An argument that I often see come up with issues like gay marriage and pornography is that if you don't agree with it, you simply don't have to partake
( Read more... )
yea but then there is reality. i don't see how anyone can be harmed by it. it's like how people down here in the south say that interracial marriage hurts the kids. no, it's the racist pricks and all their racist actions and words that hurts the kids.
You may not see it, but they definitely do. They cite bullshit research that says kids are likely to do X and Y if they are brought up in households with same sex parents, and then you have the crazies who think they are causing the natural disasters.
Fur is different to gay marriage, since gay marriage doesn't involve harm to anyone or anything, I don't think the two things are comparable. Pornography is somewhere in the middle, depending on consent and the type of pornography in question. Personally I don't feel strongly enough about fur to protest, though I choose not to wear it, but I can empathise with anti-fur protestors. I cannot empathise with anti-homosexuality protestors.
People (including myself) are anti-fur because it involves murdering an animal for no reason other than thinking its fur is pretty. That's not at all the same as gay marriage or normal pornography, which doesn't involve anyone except the couple in question.
I'll put it out there, since I asked the question to begin with, I'm neither anti or pro fur. I've never taken a stance.
With that set said and set aside, there are reasons for using fur other than it looking pretty, such as that it's incredibly warm. Lining jackets with goose down (not fur, but same concept) makes for a very warm jacket, which is essential in very cold places during the winter. Synthetic alternatives are certainly available, and less costly.. But what inspired me to ask this was Canada Goose jackets, which use "a blend of goose and duck down to ensure warmth, it also utilizes coyote fur on the hoods." They're certainly seen in urban areas as a trendy and fashionable, but I doubt the little bit of fur on the lining of the hood is what pushes people to buy them. Those jackets are noted for being used in extremely cold locations, like Antarctica.
.. my point is, it looking pretty isn't the *only* reason for its use, and is the use of fur for practical and not superficial purposes justifiable or excusable?
I'm sorry, but... well, I still can't justify its use, whether it's warm or not. I'm opposed to the idea of an animal dying and suffering (because, believe me, most animals on fur farms do not die quickly since such methods might make their fur dirty) simply because a human wants it on their clothing. I've seen how the fur is harvested, and... well, I personally don't believe that it's worth the cost.
Again, fur is a different ballpark than gay marriage or porn. One require another creature to die. The other does not.
I asked this question below, and perhaps I should have asked something like this instead altogether, but nevertheless...
If because animals are hurt by the removal of fur (or by how they're trapped), is harassing those who do wear fur (name-calling, for example) just as wrong as those who do the same in the name of anti-gay-rights? Is one justified but not the other?
I'm not against fur. I have lived in northern climates and think there is a very good time and place to wear furs. That said, I'm generally against the wearing of fur for non-practical reasons; I can't imagine anybody living in California has an excuse. Obviously there can be harm involved, and I don't advocate that. I'm not sure how this equates to the issue of gay rights, though. Of course I'm for gay rights, but probably not for the same reasons as for fur in -40 temperatures. I'm not against applying the "don't do what you disagree with" logic to either, though.
Gay rights was perhaps a poor example to give, with how complex each issue can be, but simply one that came to mind. I'm not trying to equate one with the other, but compare similarities in the disagreement for each and how those who disagree behave in relation with those who are for gay rights/wearing fur. ...if that makes sense. :)
"I'm not against fur. I have lived in northern climates and think there is a very good time and place to wear furs. That said, I'm generally against the wearing of fur for non-practical reasons; I can't imagine anybody living in California has an excuse. Obviously there can be harm involved, and I don't advocate that. "
I'm of mostly the same opinion here. I'm in Southern Ontario, and while it does get cold during the winter, it isn't anywhere near as frigid as it is in Northern Ontario, the prairies, or Antarctica. Jackets with goose-down and a fur hood-lining are a trendy item, but it doesn't seem that much more advantageous over one with synthetic lining when not in such an extremely cold climate.
Comments 72
see minutes 11 & 12. I've seen those excerpts alone before and was totally disgusted. that alone put me off fur.
i supposed the difference is no one or thing is harmed or tortured for gay marriage or any pornography that isn't a snuff film.
Being against gay marriage is being against equal rights for humanity.
Being against fur is being PRO animal rights and showing some humanity.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
With that set said and set aside, there are reasons for using fur other than it looking pretty, such as that it's incredibly warm. Lining jackets with goose down (not fur, but same concept) makes for a very warm jacket, which is essential in very cold places during the winter. Synthetic alternatives are certainly available, and less costly.. But what inspired me to ask this was Canada Goose jackets, which use "a blend of goose and duck down to ensure warmth, it also utilizes coyote fur on the hoods." They're certainly seen in urban areas as a trendy and fashionable, but I doubt the little bit of fur on the lining of the hood is what pushes people to buy them. Those jackets are noted for being used in extremely cold locations, like Antarctica.
.. my point is, it looking pretty isn't the *only* reason for its use, and is the use of fur for practical and not superficial purposes justifiable or excusable?
Reply
Again, fur is a different ballpark than gay marriage or porn. One require another creature to die. The other does not.
Reply
If because animals are hurt by the removal of fur (or by how they're trapped), is harassing those who do wear fur (name-calling, for example) just as wrong as those who do the same in the name of anti-gay-rights? Is one justified but not the other?
Reply
Reply
I'm not sure how this equates to the issue of gay rights, though. Of course I'm for gay rights, but probably not for the same reasons as for fur in -40 temperatures. I'm not against applying the "don't do what you disagree with" logic to either, though.
Reply
"I'm not against fur. I have lived in northern climates and think there is a very good time and place to wear furs. That said, I'm generally against the wearing of fur for non-practical reasons; I can't imagine anybody living in California has an excuse. Obviously there can be harm involved, and I don't advocate that. "
I'm of mostly the same opinion here. I'm in Southern Ontario, and while it does get cold during the winter, it isn't anywhere near as frigid as it is in Northern Ontario, the prairies, or Antarctica. Jackets with goose-down and a fur hood-lining are a trendy item, but it doesn't seem that much more advantageous over one with synthetic lining when not in such an extremely cold climate.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment