Modern Fur Trade |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
 Sep 14 2005, 09:46 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 unify and defeat... divide and crumble  Group: Member Posts: 2,759 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 6,379  |
Last class in International Business, we discussed modern fur trade, and it's late popularity. Modern fur trapping is quite different from how it was hundreds of years ago, however there are many alternatives to fur nowadays. It's been argued that we no longer need fur, and "the only one who needs a mink coat...is the mink"
I know this is similar to the "killing animals for art" topic, but do you think that modern fur trade should be legal, and if so, how closely should it be regulated? **sorry if this is a duplicate topic, fur is shorter than 4 letters** Coalition to Abolish the fur trade: http://www.caft.org.uk/quotes/speaking-out.html |
|
|
|
 |
Replies
(1 - 11)
|
Sep 15 2005, 03:24 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 emaleth Group: Member Posts: 56 Joined: Jul 2005 Member No: 169,513 |
because of our technology advancements and such we don't NEED fur. fur to most people is simply a status symbol and sense of sytle.
i don't believe that fur trade should be regulated. i don't believe their should be fur trade at all. i understand that eliminating the fur industry may make a huge impact on modern economy but there have been worst things that has happened in economical history. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 09:30 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 604 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,133 |
^ Uh huh, I prefer synthetic fur.
Hey I ryhme 
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 09:32 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
natural fur is a renewable resource.
synthetic fur is petrolium based and is not renewable. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 09:41 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 604 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,133 |
Yes and I do not expect myself to wear the same sythetic fur everyday, and I do love shopping.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2005, 10:54 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 Dark Lord of McCandless Group: Member Posts: 2,226 Joined: May 2004 Member No: 16,761 |
We don't NEED a lot of things, but they're still nice to have.
There are economies that are based on building only things people need: they are called third-world countries. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 05:26 AM
Post
#7
|
|
 ^_^ Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 8,141 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 91,466 |
Lets make it fair and have a skin trade.
We can go in wealthy areas, find some healthy specimens, catch 'em and skin 'em alive only to sell their skin in a fine boutique. Ah, justice. </sarcasm> |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 05:52 AM
Post
#8
|
|
 What? Group: Member Posts: 709 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 92,823 |
^ ooooh, see, now thats a solution!
 I think the fur trade should be Banned. Its just nor moral to take the fur off an animal and wear it. How would you like it if I came to your house and skinned your cat? or dog? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 09:00 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
unify and defeat... divide and crumble Group: Member Posts: 2,759 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 6,379 |
But what if the animal was eated afterwards? Would it be ok then?
They aren't skinning pets, and in a lot of cases (mink, etc) they are raised like livestock to later be skinned, and other uses. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 10:52 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
conservation of energy.
you've already fed the cows for meat, why not use the skin for leather. also, animals like minks are destined for dissection tables already. yet again, why not use the skin for fur? even animals which are not killed to be eaten, for instance a trophy deer, provides a dead carcass nessicary for keeping the decomposers of the ecosystem fed, and thus balancing the ecosystem. the immediate cleanup of dead roadkill is responsible for the decline of the california condor. as far as morality goes: is it better to raise animals for fur or to ignore them and simply slaughter them as we destroy thier habitat? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 18 2005, 10:07 PM
Post
#11
|
|
 A laugh spreads, so do some spreading! Group: Member Posts: 529 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,319 |
We don't even need fur. It's so sad what people do to the animals before they are skinned, but since we've already killed the cow, rabbit etc for meat, the skin would go to waste if we didn't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2005, 06:20 PM
Post
#12
|
|
 "Silly me, I thought this was a free country" Group: Human Posts: 1,666 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 60,913 |
QUOTE(ComradeRed @ Sep 15 2005, 10:54 PM) We don't NEED a lot of things, but they're still nice to have. There are economies that are based on building only things people need: they are called third-world countries.  ^^ agrees |
|
|
|
 |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: