Fur Coats - Yes or no?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure if your post is directed at me personally, and if so then I will simply assume you didn't read my original post.

If it was aimed at you, I would have quoted you.

But what you have said is quite obvious, the point of this thread is for people to discuss those differing views about the morals involved in fur coats - that is what this section of the forum is for isn't it?

I have addressed this point, which, had you read my post you would see that in a free society I made the point that it doesn't matter what your moral stance on fur coats is - that it is not down to you or others to impose your own values or morality on anybody else. The owner of a fur coat may disagree with drinking or homosexuality - yet would we entertain the notion of banning either?

We need food to live, we don't need fur to live. I don't think I have any real leather products since I'm not a rich man but a lot of the leather that comes from cows are ones that are mainly being killed for thier meat, so if it's already dead you may as well make the most of the carcas

In that case we would make the argument that whilst animals are killed for food, many animals and many less animals could be killed because we 'waste' so much food/consume more than we need to.

[Judas]

I have addressed this point, which, had you read my post you would see that in a free society I made the point that it doesn't matter what your moral stance on fur coats is - that it is not down to you or others to impose your own values or morality on anybody else. The owner of a fur coat may disagree with drinking or homosexuality - yet would we entertain the notion of banning either?

Wait - who mentioned banning anything? Drop the politics for five minutes. The idea of the thread is simple - do you think fur coats are right or wrong? Why do you think so? This isn't about imposing values, it is a simple debate. Let it remain that way please.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wait - who mentioned banning anything? Drop the politics for five minutes. The idea of the thread is simple - do you think fur coats are right or wrong? Why do you think so? This isn't about imposing values, it is a simple debate. Let it remain that way please.

Naturally with any debate such as this, people will argue for banning fur coats.

It's a part of the debate itself, although i'm happy to accept the views of those against fur coats on the basis that they don't wish to tell others what to do.

[Judas]

Naturally with any debate such as this, people will argue for banning fur coats.

It's a part of the debate itself, although i'm happy to accept the views of those against fur coats on the basis that they don't wish to tell others what to do.

But nobody has tried to impose their views on anyone and no one has mentioned anything to do with the legal status of fur coats so I'm just puzzled as to who you're actually debating this idea with?

[Futz]

You're correct, we need food to live. However, we don't need meat to live. We could survive being vegans, so if you're going to complain that animals killed for fur are killed because of humans being greedy and selfish, aren't we doing the same by killing them for their meat when really we don't actually need to eat it?

First off I never complained, I just said "I think...", it's just one mans opinions so drop the law suit. Secondly, I'd say we do need to eat meat for optimum health, it's not being selfish or greedy it's just the way it is, living as a vegan is tough we need what meat gives us

---------- Post added 18-08-2012 at 10:44 PM ----------

In that case we would make the argument that whilst animals are killed for food, many animals and many less animals could be killed because we 'waste' so much food/consume more than we need to.

People waste food, it's something I can't control

[-:Undertaker:-]

But nobody has tried to impose their views on anyone and no one has mentioned anything to do with the legal status of fur coats so I'm just puzzled as to who you're actually debating this idea with?

PETA as I understand it, which you yourself mentioned at the start of the thread, is an active campaign which argues for the legal ending of the freedom to wear coats - which as I said before, the legal issue of this is naturally a part of the debate. Indeed, we've even had hints of the legal argument in the following post..

as to why we should draw the line at fur?

In modern times, many people nowadays think their own moral values ought to be imposed via law (its always happened throughout history, happens in democracies) - I make the case that the moral and legal parts should remain seperated entirely. The idea that 'we' should be drawing a line at anything is entirely out of the question in a free society.

Now, are you done debating something you seemingly think has nothing to do with the thread?

[Judas]

First off I never complained, I just said "I think...", it's just one mans opinions so drop the law suit. Secondly, I'd say we do need to eat meat for optimum health, it's not being selfish or greedy it's just the way it is, living as a vegan is tough we need what meat gives us

You actually said "screw them all" in regard to people who wear fur coats so it isn't just as simple as "one mans opinion" is it?

You said in your first post that there are "alternatives that dont cost the lives of animals". It's the exact same for food. You can be perfectly healthy as a vegan.

---------- Post added 18-08-2012 at 10:54 PM ----------

PETA as I understand it, which you yourself mentioned at the start of the thread, is an active campaign which argues for the legal ending of the freedom to wear coats - which as I said before, the legal issue of this is naturally a part of the debate. Indeed, we've even had hints of the legal argument in the following post..

Yep, that's right. However I also mentioned at the start of the thread: "This is not intended to be a debate about any celebrities in particular, nor about PETA."

In modern times, many people nowadays think their own moral values ought to be imposed via law (its always happened throughout history, happens in democracies) - I make the case that the moral and legal parts should remain seperated entirely. Now, are you done debating something you seemingly think has nothing to do with the thread?

Are you done debating something that no one even mentioned?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yep, that's right. However I also mentioned at the start of the thread: "This is not intended to be a debate about any celebrities in particular, nor about PETA."

As before, the debate naturally gravitates towards that all the time because staunch animal rights activists are often unable to accept the fact that we're anything but seal smashing aristocrats.

Are you done debating something that no one even mentioned?

I merely touched upon it dear.

People waste food, it's something I can't control

So am I right in saying that you don't think we should control whether people wear fur or not?

[Futz]

You actually said "screw them all" in regard to people who wear fur coats so it isn't just as simple as "one mans opinion" is it?

You said in your first post that there are "alternatives that dont cost the lives of animals". It's the exact same for food. You can be perfectly healthy as a vegan.

No you can't, you can't change scientific facts, if you compared the health (every aspect) of someone with the best meat based diet possible and someone with the best vegan based diet possible, the meat eater would come out on top. In my first post I was refering to alternatives to fur such as cotton or faux fur, it serves the same benefit. You can't compare that to a vegan vs meat diet as they dont serve the same benefit

Because I took a tone of 'screw them all' that meant i was 'complaining', ????? no chance

[Judas]

As before, the debate naturally gravitates towards that all the time because staunch animal rights activists are often unable to accept the fact that we're anything but seal smashing aristocrats.

You seem to be struggling to understand that no such views have come forward yet, you're putting up your guard already when no bullets have been fired. Chill.

I merely touched upon it dear.

And yet you've once again managed to derail a thread with your incessant ramblings about unimportant details.

Back on topic now please?