Fur Clothing

[Corrian]

If you're someone who's just like, a celebrity wearing a fur coat or something with fur on it for the sake of fashion, I instantly think of you as a douche. But depending how it is used, I'm not all that against it, but I'm certainly not a supporter of it and I would never wear fur clothes myself. At least not going out of my way to buy it.

[Florys]

Although I don't own any myself, I don't think simply having available alternatives is grounds to have any product banned, I mean we've had synthetic meat/protein produce for years and I don't see abattoirs shutting down.

[Kiruri]

As someone who has worn both natural and synthetic fur clothing due to temperatures in Montana reaching 'Fucking unbelievably cold' on both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scale, I can honestly say there is quite a difference between the two. Real fur is a lot warmer.

Animals are here to be utilized by humanity. I take no issue with humane treatment or conservation, in fact I support both, but it is not cruel to kill an animal for its fur anymore than it is to kill them for their meat.

Are there not alternatives to fur that can keep you just as warm?

As far as I'm aware, real fur keeps you warmer than faux. But to be frank, I've never seen those scientists in the polar regions wear fur, nor have I seen mountaineers use fur, I've only seen them use synthetic.

[Ustasha]

Many would disagree.

Yeah, they tend to do that. And I remind them that the money they donate to PETA or whoever would be better spent helping humans. It's all about priorities.

[Corrian]

As long as the animals aren't endangered, who cares? They're not sentient. Let's focus on man's inhumanity to man, and the billions of people on this planet who need more food and better treatment before we worry about animals.

No. I'll focus on what I feel most important to me, thanks.

[Vicious Debaters]

I don't like banning stuff.

But I really like the social consensus we have that people who wear fur are assholes- this keeps the sale of fur goods down, while not banning anything.

[Intelectual Atheists]

Fur is a luxury item that harms no one

Other than the animals that get killed because of it, right?

Seriosly though, I find fur clothing to be just fine, I still would rather wear cotton, silk or whatever else though.

[Corrian]

Yeah, they tend to do that. And I remind them that the money they donate to PETA or whoever would be better spent helping humans. It's all about priorities.

Yes, and some of us have different priorities than you.

I don't like banning stuff.

Why? Banning stuff helps progress society! Like inefficient lightbulbs.

[MERIZoC]

Many would disagree.

Yeah, they tend to do that. And I remind them that the money they donate to PETA or whoever would be better spent helping humans. It's all about priorities.

I'm pretty sure PETA doesn't have upwards of 1.5 billion donors.

[Kiruri]

Many would disagree.

Yeah, they tend to do that. And I remind them that the money they donate to PETA or whoever would be better spent helping humans. It's all about priorities.

As if humanity couldn't tackle more than one "problem" at a time...

[Cannerstown]

I wonder if people would remain so eager to allow the fashion of fur clothing to continue if it were, say, kitten fur. An entire industry of slaughtering kittens for their fur - just like dwarf fortress! Pointlessly cruel, you say? No application, you say? What makes it any better to be another animal? Unless you're hunting and use every part of the animal, it's just a waste.

Still down with it. In fact, more down with it. How do humane society clinics and such dispose of animals they put down? I know those with a home are sent home with the families (sometimes) but what do they do to dispose of them?

Seems like it'd be a good business opportunity to take the bodies off their hands (could even charge them for it) and then use them for fur/meat.

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself. Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Still down with it. In fact, more down with it. How do humane society clinics and such dispose of animals they put down? I know those with a home are sent home with the families (sometimes) but what do they do to dispose of them?

Seems like it'd be a good business opportunity to take the bodies off their hands (could even charge them for it) and then use them for fur/meat.

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay (1)? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry (2)? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself (3). Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you (4)?

1) Sure. That's clearly what I'm saying. Your powers of critical analysis are flawless.
2) Well, provided it's a tasteful tapestry, I suppose.
3) Nope. It's obvious I'm a rabid serial-killer in the making.
4) Of course not. It is obvious we should use them for food and energy production via combustion. It is a modest proposal, but one everyone will obviously see the benefits of.

[Corrian]

As if humanity couldn't tackle more than one "problem" at a time...

I know, shocking concept people don't seem to know how to grasp.

Also one thing people don't seem to grasp is that others have different priorities than them. Sorry that I prioritize on animals being treated right over humans. It's not like I don't also want to work towards world hunger problems and human rights...But it isn't my first priority.

[Cannerstown]

What a glorious and advanced race we must be to put the rights of our personal fashion choice above that of sentient beings.
*Slow clap

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay (1)? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry (2)? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself (3). Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you (4)?

1) Sure. That's clearly what I'm saying. Your powers of critical analysis are flawless.
2) Well, provided it's a tasteful tapestry, I suppose.
3) Nope. It's obvious I'm a rabid serial-killer in the making.
4) Of course not. It is obvious we should use them for food and energy production via combustion. It is a modest proposal, but one everyone will obviously see the benefits of.

And you win the Modest Proposal award. Jonathon Swift smiles on you from heaven.

[Imperializt Russia]

Still down with it. In fact, more down with it. How do humane society clinics and such dispose of animals they put down? I know those with a home are sent home with the families (sometimes) but what do they do to dispose of them?

Seems like it'd be a good business opportunity to take the bodies off their hands (could even charge them for it) and then use them for fur/meat.

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself. Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you?

So long as you don't kill the orphan, since that's murder.
Books were frequently bound with human flesh in days not-that-long-gone-by.

[Vicious Debaters]

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself. Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you?

Hrm.

I personally think that animals are a degree less intelligent and aren't really human or deserving the rights of a full human. I think we should have the right to consume their flesh; when it comes to using their fur, I'd support any use that has a justified purpose and isn't wasteful. So if someone wanted to kill and skin a deer, say, because they're making a piece of historical replica or doing something artistic I'd support it. As a piece of luxury I'm more on the fence about it but it should still be legal (although discouraged).

I think that in exchange for the right to exercise dominion over them we should protect their species existence and their environment. We should make sure they can live humanely and in the best circumstances we can. I recognize that we don't treat these animals humanely often or preserve their environment as we should: I think this is a dire breach of the contract (so-to-speak) and something we should stop.

[Ethel mermania]

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?

they dont want to be killed to be eat either. may as well use their skins for a really nice jacket.

[Jolie Davis]

If you're someone who's just like, a celebrity wearing a fur coat or something with fur on it for the sake of fashion, I instantly think of you as a douche. But depending how it is used, I'm not all that against it, but I'm certainly not a supporter of it and I would never wear fur clothes myself. At least not going out of my way to buy it.

he has to be right

[Dixie]

As long as the animals aren't endangered, who cares? They're not sentient. Let's focus on man's inhumanity to man, and the billions of people on this planet who need more food and better treatment before we worry about animals.

Many would disagree.

That only makes the deed all the sweeter.

Just kiddin'.

[Krasivovia]

What a glorious and advanced race we must be to put the rights of our personal fashion choice above that of sentient beings.
*Slow clap

Why do we humans always have to take the moral high ground? If a herd of wolves slaughter a human being it is okay, but God forbid a bunch of humans should track down a wolf and kill it for its fur. Bunch of nonsense if you ask me, especially seeing as how humans are on the same level as other animals according to some.

[Cannerstown]

So if someone kills somebody who poses no threat to them and makes use of the dead body this is okay (1)? Like say I like the taste of human flesh is it okay to kill an orphan if I use the skin for tapestry (2)? Do you as a living breathing being care not for the interests and care of those you consider lesser than yourself (3). Would you just not care for the lame the sick and dying because they are not as smart or influential as you (4)?

1) Sure. That's clearly what I'm saying. Your powers of critical analysis are flawless.
2) Well, provided it's a tasteful tapestry, I suppose.
3) Nope. It's obvious I'm a rabid serial-killer in the making.
4) Of course not. It is obvious we should use them for food and energy production via combustion. It is a modest proposal, but one everyone will obviously see the benefits of.

What has a mink ever done to you? I see no benefits in the moral advancement of humans coming from slaughter and frankly the idea of burning dead bodies is unsavory unless a your like me and love to savor the savory child meat. Sarcastic tone

[Jolie Davis]

So I ask: Is it even needed anymore?

Is anything needed? Really, barring sort of clean water (you can boil it) and something, anything to eat we really do not NEED anything.

Should we reduce or increase our fur clothing industry?

Honestly, that I feel should be handled by the market. Yes, I am a communist but you know what. Fur is a luxury item that harms no one and makes some people happy. So if enough people want it I say let them have fur.

Is it even applicable to the modern world?

How do you measure applicability?

why use bear fur when we have dog fur

[Dixie]

What a glorious and advanced race we must be to put the rights of our personal fashion choice above that of sentient beings.
*Slow clap

Be thankful you probably won't be present when we encounter alien life, because if we can't f*ck it we'll probably be eating and wearing it.

[Parhe]

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?

For many nations in the world it isn't needed, especially in the way that it is necessary for survival. I don't think we have any need to increase our fur clothing industry in the foreseeable future but also no reason to decrease it outside of moral reasons. Maybe environmentally but then we could just switch to farmed animals or those that aren't endangered (maybe such as invasive species). Not sure what you mean by applicable. If you mean relevant, well, it is relevant enough in some way for it to be a topic for many people to discuss and take seriously. If by "appropriate" you mean, well, I suppose it depends. I am not decided on it, although I believe as long as it is maintainable it is okay to keep around.