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

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Abandon4093 said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
And then the sentence later I said 'Ohh' and replied to it.
No, you replied to the one after it.

The way you're posting is making the discussion needlessly confusing. You just have floating replies and sometimes it's hard to tell what they're in response too.
And now I just literally found out how to quote.

Condemning my bias and using your own is hypocrtical.

I'm not using my own, I'm admitting it. And my choice to eat meat has nothing to do with the discussion. It's context for me admitting that I'm being selfish by eating meat. So the practice of eat meat is selfish, a luxury food item that isn't necessary for survival.
You didn't admit it until literally just now. Congratulations, hypocrite. Took you awhile.


What piece of inconsequential piece of information?


That I'm against animal cruelty, it kind of makes a good 2 thirds of your previous post moot.
No, you THINK you're against animal cruelty.


What's that son, calling someone a cowardly hypocrite pisses them off enough to make them say rude things? I would have never guessed!


You've been doing it since before I called you a coward.
I haven't called you a coward.

Born to be murdered in an outdated practice.

By that logic then the meat industry is an outdated practice. Which contradicts everything you've said thus far.
Meat is relevant to society. Fur isn't. Outdated, just like type writers.

That sounds really pleasant. If there is reincarnation (and I'm sure there isn't) then you deserve nothing less than being skinned for that argument.

More evidence of it being fortuitous that you're not in a position of power.
'Last person in the fucking world that should say that, hon'.

Prove it, I've got rationale for all my arguments, you've yet to make a compelling argument against one.
The fact that you have to tell your self you've got good arguments proves otherwise.


You want an argument on morality do you?
This entire argument has been about morality. Where the fuck have you been?


Same self deprecating bullshit every misanthrope touts.
Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not a misanthrope. My point is once you start arguing the morality of something you're instantly going to fall flat on your ass because your existence alone causes a lot of immoral suffering. It's hypocritical.

Without humans there would be no context. Things would just happen because they happen. Our ability to contextualize is what makes us special.
How's this for context; you'll die. It doesn't matter what meaning you give your life or what context you give your actions. You're going to die in a mess of your own filth. Try and find some beautiful context for me there, please. We live in a bubble of abstract ideas and shallow diversions. I hardly think that justifies all the suffering we bring.


Not just functions, but functions better.


Depends on your definition of better, if pure chaos is your definition of better. Then yea.
Society is pure chaos. At least in this world without humans there'd be no pollution, population problems, over fishing, and slaughter. Animals have the opportunity to at least 'try' and live. we strip that away from them, and this is morally abhorrent.

We don't have humans introducing foreign animals to places they shouldn't be.

That's a relatively minor concern and ecosystems recover quite quickly from such things in most cases.
Tell that to all the Australians.

Or the fantastic stuff we do either.
That's not an argument. You wanted morality so here it is; the terrible things we do greatly out weigh the good things. A few 'fanastical' things being lost would hardly be a big price to pay.


Then by your own admission fur doesn't matter.
Nihilist. Or so I consider my self to be one. I don't believe anything matters. But in spite of that I'm still against causing needless suffering. We're all going to be dead eventually, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to live a life without an incredible amount of suffering. I believe in ending suffering if only because of the privilege I have, and because it wouldn't feel right for me to say that other creatures should suffer something I'd be unwilling to.

Sure morality changes depending on society, but so does everything. I'm not seeing how that's an argument.
That's my entire fucking argument against fur. We're changing and we're past fur. It's no longer relevant, meat is. Let it die.

And by your logic you'd have been fine and dandy with that. After all, you wouldn't want to argue against something that was socially relevant.
I probably wouldn't even know I was gay due to the incredible amount of stigma against it. If I were to speak out against it, I'd be set on fire. It wouldn't matter if I was the greatest psychologist in the world; people will believe in whatever they want to. Trying to push for gay rights would fail, badly, with me being burned at a stake. People are only willing to make a change for the better when society is willing.

Our own personal morality dictates all of our actions.
True




But my life will have been.
Sleep. Eat. Fuck. Yup, so different. The only difference is that humans like to romanticize everything with a bunch of bull shit.





Entertainment, spiritual enrichment, questions for the sake of questions, discovery, exploration, testing our limits and our desire to take everything apart just to see how it works.
Let me translate everything you just said. Shallow distractions, abstract bull shit, pretension, and two things that animals can do, but to a lesser degree. Oh, and last time I checked most people aren't making discoveries, exploring, and taking things apart. Animals are always testing their limits. It's called living.


The fact that we understand a concept such as value makes it so.
I'll file that under the 'abstract bull shit' cabinet.



Ohhhh, so dark and edgy. It's not like I read that on every awkward kids myspace page's "about me" section like 6 years ago.
I'm not trying to be dark and edgy. I'm trying to say that value is nothing but an abstract idea that isn't worth anything outside of humanities little bubble that's made completely out of bull shit.


Entirely debatable.

Without human life what would this world be? Pure chaos without an ounce of culture, history or direction.
Ohhhh, so dark and edgy. It's not like I read that on every awkward kids myspace page's "about me" section like 6 years ago.
Remember when you said that not too long ago? Well, funny because you sound exactly one of those atheist humanists who go on about science and humanity, as if they're extraordinary spiritual experiences. Okay, Thunderfoot. Want to show us clips of how beautiful life is while you monologue about how amazing and spiritual science is?

You see, that's the problem I have with humanity. We're like a mentally handicapped child looking at a glass of colored water, assuming that just because it's colored that it's something more than water, that it somehow has more meaning. Even with no religion, people try to be spiritual. It's sad really. George Carlin said it best. Society is built around bull shit. Not too much, but just enough.

And as far as I'm concerned, the humans have brought far greater chaos than animals ever will. It's true that you need to fear for your life every second as an animal. but us humans, holy fucking shit, now that's chaos.

We have guys running into theaters shooting people. We have wars. We have bombs. We have missiles. We have riots. We have all these people walking around, driving cars, taking planes, taking trains. We've got Laws, crimes, businesses, charities. Can you please tell me again about this 'pure chaos'.

Culture and history doesn't give our lives any more meaning. They're merely distractions. I love history and it's a good thing to consider, but I'm not going to pretend it gives our lives meaning nor value. The world would definitely be different without humans. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just something that's unknown to us. So perhaps you're just scared.




No, you're just being nihilistic and self deprecating.

What are you? 12?
Missed the point. We're in no place to argue what is and isn't moral with all the amount of suffering we cause. That's the point. Or does my notion that you're not too important hurt your feelings?

All morality is subjective, that's the point.



Then your entire argument has been meaningless.
Sounds just about right.


And all the great things we bring too.
A fair price to pay.


Which wouldn't have the faintest notion of how things had changed anyway. Except the billions of animals that now depend on us for their survival because of domestication. They'd probably have a gay old time trying to reintegrate into the wild.
They'd integrate, regardless. Having a city destroyed by a war doesn't stop people from rebuilding it.


Because I'm against suffering.
A moral stance...
Does it matter? No, probably not. I'm not going to pretend that it does.
OHMAIGAWD! More morally based decisions?

But what I do know is that regardless of how nothing matters, absolutely everything can feel pain. We can't fix every single issue; but we can fix one at a time.
Yea, it's not like I said at anypoint that by my own personal morality that I'm opposed to animal suffering or anything is it?



That's the same argument you called a piece of shit earlier on. So no, apparently it's not 'no shit'.


Again, no shit. I've not been against your prioritising, I've been against your hypocrisy. You know, your ability to say one set of animal killers are cool beans because society says so whilst simultaneously demonising another set because society doesn't like them anymore.
I don't say factory farming is cool. I just don't attack them because it's relevant to our society and anything I say isn't going to stop them from eating meat. Common fucking sense, kid. Should learn a thing or two about it. It's too early to demonize them. And if we lived back when fur was mandatory I wouldn't be demonizing those people either. For a guy that loves arguing on how valuable context makes us you sure have a grasp of it. The context of why don't demonize meat eaters while demonizing people that wear fur should matter a hell of a lot more than the fact that I only demonize one of them. Maybe it's not so much that I'm a supposed 12 year old nihilist (your half right though, congrats) but that you're oversimplifying the two issues and undermining the role that society plays.

I feel sorry for the guy who you have to educate. Hypocritical values followed by a notion that morality doesn't matter whilst moralizing a subject and then saying all life is meaningless because *pouty face*
Life doesn't matter. And my reasons for believing that aren't simply because 'LIFE IS NOTHING!' (Slits wrists) No, I'm just a very cynical person that has absolutely no spirituality. At all. You're quite right that I do moralize while saying that morality doesn't matter. The honest truth is it's just hard for me to turn my back on my ethics. Even if they're completely pointless. I'll continue to moralize; but if anything I can at least acknowledge that there's no reason behind them. In regards to this, I'm not going to argue against being a bit of a hypocrite.

The person I'd be educating would only know of the ethics that are involved. Nothing else. Anything past that are my views. Believe it or not, but when people don't piss me off I'm not a completely abhorrent person.



Thanks for the history lesson, I'd never heard of Rosa Parks before... how does this effect anything I've said.
Try closing your pie hole and actually waiting for me to actually complete a thought, k'ay?
.

Keyword here being fighting, not saying "You guys are cool beans because society says so"
I have been fighting, hon'. I've been fighting against their ethics. It's just unreasonable to take on the entirety of factory farming. You really don't understand the notion of biting more than you can chew, do you?


You wouldn't believe it from what you've said.
Then I guess to be kind I'll just say it was a misunderstanding. It happens.

Because as I said, in a society that eats meat, that's just not going to happen. Not yet anyway. Fur is different because a lot of people are against fur. And because of that, we can end it. Society is sick of fur. And because of that, we can move past it. It's not attacking a weak enemy, it's paving the way forward for a better future.

And like I said before, no issue with a person choosing a battle. But to be okay with a very similar practice because it's relevant to society is hypocritical.
I hate factory farms. They're relevant to society, so I can't argue against them. All that can be done is arguing for better ethics. I can't stop people from eating meat, but I'm sure better ethics for animals is something everyone can get behind. Well, except for the odd ball that thinks helping animals is standing in the way of humans, somehow. I am, however, fine with their existence despite what I think of them. Because they're relevant to todays society. It's too much of a big part of our culture. Just like fur once was. So, to clarify:

I hate factory farming, but I'm fine with their existence. Because society isn't ready to move past them. I'm not capable of that much hatred, and that's why relevance matters. It's hard to hate that many people, so you just have to accept it and fight -one small thing at a time - to making things better for everyone and everything. I'll be probably be dead before we move past factory farms. But oh well, one small issue at a time. Fur is past it's time. Norway banned fur, so I might be around to see it die. I guess that's another reason why it pisses me off. Because with people trying to keep fur around, I might not be given that privilege either.

So why can't they strive for better ethics in the fur industry?

Personally that's all I'd be interested in.
Because I truly believe we're ready to completely end fur. Save for a few nations here and there. I feel that we've reached that point in time.


Would I wear a fur coat? No, don't think it'd suite me anyway. Doesn't mean I'm going to call people evil because they do wear fur coats.
Then I apologize for calling them evil. I guess what I mean to say is that they're spoiled, backwards, and barbaric. Save for the few people that wear fur because they're just backwards and barbaric.
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
How the hell do I reply to that mess?

It would take me freaking ages to sieve through all of that to find out what sentences are yours and what are mine.

How the hell do you expect me to respond to that?
Honestly, I don't know what the hell I did to make it do that. This is why I don't do quotes, I simply don't understand it.
 

lSHaDoW-FoXl

New member
Jul 17, 2008
616
0
0
BrassButtons said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
I knew I was generalizing after you called me out on it. Not a lie.
Right, I get that now. I was just explaining why I had thought you were lying, and also correcting your statement that generalizations aren't lies (they can be, but aren't always).

I'm not going to argue against how amazingly biased I am against fur industry, because I am. But I wouldn't think that should invalidate anything else I say outside of anything that makes me foam out the mouth.
I never claimed that everything you say is invalid because you are biased, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to say this.

My idea of unnecessarily cruel is any form of cruelty that's out dated.
So what makes something "out dated"?

Back at a time no one would think Bear baiting and dog fighting is cruel, but now we do in thanks to the advent of animal rights.
So those practices are cruel because they are out dated, and they are out dated because people decided they were cruel?

And this sounds a lot like your ethics are determined by popular opinion.

My concept 'unnecessary' is basically anything that's backwards.
So what does "backwards" mean, and how does it apply here? Are you saying that fur is backwards and unnecessary because other forms of clothing exist?

And you're still not explaining why these practices are unethical. Let's just accept that you're correct about fur being out dated, backwards, and unnecessary. Why does that make it unethical? Why should I be morally opposed to fur?

ETA: I just have to address this point:

There isn't a single animal in this world with exception to humans that this world can exist without.
This world can exist without every creature currently alive. And it has. Earth has gone through multiple mass-extinction events, and the majority of creatures to have existed are all extinct. The world (and life) continued to exist without all of those creatures, and there's no reason to think it couldn't continue without modern ones. Sure, removing some species would wreak havoc on the ecosystem, but the modern ecosystem isn't the only viable one (as proved by all the previous ecosystems). Nature is not nearly as delicate as people make it out to be. It's only when you want to preserve nature as it exists right now that things get dicey.
'And this sounds a lot like your ethics are determined by popular opinion.'

If we're talking about my very own personal ethics then I think killing an animal - even for meat is wrong. I just don't enforce it. When something is unneeded and becomes an out dated anachronism however, that is when I begin to enforce. I believe something starts being out dated when society begins to move on from it. Essentially, when we grow past it.

'So what makes something "out dated"? '

Anything that society abandons or anything that has far better alternatives. For the latter I speak of objects that perform no worse, causes less suffering, and simply comes at a lower price. With money to purchases and in resource to create.

'This world can exist without every creature currently alive. And it has. Earth has gone through multiple mass-extinction events, and the majority of creatures to have existed are all extinct. The world (and life) continued to exist without all of those creatures, and there's no reason to think it couldn't continue without modern ones. Sure, removing some species would wreak havoc on the ecosystem, but the modern ecosystem isn't the only viable one (as proved by all the previous ecosystems). Nature is not nearly as delicate as people make it out to be. It's only when you want to preserve nature as it exists right now that things get dicey.'

Abandon pointed that out to me. Yeah, you're right. I guess what I really mean is that there'd be a lot less suffering without humans.

Edit -
'And you're still not explaining why these practices are unethical. Let's just accept that you're correct about fur being out dated, backwards, and unnecessary. Why does that make it unethical? Why should I be morally opposed to fur?'

It's unethical because it involves countless suffering over an anachronism that society has abandoned. You should be morally opposed to it for many reasons. It's not relevant to society. There's a ton of cheaper alternatives that work just as well that don't kill a bunch of animals. (coats, and even faux), and simply because you probably wouldn't want your dog to be skinned. If we have the technology to cause less suffering and the will of society to cause less suffering than we simply shouldn't take the outdated, backwards method that causes more suffering. Nor should we support it simply because a small minority of people want to do it.

A small minority still likes dog fighting. And yet despite how that's arguably no worse than factory farming I don't think there'd be a single person on the escapist that would think that's all right, even if people tried to justify it by saying 'but I'm an adult, I should do what I want!'

And this is precisely how animal rights work. We don't look to end suffering based on what's worse. We look to end suffering based on what animals society prefers. I don't approve of it too much, but this is why I believe in ending suffering based on societies standing on it - based on its relevance - because simply put, that's going to be the decider on what forms of animal cruelty we put an end to first. And this is we shouldn't defend the people that wear fur simply because they have the choice to do so. Because it's holding animal rights back in favour of letting a kid have its pacifier.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
This thread reminds me of this:

Other then that. If we raise cows to die and be food why can't we raise animals to die and be clothes. Hell isn't that what real leather is, animal skin? There is far less controversy over that then fur.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Darkmantle said:
not all that hard to understand.
Unless you're thinking about it. It's a way to make you feel better, but not a way to change the fact that you are raising something for the sole purpose of slaughtering it. It will die, and it will suffer, even if you try and minimise the suffering.
 

BristolBerserker

New member
Aug 3, 2011
327
0
0
I have a lovely rabbit fur Ushanka. Warmest thing ever. I also have a deer skin which feels amazing. I am fully in favour of fur clothing and items. We eat meat and wear leather so why did fur suddenly become taboo in the last 40 years.
 

Darkmantle

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,031
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Darkmantle said:
not all that hard to understand.
Unless you're thinking about it. It's a way to make you feel better, but not a way to change the fact that you are raising something for the sole purpose of slaughtering it. It will die, and it will suffer, even if you try and minimise the suffering.
So? Only a sadist wants to torture something to death. Kill it quick and clean, it's just as easy.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
In a world where we wore animal pelts to keep from dying from exposure, it was perfectly reasonable.

Most of us don't live in that world anymore, though, so it becomes nothing but a luxury for those people, and luxury at the expense of others is luxury that can fuck right off, if I may be so direct.
 

Ljs1121

New member
Mar 17, 2011
1,113
0
0
Fur is warm and soft and I like to wear it just every great once in a while if it's available.

I don't buy fur because it's expensive and I can use my money on cheaper clothing.
 

Emperor Nat

New member
Jun 15, 2011
167
0
0
Personally I have no particular problem with fur, provided that two conditions are met.

1) The original animal was not killed solely for its fur, and was therefore used in something more worthwhile than fashion (food, for example).
2) The original animal was not horribly endangered before it died.

Unfortunately the top one is nearly certain, so I generally wouldn't wear it myself - although I don't see it as a major moral failure if someone does. It comes down to personal preference/ethics.

EDIT: On reflection though, I suppose I'm even more flexible than that. My family has a few sheepskin rugs/cushions, and I guess that's not a problem for me - probably because it's a farm animal and therefore may have been eaten. Sheep are also slightly more common than water, so there's that too.
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
Im not a fan of fur myself but i dont have any moral quarms about it. It does however amuse me listening to people moan about how fur is cruel and uneccessary so let me make a couple of points.

Firstly while fur is indeed not neccessary for clothings any longer that may not be the case in the future. Lets stop and consider for a moment where synthetic fibers come from. Many synthetic fibers come from a mix for processed plant and animal fibres (and yes this sometimes includes fur!) and man made fibers (produced from oil products using step-growth polymerisation). Not only do these processes require large amounts of energy but there are very few synthetic fibers without a man made polymer component. This means the production of synthetic fibers has a huge carbon footprint and if (as environmental groups keep telling us) the oil does indeed run out then we may find the process to be completly unfeasable or prohibitivly costly. In addition most synthetic fibers cannot be recycled efficently (without huge energy imput) and are not biodegradable -much like plastic bags which everyone keeps banging on about. Further more let us not forget about the water and air polution produced during the production of synthetic fibers.

While were at it i would like to dispell a common myth that animal rights activists like to band around. Fur production does not require the use of inhumane methods of euthenasia. Yes, in the past many animals who were killed for fur were clubbed to minimise damage to the pelt and to a degree this still occur when trapped wild animals are killed for fur. However 90% of the worlds fur is now farmed and the majority of these farms follow the guidelines laid out in the American Veterinary Medical Association's Report on Euthanasia -Even those outside of US juricdiction. The most common methods of euthenising the animals are now gassing and electrocution (both of which have been sancitioned in parts of the US and elsewhere for human execution, although the former no longer uses gas as a method of execution).