hard to give up. Trust me, being a vegetarian blows balls. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if cows started slaughtering each other; if only for their flesh.

A lot of people don't stick with meat because they hate animals and think 'Whatever, I do what I want!' but because it's legitimately hard to give up on. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would stop eating meat if there was an alternative to it. And I'm not talking about some bull shit alternative that tastes like shit either, I mean something else that can make their mouths cum. People need to eat. And while it's true that people can live their lives without eating meat, I'd argue that in spite of that it's a necessity. Because to be honest, I'm almost certain people can't live without meat. That's how much it matters to a lot of people and that's just how relevant it is to our society. and with all this in mind, humanity simply isn't ready to move on from it.

Then we talk about fur. It's not everywhere, it's vanishing, and last time I checked, I've never met a single person that felt the urge to wear a fur coat that's equivalent to someones hunger for a damn burger. Fuck, meat is so addictive that people will even eat Mcdonalds. Meat and fur are two completely different things. And covering the ethics behind meat versus the ethics of fur farming isn't really looking at the issue with a lot of depth. Changing the problems with factory farming is going to take some time. It'll take better technology, newer foods, and better business practices.Oh, and meat is harder to give up on. Where as fur, you simply need to decide that there's no reason to kill 20 animals when you can just wear a faux coat instead. Delicious resolution. What I find especially stupid is how you use the suffering of animals (within factory farms) to furthermore justify bringing suffering to other animals. And with utmost sincerity, I hope your ass fell asleep reading this. But don't worry though, you can stand up and take a break if you wish. No one's going to hold that against you.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
I don't like killing animals just for their fur. I think it's a waste and pointless but if you?re going to kill them anyway (food, pest control ect) I see no issue.
 

BrassButtons

New member
Nov 17, 2009
564
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
The fact that people could change their diets and not suffer horrible consequences means meat isn't needed. It's strongly desired, but modern society could get by fine without it (in first world countries, at least--poorer areas may not be able to).

So by your line of reasoning here, if some fur company launched a massively successful marketing campaign to make fur popular, and everyone started wanting to own fur, then you would have to stop opposing the fur industry because society would "need" fur. (This isn't an impossible scenario, by the way--diamonds became valuable because De Beers basically told the world "you love diamonds now").
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
BrassButtons said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I will generalize as much as I please.
Then your logic will be wrong (and your conclusions will probably be wrong as well).

Since the rest of your post doesn't offer any evidence that animal cruelty is practiced in most fur farms (or even evidence that it is practiced AT ALL) I'm guessing you don't have any. Which means there's no reason to accept that line of argument.

Hell, I'll even say that their unethical practices started the moment they made a business off of an outdated anachronism.
Why on earth is that unethical?
http://digitaljournal.com/article/264599
http://www.struanstevenson.com/media/news-release/euro_law_ends_years_of_barbaric_trade_of_cat_and_dog_fur/

It's not the fact that they're doing this to cats and dogs that piss me off. To me, they're still animals. No, what pisses me off is their dishonesty. When a business has to sell fur as faux and lie about skinning cats and dogs then that just goes to show they know just how insane and absurd their trade is. Oh, and you should also read that 'brutally skinned' part. They save you the details of how it's done, but I'm sure you can use your imagination. Furthermore, both sources I sent aren't from animal rights groups - so I'd think they're not trying to distort the truth like peta does.

Now lets talk about animals being skinned alive, shall we?

http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/dogs-and-cats-skinned-alive-for-their-fur-in-china/

A blog that's definitely for animal rights; but their bias shouldn't damage their credibility all too much

http://protection4animals.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/raccoon-dogs-skinned-alive-in-china/

And a guy that supports Peta. No credible at all. But hey, it comes with a video.

http://protection4animals.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/raccoon-dogs-skinned-alive-in-china/

You're right. Not all fur farms do this. I am generalizing. But the thing is, it's disappearing and there's no longer any reason for fur farms to exist at all. This wouldn't be existing at all if no one was buying fur. But above all; we can't trust corporations. Again, I'm not talking about the small ones. It's not a businesses job to be ethically responsible; so they're not going to be. By this point, I'm not generalizing. Corporations can't even sell video games without being dicks, (save for maybe Valve and Bethesda. And even Bethesda I'm not too sure) so what in the world would make you think they'll be any better if you give them the authority or power to snuff out animals? You get that? They don't care.

Besides this - which is the utmost extreme of animal cruelty in fur farms - there are other things that go on that are pretty typical. Animals being thrown into small cages, animals being underfed to the point of cannibalism, and of course that entire part where they're killed for an out dated anachronism.


Captcha: Case closed

See? Solve media agrees with me!
 

LtWigglesworth

New member
Jan 4, 2012
121
0
0
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
American South c.1860 : "Society needs slaves. People are unwilling to change their way of farming, and they're not going to. "
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
LtWigglesworth said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
American South c.1860 : "Society needs slaves. People are unwilling to change their way of farming, and they're not going to. "
All it took was a civil war to change that. That's all. But even then, slavery was already ending in countries all around America. So you're example is quite different. I'm not in a country that wants to keep eating meat while the rest of the world is changing. I'm in a country that completely supports meat and numerous industries that piss me off.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Wolverine18 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
LtWigglesworth said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Society needs meat. People are unwilling to change their diet, and they're not going to.
American South c.1860 : "Society needs slaves. People are unwilling to change their way of farming, and they're not going to. "
All it took was a civil war to change that. That's all. But even then, slavery was already ending in countries all around America. So you're example is quite different. I'm not in a country that wants to keep eating meat while the rest of the world is changing. I'm in a country that completely supports meat and numerous industries that piss me off.
Ok, go back to the 1700s then... "Society needs fur. People are unwilling to change their dressing habits, and they are not going to". You do know that Canada & the US were were founded in large part on the fur trade right?
You do know that people actually needed fur back then, right?
You do know that fur was actually relevant to society back then, right?
There's a huge difference between how the world was back in that time and how it is today. Fur played its part, but now it's time it died.