View Full Version : Fur Back in Fashion?
I hope not, but there's always the chance someone will think there's nothing wrong in wearing it:
http://style.uk.msn.com/fashionandbeauty/whatshot/article.aspx?cp-documentid=10111609&ocid=today
The article could be quite distressing to read for some people - this is what I could quote:
"Death, when it comes, is brutal. Animals are dispatched in a way designed first and foremost to protect their pelts from damage: gassing, neck-breaking, poisoning and electrocution via the mouth or genitals are four of the most common methods.
And this is at regulated fur farms. In China, the biggest exporter of pelts in the world, fur farming is completely unregulated. Here animals are routinely skinned alive because it is thought to make the pelt softer, is considered easier to do and uses fewer resources than killing humanely."
I think it's shameful that some people can so easily put aside their empathy for other living things simply for the sake of "fashion".
Flibster
18-10-2008, 00:44
This is probably going to sound odd...
If the meat was eaten would fur be acceptable? We eat cows and use their skin - fair enough I suppose.
If so, they can ship some of the skinned mink to me and I'll give it a go.
Piggymon
18-10-2008, 09:57
I won't open that link. The last time I read something like that and saw pictures it haunted me for days :(
I think the problem is the number one the inhumane way the animals are killed and number two the rest of the animal is totally wasted.
If they were killed in a humane way and the meat was also used I don't think I would have a problem with it.
Matblack
18-10-2008, 10:55
Disgusting, a lot of people made a big push in the 90s to get fur out of the fashion industry but since the pressure has come off and its crept back. It is without a doubt totally wrong to kill an (often rare and endangered) animal purely for a human to wear its beautiful pelt the coat always looks better on the animal. If you are going to kill an animal (and as an omnivore I am not against this) then you should use as much of the creature as possible and kill in a humane way.
If you want to wear fur then you should be prepared to kill for it
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8xo8BMSxQpo&feature=related
MB
Matblack
18-10-2008, 11:06
Little anti fur game for you
http://www.bloodyburberry.com/features/fur_fighters/index.asp
Not scary unpleasant or offensive :)
MB
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, if people eat the meat and they utilise the remains to make coats or what not I don't get why it's such a big deal?
However I'm totally against killing an animal (and vehemently so a near extinct one) purely for fur or leather.
i.e. Whaling - big bug bear of mine.
I didn't know they farmed Chinchilla fur :(
BB x
Matblack
18-10-2008, 11:39
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, if people eat the meat and they utilise the remains to make coats or what not I don't get why it's such a big deal?
It isn't, not for me anyway, the issue is humane living and dying conditions and utilisation of the whole animal where possible
MB
It isn't, not for me anyway, the issue is humane living and dying conditions and utilisation of the whole animal where possible
MB
Absolutely agreed.
SidewinderINC
18-10-2008, 12:24
It isn't, not for me anyway, the issue is humane living and dying conditions and utilisation of the whole animal where possible
MB
Is there a difference between these two scenarios
Bred for food & we use the fur/hide as a side product
Bred for the fur/hide & we eat the meat as a side product
?
I don't see a difference tbh as long as it's all used as much as possible. Ultimately the animal will lose it's life.
This is probably going to sound odd...
If the meat was eaten would fur be acceptable? We eat cows and use their skin - fair enough I suppose.
If so, they can ship some of the skinned mink to me and I'll give it a go.
I think it would be more acceptable if the meat was used but the animals would have to be treated humanely as well. IMO there's also a distinction between killing animals for their meat and killing them for their fur, certainly in the Western world anyway and there's also the question of how *many* animals have to die for a simple coat which someone could simply choose not to buy. For a coat made of Chinchilla fur it takes at least 100 of the animals to be slaughtered :(
Piggymon
18-10-2008, 13:03
100 ? Oh my god :(
Matblack
18-10-2008, 13:08
Have you seen the size of a chinchilla? You couldn't make a tiny furry jockstrap out of just one!
Here's one
http://simonslab.neurobio.pitt.edu/barrels/chinchilla.jpg
and here's 100 of his friends
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/12/madonnaXP_228x449.jpg
At least they got to hang out with Madslag for a day :)
MB
Piggymon
18-10-2008, 13:20
Aww poor little things :(
I'd probably only need 50 for a coat though :p
Regardless of the animal rights issue, I don't even think fur coats etc look nice.
For a coat made of Chinchilla fur it takes at least 100 of the animals to be slaughtered :(
Poor little things :( I love chinchillas.. the one I held last week at the pet farm was sooo soft, but he's a little creature with a beating heart and cute as a pie! So so not right! :(
Regardless of the animal rights issue, I don't even think fur coats etc look nice.
Nah I can't see the attraction either.. :/ must be more of a status symbol I guess and linings of bags... wth?!
I don't like Madonna anymore :(
BB x
...but he's a little creature with a beating heart
That's eactly it, that's why it's just not right. I understand our place at the top of the food chain, that we eat other creatures and so on, but there's a line at which what's natural and what's reasonable no longer applies. I just think killing over a hundred such creatures just to make a simple coat can't be justified. It just seems like a complete disregard for life, much like using dynamite in a pond to catch a single fish. I wonder what such people must be thinking to consider a single coat actually worth the killing and skinning of so many animals. There's a parallel to eating meat as well - if I was offered foie gras, veal, battery-farmed eggs or any other food produced without due regard to the animal's welfare, I'd refuse.
semi-pro waster
18-10-2008, 18:17
I'm not in favour of people wearing fur really, I don't think it looks particularly good and it simply isn't necessary but if animals must be bred to be used for fur then ideally I'd prefer for as much of the meat to be used as possible to minimise unnecessary wastage. Additionally the killing should be done in the most humane way possible, I simply don't buy into the toss spouted about "it makes the fur softer to skin them alive", bite me, the difference will be negligible if it exists and even then it still wouldn't be even remotely a valid excuse for additional cruelty.
I wonder what such people must be thinking to consider a single coat actually worth the killing and skinning of so many animals. There's a parallel to eating meat as well - if I was offered foie gras, veal, battery-farmed eggs or any other food produced without due regard to the animal's welfare, I'd refuse.
I suppose it is similar to food though...
If I wear a fur coat, I dont think of the animals it came from.
The same as if I eat a bacon sandwich or a pork chop, I dont think of the pigs it came from, tommorow, I will quite happily eat my roast lamb without thinking of little fluffy lambs hopping over hedges etc.
I simply don't buy into the toss spouted about "it makes the fur softer to skin them alive", bite me, the difference will be negligible if it exists and even then it still wouldn't be even remotely a valid excuse for additional cruelty.
I fully agree. It's shocking that they would have so little concern for the animal that they'd do such a thing. It makes me wonder how people can have so little empathy for a living creature. Do they really think they're that different to human beings? Do they think an animal's suffering is any less intense or unbearable than a human's? Perhaps if people learned empathy for animals, rather than viewing them as a mere convenience, only on the planet for our utility, it'd be the first step to a kinder world.
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, the whole breeding animals for a purpose thing has never worried me at all and I'm certainly not bothered by the thought of animals suffering.
I'm not interested in wearing fur though, but if I lived somewhere which was cold enough that it'd be worthwhile then I'd wear whatever kept me warm, if that happened to be animal fur then yes, I'd wear it.
Makes me a heartless bastard? Sorry, but *shrug*
...I'm certainly not bothered by the thought of animals suffering.
What about people?
Do you have any pets?
Flibster
19-10-2008, 10:56
Feek has put it so much better than I ever could.
I'd still eat the meat myself though. if someone offered me a fox burger or badger kebab I'd still have to give it a try.
I have no problem with feeling compassion for people but I find it very strange that there are many in this world who appear to care more for animals than they do for their fellow human.
No, I don't have any pets.
RE: Foie gras - I know how it's produced, but I don't care, I like it and will continue to buy it.
Although farming purely for fur alone seems daft and unecessary to me, I can't help but be more inclined towards the Feek way of thinking.
semi-pro waster
19-10-2008, 12:21
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, the whole breeding animals for a purpose thing has never worried me at all and I'm certainly not bothered by the thought of animals suffering.
I'm not interested in wearing fur though, but if I lived somewhere which was cold enough that it'd be worthwhile then I'd wear whatever kept me warm, if that happened to be animal fur then yes, I'd wear it.
Makes me a heartless bastard? Sorry, but *shrug*
Having met you I wouldn't call you a heartless bastard but I don't think that animals should be left to suffer unnecessarily either (and I suspect you don't). Synthetic fabrics have moved on immensely which renders the usefulness of fur rather less than it once was, I'd guess many people still chose it because of historical reasons rather than a full evaluation of the relative merits.
I have no problem with feeling compassion for people but I find it very strange that there are many in this world who appear to care more for animals than they do for their fellow human.
No, I don't have any pets.
I don't care more for animals than for humans (although not forgetting that humans are animals too) but sometimes I wonder why I care for my fellow man at all. People are capable of the most inexcusable cruelties towards each other and it seems somehow worse because they could and should know better - if a cat toys with a mouse it doesn't necessarily realise the distress it causes, if someone tortures another person then they should know full and well what that does, if they don't realise that then they shouldn't be let loose with anything more dangerous than a crayon.
At the risk of sounding glib you might feel different if you had a pet, people naturally tend to anthropomorphise them which isn't entirely rational but it is difficult to avoid. Animals have different personalities and characteristics, the more time you spend with them the more you notice it.
I have no problem with feeling compassion for people but I find it very strange that there are many in this world who appear to care more for animals than they do for their fellow human..
I find it odd that you can differentiate so absolutely between people and animals. Do you see no parallels between them? Is suffering not the same regardless of species?
Incidentally, for me it's not about caring more for animals than humans. However, in the case of animals, they can't speak for themselves and the world has many people who express the same lack of compassion and concern for their welfare as you do. That's why animal charities exist, to protect them from people like you - no offence :)
No, I don't have any pets.
Did you have any as a kid? I just find it very unusual for someone to express no concern at all for the suffering of sentient creatures.
I'm sure that if I still owned any pets then I'd feel differently about them, but that's because I'd know them and it would be my responsibility to look after them. Last year I was thinking about a mutt and if I'd got one, it would have been looked after and treated properly.
I really don't care about animals that are bred for a purpose though. The thought of battery hens for example doesn't bother me in the slightest, neither does the idea of raising animals for their fur. I really don't care about them. I know full well how they're treated but it just doesn't bother me. Will mentioned Foie gras and I'm the same as him, I know exactly how it's produced but it tastes great and I have no problems with buying it and eating it.
Actually, thinking about this further, I hope fur does come back into fashion. Mrs. Feek has a fur coat which she's had in a wardrobe for years and years that was bought for her by a previous boyfriend and she'd love to sell it for some cash. It's a good one so it'd be worth a good few quid for her.
...
I find your lack of empathy for other animals (which we all are), disturbing ;)
I find it odd that you can differentiate so absolutely between people and animals. Do you see no parallels between them? Is suffering not the same regardless of species?
Incidentally, for me it's not about caring more for animals than humans. However, in the case of animals, they can't speak for themselves and the world has many people who express the same lack of compassion and concern for their welfare as you do. That's why animal charities exist, to protect them from people like you - no offence :)
Did you have any as a kid? I just find it very unusual for someone to express no concern at all for the suffering of sentient creatures.
No offence taken. I don't go around worrying sheep or poking hens with sticks, animals don't need protecting from me because I don't go out of my way to cause them distress. It's well known that I shoot, but I don't shoot animals and never have hunted, it has no appeal to me.
We had family pets when I was a kid, they were treated kindly. I just don't give a hoot about animals intensively farmed for a specific purpose and I suspect that the average man on the street is the same.
Drag out all the surveys you like that say different but I'd put money on the fact that if you ask someone what they think about intensive animal rearing and they'd say it's bad purely because that's what they are now 'expected' to say. Survey people with guaranteed anonymity and non biased or leading questions and I think the majority wouldn't give a toss about animal welfare.
I find your lack of empathy for other animals (which we all are), disturbing ;)
You know full well I'm talking about non humans.
Piggymon
19-10-2008, 15:42
I am a meat eater and always will be but I would still prefer it if my meat and eggs came from an animal which wasn't treated inhumanly.
I always buy free range eggs and wherever possible free range chicken.
Just read up about Foie Gras and I personally find the thought of force feeding an animal disgusting.
Yes we are the top of the food chain, yes we breed animals for food but WE are the supposed intelligent beings who should be treating our food sources with respect and compassion.
I will buy free range because a) it tastes better and b) because I believe that an unhappy animal is less likely to have good nutrients and carry more fat (actually it's been proven). For me it's purely from a nutritional point of view that I care how the animals are treated. Unnecessary cruelty, i.e. just kicking an animal for the sake of it, is somewhat off - just like bullying in general, however breeding/raising them for a purpose to be is completely different and frankly I don't feel that strongly about it.
I will still keep eating meat (but good quality produce) and will still eat foie gras, and happily pay over the odds for it. My gluttony affects only me IMO.
Dymetrie
19-10-2008, 23:34
I'm actually with Feek on this one.
Yes I find the way in which some animals are bred for fur/skins to be inhumane, but if it wasn't for the fact they were being bred then they wouldn't exist in the same numbers they do now.
I, along with the vast percentage of the population, am an omnivore. This means that along with all the vegetables I eat, I eat meat. This means that I expect other animals to be bred and slaughtered in order for me to eat meat.
Along with this, I wear leather, as much as I can manage to, because it is a durable and insulating material which is a by-product of the meat I eat.
What is the difference between fur and leather? So long as the animal it comes from is being used to its utmost in order to supply clothing and sustenance then what is the problem?
If you're going to single out the fur trade as something to bitch about then why not bitch about whaling, where whales are killed only for their tongues? or for their fats to make soap? or rhinos killed just for their horns? or sharks killed only for their dorsal fins? or the vietnemese eating dogs? Or, for that matter, the millions of chickens, in this country, who are bred and killed just for their meat?
I'm actually with Feek on this one.
What? That the suffering of animals is of no consequence? Do you agree with that?
Dymetrie
20-10-2008, 07:03
What? That the suffering of animals is of no consequence? Do you agree with that?
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, the whole breeding animals for a purpose thing has never worried me at all and I'm certainly not bothered by the thought of animals suffering.
This.
Animals bred for a purpose, that purpose being to feed and clothe people.
Piggymon
20-10-2008, 07:12
And it's ok that the animal is made to suffer for the sake of it's fur ? :/
Dymetrie
20-10-2008, 07:22
And it's ok that the animal is made to suffer for the sake of it's fur ? :/
At what point did either myself or Feek say that?
Not being bothered about something is not the same as condoning it. It's merely indifference.
Piggymon
20-10-2008, 07:30
You said you didn't have a problem with it so to me not having a problem with something is saying it's ok ?
Anyway, I can't believe people could be indifferent to animals suffering in the way that they do when they are bred for fur and skinned alive.
Matblack
20-10-2008, 08:26
At what point did either myself or Feek say that?
Not being bothered about something is not the same as condoning it. It's merely indifference.
I personally don't believe that is true, knowing about something which is wrong and not speaking out IS condoning it.
MB
Matblack
20-10-2008, 08:33
Anyway, I can't believe people could be indifferent to animals suffering in the way that they do when they are bred for fur and skinned alive.
I have to say I am suprised and disapointed too, but if there are people out there making money from killing animals by removing their skin whilst they are still alive they can only do so in a world where many people are in favor or indifferent to is, so maybe I shouldn't be suprised.
I would have hoped that by bringing people up to speed about many of these animals being 'skinned alive' with out being despatched first after spending what lives they do have in conditions which in many cases cause them physical and mental anguish would maybe make people think. But maybe as I say I shouldn't be suprised :(
MB
chumpychops
20-10-2008, 13:01
Creatures higher up the foodchain exploit those lower.
Does a bear have empathy for a fish as it rips its guts out? Does an owl give a **** about a mouse?
Why should we care about what are, at the end of the day, dumb animals?
Matblack
20-10-2008, 13:22
Creatures higher up the foodchain exploit those lower.
Does a bear have empathy for a fish as it rips its guts out? Does an owl give a **** about a mouse?
Why should we care about what are, at the end of the day, dumb animals?
You playing devils advocate or is that genuinely how you feel?
I would say that one of the main thing with sets us apart from other animals is our ability to empathise with the pain of other living things, if that doesn't bother you at all then (like your mum told you) you're special
MB
Why should we care about what are, at the end of the day, dumb animals?
Because we are more than just dumb animals.
As for the discussion in general, I don't have a problem with rearing animals for their food, their skin or any other reason we might need them. But I still think that we do need to care for them whilst they are alive and also make sure they are killed in the most humane way possible. I'll do my best to buy food that is from free range sources if I can but at the same time I'll not go without just because I can't.
Creatures higher up the foodchain exploit those lower.
Does a bear have empathy for a fish as it rips its guts out? Does an owl give a **** about a mouse?
Why should we care about what are, at the end of the day, dumb animals?
I imagine a bear regards a fish as nothing but food but we are not the same as bears. We understand that other creatures suffer pain and not only that but we have empathy for them and each other too. I'm quite sure that there are people out there who have no concern for other people suffering either but it doesn't make it right and I'm absolutely certain that this is not what the human race should aspire to. Indeed, I doubt we stand any chance of survival if our fate is to become creatures with no sense of empathy for the suffering of others.
The suffering of any sentient creature is not something that should be acceptable in a civilised society, IMO.
I imagine a bear regards a fish as nothing but food but we are not the same as bears.
Taking Dyms comment about chickens further, I regard chickens as food, nothing else. Does that make me a bear?
We understand that other creatures suffer pain and not only that but we have empathy for them and each other too.
I understand that animals feel pain, but I don't really care about them.
You may think I'm being obtuse on purpose, but the point that I'm making which you can't understand is simply that I don't give a toss about the living conditions of animals that are bred for a specific purpose (food, fur, whatever), it just doesn't bother me. I am apathetic towards them.
Taking Dyms comment about chickens further, I regard chickens as food, nothing else. Does that make me a bear?.
I don't know what it makes you but I don't think you can claim a bear's lack of empathy for your own. Whether you like it or not, you're a human and that means you're capable of much greater empathy than any other species.
I understand that animals feel pain, but I don't really care about them.
It does seem odd to me that you're like that. It's usually the sort of attitude a child has because, apparently, one of the later emotions to develop is empathy. Not that I think you're childish of course, but perhaps it's something that *may* change with age - of course, I have no idea how old you are :)
I also wonder why it is that women are more likely to have empathy for animals that men.
You may think I'm being obtuse on purpose, but the point that I'm making which you can't understand is simply that I don't give a toss about the living conditions of animals that are bred for a specific purpose (food, fur, whatever), it just doesn't bother me. I am apathetic towards them.
You're right, I really don't understand your lack of concern for them. Following on from that, it surprises me that you don't shoot them as well as you'd think that, having no concern for their welfare, you'd find it enjoyable to shoot them (not that I'm suggesting it!). You're quite the enigma really :D
Ravenlord
20-10-2008, 21:46
As much as I am against killing an animal solely for its fur, it's very easy for the middle-class champagne-sippers to condemn these people as the embodiment of evil, when more often than not they are shanty-dwelling paupers with nothing to their name just trying to provide for themselves and their families. Poverty can bring out the worst in people.
As much as I am against killing an animal solely for its fur, it's very easy for the middle-class champagne-sippers to condemn these people as the embodiment of evil, when more often than not they are shanty-dwelling paupers with nothing to their name just trying to provide for themselves and their families. Poverty can bring out the worst in people.
That's a strange way of putting it. The people condemning it aren't necessarily "middle-class, champagne-sippers" whatever they are though I take your point about people in poverty. However, it's up to the various Governments of all countries to ensure there is adequate legislation to protect animals from such cruelty. It's also up to the individual, the consumer, whether they sip champagne or not, to make an informed choice and reject fur as unnecessary and not worth the terrible suffering it often incurs.
Creatures higher up the foodchain exploit those lower.
Does a bear have empathy for a fish as it rips its guts out? Does an owl give a **** about a mouse?
Why should we care about what are, at the end of the day, dumb animals?
Does this mean that we are just slightly smarter dumb animals?;)
For the record I'm against causing unnecessary suffering to animals. This includes prolonged suffering from skinning alive, trapping, poisoning and bloodsports (such as fox hunting, dog-fighting)
WRT the meat industry I agree with killing for food providing animal welfare standards are adhered to and try and buy free range where possible. On the subject of halal/ kosher meat Im plonked quite squarely on the fence as I just don't know enough about them to say whether they are more or less humane than standard Western practice- the literature on the subject seems to be a bit vague and contradictory.
Following on from that, it surprises me that you don't shoot them as well as you'd think that, having no concern for their welfare, you'd find it enjoyable to shoot them (not that I'm suggesting it!).
Where have I said that I enjoy causing pain and suffering myself? You're mis-interpreting my apathy. Just because I don't care what happens to animals who are bred for a specific purpose doesn't mean that I want to go and hunt them myself.
You're quite the enigma really :D
My work here is done :)
Where have I said that I enjoy causing pain and suffering myself? You're mis-interpreting my apathy. Just because I don't care what happens to animals who are bred for a specific purpose doesn't mean that I want to go and hunt them myself.
It's just surprising as I say. There are lots of people who hunt yet consider themselves animal lovers. I always find this to be confusing and it would therefore follow, that someone who doesn't care for animals at all, and loves shooting, would probably enjoy shooting them. Obviously such reasoning doesn't work in your case but that's a good thing! :)
chumpychops
21-10-2008, 15:02
What is the benefit to feeling empathy for animals? We havent in the past, to no ill effect, so why should we start now?
Does everything have to be done for a benefit?
chumpychops
21-10-2008, 15:48
Does everything have to be done for a benefit?
Nope, but if you're only against animals being bred for food/fur etc because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then one can hardly expect others to autmatically agree with you.
Simply saying 'Killing animals for fur is wrong', and then expecting others to agree isnt the most convincing of arguments, and if someone expects mankind to stop doing what it has done for millenia then they need to do better than specious 'Wont someone think of teh kittens' arguments.
Nope, but if you're only against animals being bred for food/fur etc because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then one can hardly expect others to autmatically agree with you.
Agree with you totally. Whilst I disagree with the way some animals are treated, I don't expect others to feel the same. I think it's odd that they don't care and I can't understand why, but that's all. We're all different emotionally.
We all do things to differing degrees. I don't like the way these animals are treated, but will I actually do anything about it? Not really.
Matblack
21-10-2008, 16:01
Nope, but if you're only against animals being bred for food/fur etc because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then one can hardly expect others to autmatically agree with you.
Simply saying 'Killing animals for fur is wrong', and then expecting others to agree isnt the most convincing of arguments, and if someone expects mankind to stop doing what it has done for millenia then they need to do better than specious 'Wont someone think of teh kittens' arguments.
You have an interesting point, there is no inherent benefit in not being cruel to animals, there are a lot of benefits farming animals for their byproducts and if in doing you cause them pain then so what? As higher beings be have the ability to kill, maim, disfigure and torture other living beings with very few repercussions, so why is it considered wrong to cause an animal suffering? Odd isn't it?
All I know is that I don't want other creatures to feel pain to provide me with products, if animals die to feed me I would want them to live as comfortable a life as possible and to die a quick and painiless death, I believe this because I believe animals can feel pain both physical and mental. I've seen animals in pain and I find it unacceptable if it can be avoided, no, cows aren't nice and cuddly like cats but I stilll don't want my indirect actions to cause one pain.
So to answer your question in my opinion that warm fuzzy feeling is enough reason not to kill animals that don't need to be killed, enough to make people campaign against animal cruelty, enough for most people that is.
MB
Nope, but if you're only against animals being bred for food/fur etc because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then one can hardly expect others to autmatically agree with you.
I don't have to be nice or at least even civil to people yet that's exactly what I try to do. It's not about what benefits it will yield, it's about your personal ethics and what we should aspire to. Protection of the weak, defenceless and vulnerable is a very human quality anyway. Why should such a noble sentiment be reserved for our own species?
SidewinderINC
21-10-2008, 20:50
All I know is that I don't want other creatures to feel pain to provide me with products.
MB
Not targetting you here MB, but that comment reminded me of other products that require animal testing/killing
Here's another side to think about..
do you use medicines when you're ill? or have you had diagnostic tests done in hospital at all?
I will guarantee that some animals have been killed in a painful way at some stage in the manufacture/testing of the medicines and the manufacture of the diagnostic kits used.
People seem to be concerned with eating preferences and vanity, but have overlooked the 'bleeding out' of (usually) rabbits for serum/globulins in manufacturing diagnostic kits, or the use of primates in testing meds.
Matblack
21-10-2008, 21:05
Not targetting you here MB, but that comment reminded me of other products that require animal testing/killing
Here's another side to think about..
do you use medicines when you're ill? or have you had diagnostic tests done in hospital at all?
I will guarantee that some animals have been killed in a painful way at some stage in the manufacture/testing of the medicines and the manufacture of the diagnostic kits used.
People seem to be concerned with eating preferences and vanity, but have overlooked the 'bleeding out' of (usually) rabbits for serum/globulins in manufacturing diagnostic kits, or the use of primates in testing meds.
I know where my boundaries lie, I am not a rabid antivivisectionist because I understand that there are situations where a small number of animals will suffer for the forwarding of medical science and I am willing to accept that where there are not other options but in a lot of cases there are other options these days and I would prefer these were used.
MB
semi-pro waster
21-10-2008, 21:20
Nope, but if you're only against animals being bred for food/fur etc because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside then one can hardly expect others to autmatically agree with you.
Simply saying 'Killing animals for fur is wrong', and then expecting others to agree isnt the most convincing of arguments, and if someone expects mankind to stop doing what it has done for millenia then they need to do better than specious 'Wont someone think of teh kittens' arguments.
I happy to think the "warm and fuzzies" is a good enough reason as a standalone and it does meet the benefit criteria you were searching for but I wouldn't argue solely on that basis.
Most people aren't simply saying that killing animals for fur is wrong and to state they are is misrepresenting the case. From a quick scan through most are saying that fur is not a necessity but if people feel they must have fur then why take it in an unnecessarily cruel way? It serves no real purpose that I can determine so does that mean that people either desire to make animals suffer or that they simply cannot empathise in any way with the animals suffering?
Not targetting you here MB, but that comment reminded me of other products that require animal testing/killing
Here's another side to think about..
do you use medicines when you're ill? or have you had diagnostic tests done in hospital at all?
I will guarantee that some animals have been killed in a painful way at some stage in the manufacture/testing of the medicines and the manufacture of the diagnostic kits used.
People seem to be concerned with eating preferences and vanity, but have overlooked the 'bleeding out' of (usually) rabbits for serum/globulins in manufacturing diagnostic kits, or the use of primates in testing meds.
I feel this one is a bit of a red herring (no pun intended), do you need to eat meat/wear cosmetics/wear fur? Ideally no animals would need to be killed for the manufacture of medicines for us but unfortunately, as I understand it, we are not at the stage yet where it can be entirely replaced by simulations and possibly never will be. Incidentally animal testing is not a guarantee of safety for use with humans either, some drugs are fatal to certain species yet extremely beneficial to humans and vice versa.
I'm also not entirely happy with the comparison because you're asking if we should not make use of medicines/treatments that already exist which renders the life of the animal who suffered for it even more pointless. There is nothing I can do about that now so there are two options, we either a) use the medicine and acknowledge the debt we owe to the animals who died to prove the safety or b) reject the medicine, waste that the animal has died anyway and have more people suffering or even dying from an unwillingness to utilise something we have produced. Please excuse the heavily weighted options there but my rejection of medicine* that already exists does not bring the animal back to life or mean it has not already suffered and died.
*For the little it matters I very rarely use any form of medicine, a cough syrup or lozenge is about as far as I've needed to go in the past 10 odd years and for that I'm extremely grateful.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.