Fur Clothing

[Andarro]

The idea that you should control other people's life through legislation in order to uphold your own moral codes is the very definition of totalitarianism.

The idea of oppressing an entire group of people for example is a lot different from stopping a few people from spouting discriminating speech and violence. It is not true liberty unless enjoyed by all and stopping those that want to discriminate and otherwise take away rights of another group is a form of totalitarianism to you apparently.

^ How exactly does this have anything to do with animals?

I was not aware that any sort of animal was 'oppressed' or 'discriminated' against; it would seem this is a very difficult concept considering that human beings have a 'conscience' and animals do not.

[Shilya]

Depends on how we get the fur. Hunting and killing only for the fur? Stop that. Breeding, and then ideally using the entire animal? Why not?

Speaking of which, how does mink taste?

[Communal Earth]

So I ask: Is it even needed anymore?
Should we reduce or increase our fur clothing industry?
Is it even applicable to the modern world?

My personal opinion on it is that it isn't needed in today's world, as we need not to rely on slaughtering animals for their coats of fur anymore. We have synthetic material that can produce almost the same fur, and we have clothing better than we ever had. It isn't moral or environmental friendly so I am against the use, production, and promotion of this product.

Translation
"Fuck the cultures who used fur clothing for centuries, like the Samoyeds or the Inuits, because they're not modern enough to matter, the damn barbarians. I don't need to rely on fur coats HENCE no one else does. I don't have to face temperatures below -30°C, so who cares? And when I'm cold I wear petroleum-derived synthetic fibres or turn my petroleum-fueled heating. Hence they're not moral as I am, not eco-friendly as I am. They're evil and should either freeze to death or move to proper places like my city and live the way I do".

Ah yes the big blown out of proportion reply. Notice I said "modern" world. Tribes aren't considered modern unless they live within the modern nations. As a majority of earth's humans, I think fur clothing isn't needed. Inuits and Samoyeds account for a small minority and given the climate they live in, they should be able to have fur clothing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ah yes the big blown out of proportion reply. Notice I said "modern" world. Tribes aren't considered modern unless they live within the modern nations. As a majority of earth's humans, I think fur clothing isn't needed. Inuits and Samoyeds account for a small minority and given the climate they live in, they should be able to have fur clothing.

Humans have always used animal material for clothing.

What do you think the warmest modern winter jackets have inside? Fiberglass?

[Horizont]

I have no problem with fur clothing. As long as an animal species isn't being driven to extinction because of it (and maybe even then, depends on the circumstances), I'm fine with killing animals so we can make fur clothing. After all, we're sentient and they're not.

[Communal Earth]

The idea of oppressing an entire group of people for example is a lot different from stopping a few people from spouting discriminating speech and violence. It is not true liberty unless enjoyed by all and stopping those that want to discriminate and otherwise take away rights of another group is a form of totalitarianism to you apparently.

^ How exactly does this have anything to do with animals?

I was not aware that any sort of animal was 'oppressed' or 'discriminated' against; it would seem this is a very difficult concept considering that human beings have a 'conscience' and animals do not.

This post was made so that I could address what he/she was advocating for. He/she thought it was "totalitarian" to restrict anything, no matter how anti-environment.

[Fireye]

Did you maybe ever think that people maybe, JUST MAYBE, don't WANT artificial fur? Because it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Did you maybe ever think that animals maybe, JUST MAYBE, don't WANT to be killed so people can make a fashion statement?

Dif you ever think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, most animals AREN'T capable of such complex thoughts.

[Greater-London]

I have 0% qualms with people wearing Animal furs and skins. The reason being that I happily wear leather shoes/belts/jackets and I enjoy eating meat. If you do just one of those things and still object to the wearing of fur then you are a hypocrite.

I think the fur industry should of course have the same standards as the meat industry does in terms of animal welfare. These standards ideally would be high as although I don't object to eating animals or using them for clothes I find animal cruelty obviously abhorrent.

[Kiruri]

Did you maybe ever think that people maybe, JUST MAYBE, don't WANT artificial fur? Because it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Did you maybe ever think that animals maybe, JUST MAYBE, don't WANT to be killed so people can make a fashion statement?

Does that matter? Animals, if they could think of such things, would probably also not want to be killed by humans for food. In fact, they may even not want to be killed by other animals.

[Quilavaland]

Fur clothing used to be considered a popular and well accepted form of clothing and it also helped the economy in countries where they had large populations of animals that produce quality fur for clothing. Modernly, however, is fur clothing really necessary? Many modern countries still produce fur clothing even though we have developed synthetic fur and even alternate forms of clothing than we had never before.

The fur clothing industry owns many forms in which it accommodates different animals that produces the cheapest and most quality fur. Minx are the main animals that produce this type of fur.

So I ask: Is it even needed anymore?
Should we reduce or increase our fur clothing industry?
Is it even applicable to the modern world?

My personal opinion on it is that it isn't needed in today's world, as we need not to rely on slaughtering animals for their coats of fur anymore. We have synthetic material that can produce almost the same fur, and we have clothing better than we ever had. It isn't moral or environmental friendly so I am against the use, production, and promotion of this product.

Killing animals for fur should be banned, killing conscious creatures we don't have to kill is just plain wrong. Farming animals like sheep and just shaving their fur off and letting it grow back again is fine however so long as they are treated well :3

[Greater-London]

Dif you ever think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, most animals AREN'T capable of such complex thoughts.

Whilst I don't oppose the use of fur that argument is irrelevant. If a human is in a vegetative state should we then be able to harvest bits of them that we want? simply on the grounds that they are not capable of complex thoughts. The answer of course is no.

[Andarro]

^ How exactly does this have anything to do with animals?

I was not aware that any sort of animal was 'oppressed' or 'discriminated' against; it would seem this is a very difficult concept considering that human beings have a 'conscience' and animals do not.

This post was made so that I could address what he/she was advocating for. He/she thought it was "totalitarian" to restrict anything, no matter how anti-environment.

Fur Clothing <-------(thread title)

How exactly is harvesting furs 'anti-environment' ?

[Cabra West]

I don't think it should be banned - after all, we raise and kill animals for food, so what basis is there to protest we shouldn;t raise them for their skin?

I do, however, advocate very strict rules and regulations to ensure that the animals have a decent enough life before their killed. And I'm afraid to say the fur industry does not have the best track record for that. There's been an article in the German Spiegel just weeks ago about the conditions of mink and fox farms in Poland. It wasn't for the faint-hearted. But at the moment, there is no specific legislation in place, not from the EU and in Germany at least not even national legislation. They have laws regarding the treatment of animals bred for food, but not for animals bred for fur.

So, while I would not wear fur (or eat any part of an animal), I do believe that people who really want to should by all means do so. But I would expect good animal welfare regulations around the industry, regular and through controls and painful fines where breaches are found.
Even a certification system would be a good start.

[Urran]

If they are used for food, then go ahead. If for no other reason but the fur trade, then no, I dint see the reason for it

[Cabra West]

If they are used for food, then go ahead. If for no other reason but the fur trade, then no, I dint see the reason for it

To be honest, I never got that particular argument.
Assuming we're talking about the developed world, meat is no more necessary for our diets than fur is for our clothes. So why accept that animals are kept and killed for their meat, but not for their skins?

[Murkwood]

Nothing wrong with it.

[Andarro]

If they are used for food, then go ahead. If for no other reason but the fur trade, then no, I dint see the reason for it

To be honest, I never got that particular argument.
Assuming we're talking about the developed world, meat is no more necessary for our diets than fur is for our clothes. So why accept that animals are kept and killed for their meat, but not for their skins?

I have no problem with either one, in fact I say if you are going to go through the trouble of killing an animal to take its skin, then you might as well take the meat also....unless the animal is not edible.

[Cabra West]

To be honest, I never got that particular argument.
Assuming we're talking about the developed world, meat is no more necessary for our diets than fur is for our clothes. So why accept that animals are kept and killed for their meat, but not for their skins?

I have no problem with either one, in fact I say if you are going to go through the trouble of killing an animal to take its skin, then you might as well take the meat also....unless the animal is not edible.

I suppose it can always be used for pet food.

As I said, the only issue I have on the whole subject is the way the animals are treated and kept while alive.

[Sociobiology]

Ah yes the big blown out of proportion reply. Notice I said "modern" world. Tribes aren't considered modern unless they live within the modern nations. As a majority of earth's humans, I think fur clothing isn't needed. Inuits and Samoyeds account for a small minority and given the climate they live in, they should be able to have fur clothing.

Humans have always used animal material for clothing.

What do you think the warmest modern winter jackets have inside? Fiberglass?

down actually. as long as it is dry.

but I wouldn't give up leather gloves for a stack of gold.
of course it may be a moot point soon,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXq1ml6B1E

[Benuty]

This is the same nation that spouted on about chemtrails isn't it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is the same nation that spouted on about chemtrails isn't it?

Sadly, no. Otherwise I'd have made a witty comment about it.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

Mocking the animals? lolwut? What's your opinion on wool then? Are my winter socks mocking sheep?

You don't even begin to see how ridiculous you sound, do you?

Mocking the environment, the earth by wearing fur. Animals are supposed to only be eaten, preserved, or tamed. Not wearing in the modern day.

Wool is different than dog fur, Blazey.

Who are you to decide what animals are to be used for? I don't recall there ever being a book of conduct written by the creatures of the earth. How is wearing an animal any different than eating it?

[Sin and Debauchery]

^ How exactly does this have anything to do with animals?

I was not aware that any sort of animal was 'oppressed' or 'discriminated' against; it would seem this is a very difficult concept considering that human beings have a 'conscience' and animals do not.

This post was made so that I could address what he/she was advocating for. He/she thought it was "totalitarian" to restrict anything, no matter how anti-environment.

The idea that we cannot be "anti-environment" is totalitarian, it's you saying that we have to accept something that you believe it is THE truth. I don't think you understand the concept of liberty, pure and simple.

Well, if one day i decide to wear a fur t-shirt that says "BURN ALL TREES AND IMPALE ALL SQUIRRELS!", it's my choice to do it, and THAT is liberty.

[The Scientific States]

I don't really see the point of fur clothing, and I would never wear it, but we shouldn't ban it.

[The Nation of Pen Island]

Shouldn't be banned. As long as the animal isn't being tortured 24/7, isn't suffering a long agonizing death, and the meat is put to good use, I don't care. (Also I am not part of PETA. I eat meat and am against everything that they do.)