English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I ask because alot of ppl are anti-fur but are happy to eat meat, and wear leather, isn't that hypocritical? Isn't fur a natural way to wear clothing? (though it is mostly the rich whicc do)

2006-12-10 04:43:59 · 19 answers · asked by isthisinuisetoo 2 in Beauty & Style Fashion & Accessories

Forgive me Dorian, but the myth about leather being a by-product is a myth,cows etc are purposely harvested for the very reason of leather production, I know this because many of my family worked in the fur trade.

2006-12-10 04:55:37 · update #1

Also if they mistreqatthe animals in traps poor treatment etc doesn't this damage the quality of the fur? Doesn't the fur trader have a vested interest in keeping the animal as happy and relaxed as possible?

2006-12-10 05:02:33 · update #2

19 answers

It's wrong because unless you live in, say, Siberia, there's absolutely no reason to wear fur other than ostentation. There are plenty of alternatives that'll keep you just as warm that do not involve flaying animals alive, which is what is done in many cases. There is no such thing as cruelty-free fur.
As for hypocrisy, I don't eat meat, but I do wear leather shoes as there is no viable alternative. Also, the leather is a by-product of animals used for other purposes as well, whereas the fur industry is built upon killing animals solely for the purpose of their coats--animals that would otherwise be left alone.

2006-12-10 04:50:22 · answer #1 · answered by Dorian V. 2 · 2 2

Well, I'm a bit anti-fur myself although I'm not a fanatic about it, but alot of people that are that wear leather assume that it's alright because we eat cows anyway. What they don't realize is that the same cows used for leather production aren't typically the ones that get eaten. The anti-fur stance comes from the fact that many of the animals that are used in fur clothing (chinchillas (sp?) etc.) are endangered and many of the animals aren't treated humanely at all prior to killing them and during the killing process. On a side note, fur-trappers and the like aren't concerned at all usually with keeping the animals happy. The animals happiness has nothing to do with fur quality. In fact, starving them is a preferred way to kill them sometimes because there are no or few visible wounds to damage the fur and little or no blood to be washed off.

2006-12-10 05:00:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is a little hypocritical, but not really. While it is the same basic principle about killing animals, many people focus on how wasteful fur is, and how inhumane it is to kill just for a pelt when the body is discarded.
Fur is made from animals that we don't eat, or use in any way. So it's killing just for clothing. The meat, bones, and the rest of the animal is thrown away, and left to rot.
The leather we wear and the meat we eat come from the same animals. The animal isn't wasted, most all of it's body is usable for one thing or another.

2006-12-10 04:54:25 · answer #3 · answered by welches_grape_jelly 6 · 0 1

You are all right. But people also find ways of "recycling" some of that "unused" meat. It also brings in extra income for people that need the "extra" money that a regular job doesn't always bring in. Those animals are going to get killed or die anways. If no one ate meat, there would be alot of people without jobs. Also, some people do use that fur that aren't rich, like the people that go out and make their own fur clothes. People were put on this earth, we are at the top of the food chain, we need food and meat to eat, and clothes to wear. If all the animals ran free, there wouldn't be enough land for both man and animal.

Unfortunelty, man and beast cannot live together freely and peacefully, and even more unfortunetly, animals in captivity are not always treated as they should be. I could go on and on about this for and against it, but it would take all day. If you are interested on discussing this with me more, email me at abijahstrong@yahoo.com(old address but checked everyday lol)

2006-12-10 04:56:10 · answer #4 · answered by Yankeegirlfromupnorth 1 · 0 1

Great point! I've been saying that forever. I'm a vegetarian because the thought of eating meat makes me sick although i don't preach about it because that's just the way I feel about it. I'm not on a mission to save the aimals or anything (mainly because i wouldn't win). I do think that anyone who preaches that wearing fur is wrong should be a vegetarian though, you're a hypocrite otherwise. Nice question.

Oh and Alabama w? Eating meat is no longer a necessity in our modern society. i am living proof of that so that arguement is thrown right out the window.

2006-12-10 04:49:47 · answer #5 · answered by Diet_smartie 4 · 1 0

Good question.
While it is true we don't actually need fur and we do need meat; the process of killing animals for their fur in far from "humane".

The sad part of the "fur" situation is that animals used for fur are not usually dealt with in a "humane" way. Fur bearing wild animals are caught in traps. Very little fur is actually raised fur, with the exception of mink and chinchilla. The rest of the fur is trapped - that is a terrible way for an animal to die; hurt, a slow death with no food or water.

2006-12-10 04:57:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I will not wear fur because alot of the times an animal is killed ONLY for the fur. An animal is meant, in my opinion, for sustinance. If an animal was killed for the meat and then the fur was used, it might be another story. I guess it sounds hypocritical, but Im not a member of PETA or anything. Fur was a natural clothing choice for our ancestors, but nowadays i think people take it too far. A la J.Lo's foxfur eyelashes...

2006-12-10 04:48:28 · answer #7 · answered by New Mommy! 3 · 4 0

I don't wear leather. And eating meat makes rational sense, even in this day and age. Wearing fur is rarely, if ever, necessary, and makes mocks the animal's memory. Also, some cultures have reverence to nature for providing the animal. Wearing fur without cause is plainly insensitive, and being natural doesn't make it ethical.

2006-12-10 04:48:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Well I think it's wrong because we throw away the rest of the animal and do nothing with it. We are just killing the animal for the fur that kept it warm. Plus we have synthetic materials that can do just as good a job. Fur is more of a luxury than necessity.

2006-12-10 04:46:10 · answer #9 · answered by Rawkus 3 · 2 0

It is wrong cos we simply don't need to kill animals for clothing in modern age, man-made fabrics suffice, and fur is usually used as a fashion statement and NOT a neccessity for survival nowadays. fair enough in caveman times cos they didn't have any other way of making clothes. but we do so we shouldn't use it. faux fur looks exactly the same as the real thing and you won't be wearing dead animal skin. and if you search for the right websites you will see the conditions are sadly far from humane.

2006-12-10 04:49:32 · answer #10 · answered by alabama w 2 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers