how do you feel about fur being used as a scapegoat for meat eaters

  • how do you feel about fur being used as a scapegoat for meat eaters

    who want to calm their conscience all the while staying willfully ignorant of the real problems because it might put a damper on their comfortable lifestyle?

    it just seems that fur is still the biggest taboo when it comes to animal cruelty and whenever anyone is caught wearing fur, they'll inevitably be confronted by tons of self-righteous fellas screaming "that's fucked up" in between hamburger bites

    from an ethical standpoint, i find the idea of fur much less disturbing than that of factory farmed animal products, or even leather

    so what are your thoughts on this? i almost see it as dangerous in a way because it allows people to adopt a faux sense of moral high ground so that they feel like they don't need to do anything else for the cause

    they can just be like: so what if i indulge in some dead carcass from time to time, at least i don't wear fur!

    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 30 mar 2012, 16:54
    In order to maintain the quality of the hide, fur animals can't be 'conventionally' slaughtered. They're drowned or electrocuted or poisoned or gassed. Sometimes the gas doesn't take all the way and they wake up in the middle of being skinned. There's not much I find more disturbing than that.

    Most of the fur protests I've read about are initiated by PETA or similar groups. Usually vegans. In terms of hypocrisy for omnivores to judge people for wearing fur, I doubt they're eating chinchillas or foxes or minks for dinner. I value all life equally but I can see why the deaths of some animals are more stigmatic for otherwise aloof omnis.

  • what difference does it make if they're eating chinchillas or chickens?
    i don't value ~exotic~ animals any more than livestock and i don't see why anyone (omnivores or otherwise) should

    if anything it's a testament to how dissociated we've become as a society; the meat on our plates wasn't an animal - chickens aren't animals like foxes or chinchillas, they're food

    and the fact of the matter is that foxes and chinchillas live decent, natural lives until they are killed

    i'm not condoning animal slaughter for fur, obviously, but it just annoys me that fur is universally acknowledged to be the worst kind of animal exploitation when it isn't, and it somewhat distracts from issues of greater concern.

    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 31 mar 2012, 01:27
    It seems you're frustrated with the double standard, but to soften your views on the fur trade because you're annoyed by the hypocrisy of chicken's a concept I can't grasp.

    In a sense, because chickens ARE food, they will always be around. The animals murdered for their fur who are skinned and then tossed aside...there's a finite amount of them. Semantics and apathy will only doom them further.

  • i don't understand why it would matter whether there is a "finite" amount???

    suffering is suffering whether the animals are grown specifically for food or they're part of a "finite" group that lives in the wild

    i'm not softening my views on the fur trade; it's wrong, but not wronger than the factory farm industry. and it's already a taboo. i wish less attention were focused on anti-fur campaigns because, like i said, i feel like it acts like a scapegoat for hypocrites

    i'd actually like to see some sort of campaign that draws a parallel between the atrocities of the fur trade and those of the factory farm industry

    • dth3tr sa...
    • Användare
    • 31 mar 2012, 02:49
    9 out of 10 people eat meat. Only douche bags wear fur. Some people who eat meat are also douche bags, but many just don't know any better. For some of them, abhorring the fur trade is a bridge to learning more about how other animals are treated and how we're killing ourselves by eating them. Baby steps. Kicking off with the dogma turned to 11 will just scare them away.

  • or abhorring the fur trade is a way to cleanse their conscience.

    i completely agree with the baby steps approach. but i don't think drawing their attention to this hypocrisy is extreme. it would simply draw a parallel between something the majority already accept as morally wrong (fur) with something that the majority don't yet accept as morally wrong (factory farms)

  • Fur is easy to scapegoat. People know that animals are killed specifically for their fur. Leather is viewed as a by-product (which it's really not) and wool is seen as harmless as the animal lives (or at least, doesn't need to die for it), or even as a necessity (some believe humans have to shear sheep and because of selective breeding, this is actually true in many cases). Thus, meat-eaters have excuses for wearing leather and wool that work alongside their meat-eating ways. Fur is singled out because there is no simple excuse, no glove to cover a blood-stained hand.

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.