fur, what's your stand Options

[*kryogenix*]

that video was disappointing. they didn't even take the chainsaw out on that raccoon.

[aznxdreamer]

i couldnt believe the thing was still alive after it got its skin ripped off. then i saw a little scene of this beautiful white dog and i just couldnt bear to see what they were gonna do to it.

thats the seccond time i saw an animal get skinned alive.

[mysticbreeze]

i agree... you can get leather which comes from food-cows, thats fine, food's necessary, ad it beats jsut throwing the skin away

I understand your point but I read that a lot of the leather sold in the United States often does not come from animals killed for food: Here

*sighs* That's depressing and inhumane... but it's legal to use fur and should be legal.

Why should it be legal?

Also I understand some people's views against PETA but there isn't much they could have done to create an untrue look into the world of fur. Fur is obviously collected by subjecting animals to horrible cruelty no matter what organization's source it's coming from. The bottom line is the fur industry is vile and 100% uneccessary.

[Teesa]

the poor things..what they're doing is so cruel, I cannot believe it.

[*jooleeah*]

Oh, my. I saw the scene where they showed the raccoon. The poor thing was still alive, too. And when I saw a little of the white dog, I closed it. I couldn't stand watching that dog get hurt.
Er, please don't mind my ignorance, but is that even legal? If it is....isn't it animal cruelty? I know that's illegal. Again, sorry for my ignorance.

[racoons > you]

I understand your point but I read that a lot of the leather sold in the United States often does not come from animals killed for food: Here

oh i understand that... i only said that it is obtainable, and that it is not unjustified in those circumsatances... i wasnt implying that all leather does come from food cows

Er, please don't mind my ignorance, but is that even legal? If it is....isn't it animal cruelty? I know that's illegal. Again, sorry for my ignorance.

different countries have different laws.

and keep in mind that that may not be the norm... i suspect PETA went to an underground operation and presented the extremity of it as normality to anger people and bolster their cause

[*kryogenix*]

i'm sure what those guys did in that video is illegal. but, i'm pretty sure not all fur is obtained this way.

[Rachel]

ugh, i couldnt even get past the poor thing getting skinned alive. i am sick to my stomach just watching that. i will never ever EVER buy fur, it is one of the most disgusting fashion trends i can think of. just thought of WEARING an animal that was killed so some flaming designer can get paid makes me sick.

[sadolakced acid]

fur that doesn't come from food animals isn't all bad.

minks are used for fur coats, etc. and they farm minks, and kill them for thier fur.

HOWEVER, the skinned mink bodys are (in some cases) then sold to a biological science provider who preserves them and sells them for dissection classes.

[racoons > you]

^^

lol because disection hasnt proved at all controversial on here tho...

as long as the animals are put down before they are skinned, then it can be acceptable. its wone of those things 'i respect teh right to choose, but i would never choose it' kinda thing.

and the majority of fur farms will treat the animals fairlywell, because one of the first signs of an unhealthy animal is poor coat quality, which is exactly what they dont want...

however, to me personally there is justsomething warped abotu wearing the flesh of another living (well, once living) being

[eunie03]

however, to me personally there is justsomething warped abotu wearing the flesh of another living  (well, once living) being

And for what..... a fashion statement

For the illegal statement, it's not illegal in China (which is where it was filmed). We often import it from them.

[mysticbreeze]

Wearing fur is wrong no matter if the animals were treated "well" (yeah right) or not. It's selfish and faux fur IS AVAILABLE. There is no need for fur what so ever!

[sadolakced acid]

faux fur is sythetic.

my religion prohibits me from wearing synthetics. *
therefore i must use real fur.
*not really.

you need to find a bettter argument than 'there is faux fur'

[largosama]

It's not so much as as wasteful; they chuck this away

[sadolakced acid]

no, they don't.

there is no way a sane person would chuck that away.
there's good meat there!
it probably ends up in dog food or something of the sorts.

anywyas: it's a PETA ad; i doubt thier facts.

[mysticbreeze]

faux fur is sythetic.

my religion prohibits me from wearing synthetics. *
therefore i must use real fur.
*not really.

you need to find a bettter argument than 'there is faux fur'

Uh...I don't see you bringing up any points in this debate. The best argument in this debate is fur is not necessary what so ever and it's horribly cruel. How do you justify the fur industry? Are you debating against me because you are pro-fur or something? You act like Peta is as bad as the people who are actually murdering the animals or something.

[sadolakced acid]

Uh...I don't see you bringing up any points in this debate.  The best argument in this debate is fur is not necessary what so ever and it's horribly cruel.  How do you justify the fur industry?  Are you debating against me because you are pro-fur or something?    You act like Peta is as bad as the people who are actually murdering the animals or something.

PETA bombs buildings where humans work.
(ok fine they don't, thier members do and PETA provides the adresses of those places.)

I personaly prefer cotton and other fibers. I have no need for a fur coat or anything.

i'd like to point out i HAVE presented facts; maybe you didn't see them.

  fur that doesn't come from food animals isn't all bad.

minks are used for fur coats, etc. and they farm minks, and kill them for thier fur.

HOWEVER, the skinned mink bodys are (in some cases) then sold to a biological science provider who preserves them and sells them for dissection classes.

the fur industry is, to me, moral.

the only furs alloweed to be imported to the US are from animmals that can be used as food.

which means; rabbits are allowed, cats and dogs are not.

anyways: i'm trying to get you to present facts so there can be more debating. don't take it as a personal attack. it's a debate forum. support your opinions.

[largosama]

so um... foxes shouldn't be used I suppose.

Fur's been a symbol of the rich... there's no way the industry will stop so long as the upper class are willing to pay for stuff to stand out as "upper". The industry must go on... -_-

[sadolakced acid]

i dunno. maybe people eat foxes somewhere?

[eunie03]

Who decides what animals are okay to eat and not to eat? To skin or not to skin?

One of my main reasons why I became a vegetarian was when the whole "Koreans eat dogs" thing came about... I was like.. what's the difference between dogs and cows anyway? Some people keep cows as pets just like we keep dogs as pets.

I'm not saying it's wrong to eat cows (whatever makes you happy), but I don't see how "its okay" to use cow-hide for leather and not skin a dog for fur.

PETA (err... members of PETA) do bomb buildings. I'm not for that whole... passion-on-overdrive thing. I think it's insane. But to be fair, non-members of PETA bomb buildings too. We're human. Some of us are like that. What're you gonna do? Just because a few bad apples are in an organization doesn't mean the entire group stands for it.

[sadolakced acid]

well, i could forgive the group when their members do the whole bombing thing; but not when they pass out graphic pamphlets to children.

like "your mommy kills animals" with graphic pictures of women killing animals.

yes; it happens in the world. but that's no reason to show 1st or 2nd graders that graphic material.

most thier campaigns are graphic and some are directed at kids. Most of them contain wrong facts.

as a result; i think that PETA is not a reliable source. I also believe that they should not be distributing that content to children.

locally, a PETA group convinced a 12 year old girl to demonstrate with them outside a KFC. Without her parent's permission. So the police showed up ( mainly becuase they were on public property) and stuff.

thier message is fundamentally based on a good idea- that humans and animals are equal and should be treated like such- but thier presentation is too militant- religous for me.

[mysticbreeze]

the fur industry is, to me, moral.

the only furs alloweed to be imported to the US are from animmals that can be used as food.

which means; rabbits are allowed, cats and dogs are not.

Foxes, coyotes, raccoons and chinchilla aren't used for food and fur coats are made out of them in the United States. Besides who are we to say which animals should be killed and which shouldn't be killed for fur? Fur clothing has no purpose but to make selfish people who don't care about anything look rich. The animals were killed for clothing, clothing that has alternatives. We aren't freaking cavemen here.

PETA (err... members of PETA) do bomb buildings. I'm not for that whole... passion-on-overdrive thing. I think it's insane. But to be fair, non-members of PETA bomb buildings too. We're human. Some of us are like that. What're you gonna do? Just because a few bad apples are in an organization doesn't mean the entire group stands for it.

True. The Peta website has a page about etiquitte when conducting a demonstration or protesting. They don't say anything about "bombing building" blah blah. The people who do those things are extremists and don't represent the company.

well, i could forgive the group when their members do the whole bombing thing; but not when they pass out graphic pamphlets to children.

like "your mommy kills animals" with graphic pictures of women killing animals.

yes; it happens in the world. but that's no reason to show 1st or 2nd graders that graphic material.

most thier campaigns are graphic and some are directed at kids. Most of them contain wrong facts.

as a result; i think that PETA is not a reliable source. I also believe that they should not be distributing that content to children.

locally, a PETA group convinced a 12 year old girl to demonstrate with them outside a KFC. Without her parent's permission. So the police showed up ( mainly becuase they were on public property) and stuff.

thier message is fundamentally based on a good idea- that humans and animals are equal and should be treated like such- but thier presentation is too militant- religous for me.

Peta pamphlets are nothing compared to the viloence on television kids watch these days. I admit some things are graphic, but they show the truth. The kids can decide what they want to do about it themselves.

[sadolakced acid]

sure; fur has no purpose now. Synthetics are much better at insulating.

i have no fur; i wear no fur.

but i support fur, because fur is part of nature... i don't like that much synthetic stuff.

i dunno... the idea of a cabin in the woods with a bed covered in furs just sounds like a much better place than this synthetic world.

i don't like the killing. i think rich people who wear furs (although i have yet to see one) are stupid. But it's the idea of fur- our ancestors wore fur. real animal fur has this texture that isn't in fake fur- this idea that i like.

morally- furs don't make sense.

but i dunno... fur just appeals to some part of me.

but then again i'm talking more about skins, like deers skins/ moose skins.

i think it'd be cool to have one of those as a rug.

not becasue i like the look; because the idea of a fur rug makes this artificial world feel more natural.

but then again you don't see me chucking my computer out the window and going to live in a colony somewhere...

i dunno. it's not a rational liking.

[william]

Peta pamphlets are nothing compared to the viloence on television kids watch these days.  I admit some things are graphic, but they show the truth.  The kids can decide what they want to do about it themselves.

i saw the pamphlet when it came out on the peta site, and i found it much more disturbing than anything on tv. the cover was a drawing of a bloody woman with a knive killing a rabbit, and inside there were actual pictures of animals being killed. i don't know what shows you watch, but i don't see anything that bad on tv.

[mysticbreeze]

sure; fur has no purpose now. Synthetics are much better at insulating.

i have no fur; i wear no fur.

but i support fur, because fur is part of nature... i don't like that much synthetic stuff.

i dunno... the idea of a cabin in the woods with a bed covered in furs just sounds like a much better place than this synthetic world.

i don't like the killing. i think rich people who wear furs (although i have yet to see one) are stupid. But it's the idea of fur- our ancestors wore fur. real animal fur has this texture that isn't in fake fur- this idea that i like.

morally- furs don't make sense.

but i dunno... fur just appeals to some part of me.

but then again i'm talking more about skins, like deers skins/ moose skins.

i think it'd be cool to have one of those as a rug.

not becasue i like the look; because the idea of a fur rug makes this artificial world feel more natural.

You don't like the killing but you like the idea of materials made out of animals?

How is fur part of nature? In nature, things happen naturally, like for example plants growing. Would animals skin other animals in nature? No...

i saw the pamphlet when it came out on the peta site, and i found it much more disturbing than anything on tv. the cover was a drawing of a bloody woman with a knive killing a rabbit, and inside there were actual pictures of animals being killed. i don't know what shows you watch, but i don't see anything that bad on tv.

If Peta sugarcoated everything people wouldn't react to the ideas they were trying to convey. Yes, graphicness is disturbing but that's what's happening in this world. What are they supposed to draw pictures of little happy bunnies on the pamphlets or something?