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.