Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll resurrect my previous question to anyone secure enough to answer:Nobody finds that hypocritical?
You've got two fur coats. One of the animals was beaten, abused and everything else, right? The other was treated with every bit of love, care and attention.
What difference does it make? They're now dead and skinned.
I saw a video of an animal getting skinned alive for fur, I tried to post it here but it wasn't suitable apparantly. I can guarantee more or less that anyone considering wearing fur would easily be turned away if they saw it.
If Ed Gein treated girls right and killed them swiftly, would it matter that he later made body suits of their genitals and skin then? Or would it only be wrong if they suffered? Because it seems that if the actions toward the subject are humane, then anything committed post-death is ok.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll resurrect my previous question to anyone secure enough to answer:Nobody finds that hypocritical?
You've got two fur coats. One of the animals was beaten, abused and everything else, right? The other was treated with every bit of love, care and attention.
What difference does it make? They're now dead and skinned.
I saw a video of an animal getting skinned alive for fur, I tried to post it here but it wasn't suitable apparantly. I can guarantee more or less that anyone considering wearing fur would easily be turned away if they saw it.
If Ed Gein treated girls right and killed them swiftly, would it matter that he later made body suits of their genitals and skin then? Or would it only be wrong if they suffered? Because it seems that if the actions toward the subject are humane, then anything committed post-death is ok.
-AC
So you find it hard to grasp that people may choose to wear leather or fur, or choose to eat meat, yet they also would rather that animals don't suffer prior to the point of termination for such a purpose?
You can be humane and still wear leather and eat meat. It is possible. I used to live in the far north. I would hunt moose and caribou for meat. I did not shoot an animal unless I was sure it would be a clean kill and that it would suffer as little as possible.
And really, enough with the cannibalism and references to deviant behaviour such as acts perpetrated by Ed Gein.
It depends.
If you're wearing fur collected by poachers, you are supporting the poaching industry. This is wrong; nobody should be going after ostrich eggs.
If you're wearing fur from animals who were beaten and brutally killed ( like in AC's video), you are supporting that practice. This is wrong.
If you're wearing fur from animals who were treated well and humanely killed, you are supporting this industry. Though I think that the practice is...detestable--killing animals for vanity versus killing them for consumption--I don't think it is wrong, not in the way I find certain social issues to be wrong.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Does it not counter any previous point as to how they were treated if they're dead anyway? I've notice many people saying "If they were treated humanely it's ok".They could live in the presidential suite of the New York Hilton and drink nothing but golden milk, doesn't change the fact that they will be killed for the sole purpose of you wearing or using their skin. Similar to eating.
They're gonna be killed and eaten. They're not gonna be forced to live with being beaten. It almost seems scary to think that people are saying it's not ok to beat animals but it's ok to treat them humanely, kill them and wear their skin.
-AC
supply and demand perhaps?
if you buy a fur which originated from a farm in which the animals were treated with cruelty, you promote their business and thus they torture more animals for more fur because of the added demand you created. if you buy from one which is not so cruel (i think its all barbarric and unnecessary, but for the sake of argument) then you promote their business and reduce the demand for the other.
and as for your last post, i dont see whats so diffucult to understand. just see things from the animal's perspective. you know you're going to live for a short time and then be killed, after which your skin will be used for...well doesnt matter. anyway, you're given a choice to either spend your time in existence in pain and suffering and then get skinned alive. or you can just live a short yet comfortable life and have your lights put out quick and painless.
are you saying you wouldnt care which would be your fate, because you're going to die anyway?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you find it hard to grasp that people may choose to wear leather or fur, or choose to eat meat, yet they also would rather that animals don't suffer prior to the point of termination for such a purpose?You can be humane and still wear leather and eat meat. It is possible. I used to live in the far north. I would hunt moose and caribou for meat. I did not shoot an animal unless I was sure it would be a clean kill and that it would suffer as little as possible.
No, I don't find that hard to grasp. Let's go and look at the point that I made. That being: I have NO problem whether you wanna eat meat or not, wear leather or not. I was genuinely asking why people feel they the humane action is relevent when the end is that it ends up on the same plate anyway.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
And really, enough with the cannibalism and references to deviant behaviour such as acts perpetrated by Ed Gein.
Why? It's an example. Unless it's giving you cancer that I'm unaware off, I'll do as I please.
PVS: No not by any means. As KharmaDog missed my point, it was me just asking out of curiousity.
I don't see the logic behind "It was treated right so I don't mind that it was skinned and I'm wearing it." Think about it, if you are into wearing the skins and fruits of other animals, how they are killed shouldn't really lead to any different consequence. Not saying you have to not care that the animal was mistreated, just that it doesn't matter in the end does it? They're both dead and skinned.
-AC
im still not sure what your getting at.
are you saying i shouldnt be concerned with the manner (suffering or not) that it is killed? if so i strongly disagree.
but this is all a digression from my true belief: its just wrong
to kill many animals just so you can have a coat is...kinda evil i think.
its a waste of life. take chinchillas for example. it can take up and even over 100 chinchillas to make ONE COAT. 100 lives lost so some pampered b1tch can feel luxurious.
im not against the killing of animals, im against the waste of life.
i have a leather jacket and wear it with a clean conscious. the cow it
came from made several coats/shoes/whatever, and also was used to give us food, which is necessary. (and shut up vegans. some of us need to eat meat. if you want to be undernourished and look like pale pastey stick figures thats your gig, not mine) so, the jacket is a biproduct. if that leather was not in demand, the cow would have met the same end. so why waste it?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, I don't find that hard to grasp. Let's go and look at the point that I made. That being: I have NO problem whether you wanna eat meat or not, wear leather or not. I was genuinely asking why people feel they the humane action is relevent when the end is that it ends up on the same plate anyway.
Perhaps because one does not necessarily wish to torture an animal even though they plan to use it as a resource.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why? It's an example. Unless it's giving you cancer that I'm unaware off, I'll do as I please.
No thanks, had cancer already and it sucked. As for your fascination with eating people or wearing their skin, they are examples that you have used in more than one thread. I don't know whether it's because you are going for the dramatics or because they are personal fetishes, either way their tiresome, and your "I'll do as I please" reasoning is quite mature.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
PVS: No not by any means. As KharmaDog missed my point, it was me just asking out of curiousity.
and me giving you an answer.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't see the logic behind "It was treated right so I don't mind that it was skinned and I'm wearing it." Think about it, if you are into wearing the skins and fruits of other animals, how they are killed shouldn't really lead to any different consequence. Not saying you have to not care that the animal was mistreated, just that it doesn't matter in the end does it? They're both dead and skinned.
-AC
Well, it obviously matters to many people. Just because you use a resource does not mean you have to abuse that resource. Generally anyone who grew up around nature feels a connection to nature. You may use natures' resources, but the abuse of it is unpalatable.
Firstly, not all vegans are pale, pasty stick figures that are undernourished. I know many vegans who are incredibly healthy and have more strength than any meat eaters I have ever known. That's a common myth that needs to be eradicated.
But yes, that is my point. If you make the conscious decision to wear the skin of another animal, concern of how it was treated is fine, of course. I just don't see why it would stop certain people wearing it. Being the best treated animal in a slaughter house is like being the richest person in the graveyard.
-AC
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Perhaps because one does not necessarily wish to torture an animal even though they plan to use it as a resource.
Yeah, and that's fine. I'm just asking why some people would cease the use of animal resources depending on death of the animal when death is the end result. Not saying anyone is wrong for doing anything.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
No thanks, had cancer already and it sucked. As for your fascination with eating people or wearing their skin, they are examples that you have used in more than one thread. I don't know whether it's because you are going for the dramatics or because they are personal fetishes, either way their tiresome, and your "I'll do as I please" reasoning is quite mature.
Please, for the good of humanity, don't raise the dramatics argument again. It's seriously done and dusted. No, seriously it is. You are the one making it a huge enough deal to assume why I say things, when it's really unneeded. If you wanna discuss, yet again, how you believe my mannerisms to be, PM me. I've had enough of that BS to last me a lifetime. I'll not indulge your irrelevent needs any further with regards to this.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Well, it obviously matters to many people. Just because you use a resource does not mean you have to abuse that resource. Generally anyone who grew up around nature feels a connection to nature. You may use natures' resources, but the abuse of it is unpalatable.
Well there you go then, thanks for answering my question from your point of view.
Was the rest needed? No. Let's learn from this.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fun to continually make pointless, false and overly serious claims? Boy, your birthday parties must be a blast.(This too was meant in humour. Pop another chill pill before you reply).
-AC
Ever notice how often you have to stipulate when you are trying to be humourous? That either means that it wasn't meant to be funny in the first place, or that so much of your humour has offended others, or found to be not funny that now you feel the need to express when you are trying to be comedic.
Not a dig, just an observation, don't get your knickers in a twist.
(Chill pill popped actually it was a tic tac and now I have super fresh & minty breath)