Half-naked PETA models spice up London Fashion Week with anti-fur protest

[Xephio]

hey i have the same gasmask

[Ricool06]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49801869]Protecting the ecosystem involves killing animals to regulate it. We, as predators, have a form of "natural duty" to eliminate parts of the fauna to avoid proliferation, something all predators do by instinct and that we do because we understand how nature functions.

A human being killing an animal to benefit off of their carcass (be it for meat, bones, fur, or anything else) isn't unnatural or selfish, it's a natural occurrence. The reason we essentially switched from using animal skins and fur for clothes to synthetic clothes and fabric is because it's considerably easier and cheaper to mass produce a nylon sweater than a leather doublet.

The amount of animals killed for fur and leather is marginal in comparison to the number of clothes made out of purely synthetic fabric or wool safely sheared from sheep.[/QUOTE]

I think it is at best naive to believe that the fur industry only operates in instances of overpopulation. And again, nobody has mentioned the moral implications of killing an animal for a silly reason like fashion.

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=Ricool06;49804175]I think it is at best naive to believe that the fur industry only operates in instances of overpopulation. And again, nobody has mentioned the moral implications of killing an animal for a silly reason like fashion.[/QUOTE]

I never said the fur industry operates in instances of overpopulation. I am saying that things that kill animals (hunting, slaughtering for food or fur, etc) is what [I]prevents overpopulation[/I] to begin with.
Causing the adverse effect by killing animals (ie reducing their population to a critical level) is poaching.
Creating the population to cull it yourself is fair game, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the animals aren't particularly mistreated, which is an issue separate from fur itself. Any stock or cargo can be poorly handled be it inanimate materials or livestock.

As for the fashion thing, fur in particular is an instance where fashion is [I]not[/I] the only determining factor. Fur is objectively a better material to make warm clothes out of than the majority of the cheap materials typically used. Stuff like wearing crocodile skin shoes or a straight up dead ferret or fox as a scarf with the head and limbs still attached is typically seen as very bad taste because unlike a fur coat or something similar you don't actually have any benefit from wearing these.

Basically a sedentary lifestyle means you can afford lighter, less warm clothes because you live in heated environments, be it central heating, a stove or a fireplace.

Fur wasn't always considered fashionable garments. It became fashionable and luxurious as its use to the average population diminished, making it special and thus attractive to the upper class. If you go to the ass end of the arctic where you practically have to wear a fur coat if you want to stay alive, fur isn't any more luxurious than a pair of boxer shorts or a water bucket.

[Paynith]

[QUOTE=Ricool06;49804175] nobody has mentioned the moral implications of killing an animal for a silly reason like fashion.[/QUOTE]

Because it's all subjective.
It's entirely your opinion that killing an animal is morally right or wrong.
It's entirely your opinion that fashion is silly.

You can't realistically prove it's "bad".

[Ricool06]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49804368]I never said the fur industry operates in instances of overpopulation. I am saying that things that kill animals (hunting, slaughtering for food or fur, etc) is what [I]prevents overpopulation[/I] to begin with.
Causing the adverse effect by killing animals (ie reducing their population to a critical level) is poaching.
Creating the population to cull it yourself is fair game, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the animals aren't particularly mistreated, which is an issue separate from fur itself. Any stock or cargo can be poorly handled be it inanimate materials or livestock.

As for the fashion thing, fur in particular is an instance where fashion is [I]not[/I] the only determining factor. Fur is objectively a better material to make warm clothes out of than the majority of the cheap materials typically used. Stuff like wearing crocodile skin shoes or a straight up dead ferret or fox as a scarf with the head and limbs still attached is typically seen as very bad taste because unlike a fur coat or something similar you don't actually have any benefit from wearing these.

Basically a sedentary lifestyle means you can afford lighter, less warm clothes because you live in heated environments, be it central heating, a stove or a fireplace.

Fur wasn't always considered fashionable garments. It became fashionable and luxurious as its use to the average population diminished, making it special and thus attractive to the upper class. If you go to the ass end of the arctic where you practically have to wear a fur coat if you want to stay alive, fur isn't any more luxurious than a pair of boxer shorts or a water bucket.[/QUOTE]

Making fur and animal products popular in clothing encourages and increases poaching.
Do you really think these protesters are going to a fashion show to protest Inuits wearing fur in the Arctic?

[editline]24th February 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Paynith;49804764]Because it's all subjective.
It's entirely your opinion that killing an animal is morally right or wrong.
It's entirely your opinion that fashion is silly.

You can't realistically prove it's "bad".[/QUOTE]

I think fashion is a silly reason to end a life, yes. You know you've been backed against the wall when you bring subjective morality in a debate about fur.
Also, you can't realistically prove it's "not bad". Where does that leave us? At the end of a different conversation.

[FingerSpazem]

[QUOTE=Ricool06;49801034]So you make a few of these fur coats because you can, maybe a lack of regulation allows you to. Great, right? No harm done, just a few innocent animals killed for fashion. But then you put these coats in a fashion show. Suddenly demand is way up, and without regulation you're not killing a few animals, but thousands.

Even with regulation, what does it say about a society that justifies the killing of animals purely for fashion? Remember, this is about fur, not leather or hide from meat-producing animals. Nobody eats chinchilla corpses etc after their fur becomes a fashion item.

All that shows is that you are uninformed or just a boring person.[/QUOTE]

Maybe some people value fashion more than the life of some dumb cow? I definitely do, it's art and a big part of my life.

I think it's just as valid as any other hobby or luxury/entertainment.

To some people it's a big part of their daily life and to some it's a career

If you think fashion is silly that's fine, but me and a whole industry will disagree and that's fine too.

[Ricool06]

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49806178]Maybe some people value fashion more than the life of some dumb cow? I definitely do, it's art and a big part of my life.

I think it's just as valid as any other hobby or luxury/entertainment.

To some people it's a big part of their daily life and to some it's a career

If you think fashion is silly that's fine, but me and a whole industry will disagree and that's fine too.[/QUOTE]

I get that you value fashion more than an animal's life, I'm not saying you don't, I'm saying that's a morally reprehensible choice.

[FingerSpazem]

[QUOTE=Ricool06;49806360]I get that you value fashion more than an animal's life, I'm not saying you don't, I'm saying that's a morally reprehensible choice.[/QUOTE]

Oh we're all well aware of how morally reprehensible you think it is, but do your personal morals really have any weight in this argument?

[Ricool06]

[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49806381]Oh we're all well aware of how morally reprehensible you think it is, but do your personal morals really have any weight in this argument?[/QUOTE]

The argument is literally about the morality of killing animals for fur. Do you need to lie down or something buddy?

[butre]

[QUOTE=gastyne;49797460]It is very brave of them to protest like this.
I still don't understand why people wear fur cloth...[/QUOTE]

why is fur worse than leather?

other than being considerably gaudier

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=Ricool06;49805726]Making fur and animal products popular in clothing encourages and increases poaching.
Do you really think these protesters are going to a fashion show to protest Inuits wearing fur in the Arctic?[/QUOTE]

You do realize poaching is in the overwhelming majority [I]not about fur[/I] but about ivory and other such things, right ?

You'd have a pretty hard time trying to wear rhino fur or elephant fur.

And judging from PETA's track record and the founder's very clear anti-human stance (there really isn't any other way to put her opinions) I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give the Inuits any quarter just because they live in a harsh place. Ingrid Newkirk would likely argue that the Inuits and other similar tribes should just die off and disappear because their existence relies on killing animals for food and resources.

[editline]25th February 2016[/editline]

Also considering the amount of time anti-fur protesters and people who are so diligently defending the rights of animals have to explain their choices and opinions down to the point of contradicting everyone else, saying it's anything else but a subjective opinion is pretty silly.

If it was such an objective truth that killing animals for fur or fashion was bad we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.

[_charon]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49808291]You do realize poaching is in the overwhelming majority [I]not about fur[/I] but about ivory and other such things, right ?

You'd have a pretty hard time trying to wear rhino fur or elephant fur.

And judging from PETA's track record and the founder's very clear anti-human stance (there really isn't any other way to put her opinions) I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give the Inuits any quarter just because they live in a harsh place. Ingrid Newkirk would likely argue that the Inuits and other similar tribes should just die off and disappear because their existence relies on killing animals for food and resources.

[editline]25th February 2016[/editline]

Also considering the amount of time anti-fur protesters and people who are so diligently defending the rights of animals have to explain their choices and opinions down to the point of contradicting everyone else, saying it's anything else but a subjective opinion is pretty silly.

If it was such an objective truth that killing animals for fur or fashion was bad we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of animals other than rhinos and elephants being poached. Lots of endangered species are considered valuable for their fur.

Fur in general I don't entirely mind, though I'd rather if the animal the fur comes from wasn't being killed exclusively for its fur, and all the parts were actually used, especially seeing as we don't really need real fur.

[gast91]

[QUOTE=butre;49807613]why is fur worse than leather?

other than being considerably gaudier[/QUOTE]

I never said that in my post??

[Ricool06]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49808291]You do realize poaching is in the overwhelming majority [I]not about fur[/I] but about ivory and other such things, right ?

You'd have a pretty hard time trying to wear rhino fur or elephant fur.[/QUOTE]

_charon's post is a good response to the first part of your post.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49808291]And judging from PETA's track record and the founder's very clear anti-human stance (there really isn't any other way to put her opinions) I'm pretty sure they wouldn't give the Inuits any quarter just because they live in a harsh place. Ingrid Newkirk would likely argue that the Inuits and other similar tribes should just die off and disappear because their existence relies on killing animals for food and resources.[/QUOTE]

I am not Ingrid Newkirk or anti-human, and have never said my views are a carbon copy of hers.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49808291]Also considering the amount of time anti-fur protesters and people who are so diligently defending the rights of animals have to explain their choices and opinions down to the point of contradicting everyone else, saying it's anything else but a subjective opinion is pretty silly.

If it was such an objective truth that killing animals for fur or fashion was bad we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with.[/QUOTE]

So let me understand you properly before we carry this on further. You think that well thought out opinions are invalid because the amount of thinking behind them only shows their subjectivity?