Housepets!

I wonder if this has been asked before but what do you (as furries) think about real fur clothing?

Non-furry views are also welcome.

Personally, I am guilty of wearing genuine (Don't kill me or throw me to jail!). It's not actually the best insulator and it's quite a pain to wash with all the care that's needed. I don't see why people would like it besides cases where you use it for survival. . .



It's been bothering me. . .

/Shrug
But I say killing animals for clothing is stupid...

*Elliot is a hpyrocrite, since he has a leather jacket.*

This might be a little bit too controversial for this forum, but I'll respond anyway. Worst case scenario this just gets closed.

I believe it is perfectly OK to kill animals for purely biological reasons (food, defense, not freezing to death, culling numbers, etc.) If there is at least one of these reasons to kill an animal (and the animal does not belong to someone else and is legal to kill, of course), I am perfectly OK with any other reasons someone may have. If they want to hunt it for fun, then fine. If they want to wear its skin as a jacket or a coat or cover a chair or whatever with it, fine. As long as it's done as humanely as the circumstances allow, I'm all for it. However, I fully oppose the killing of animals without biological reasoning. Hunting for sport is wrong if no one eats the animal, for instance (it doesn't have to be the hunter; if you kill an animal you don't want to eat, you can always give the meat away). Likewise, I oppose breeding animals for their fur, killing them, and disposing of the body. This constitutes pretty much the entire fur trade. So by and large, if someone is wearing a fur coat or something, I am almost certainly opposed to it, though it is entirely possible to make a fur coat using means of which I approve. It's just not economically preferable to the normal way. Leather is usually another story. Cows are such useful animals, they're almost never killed and not eaten. Beef is worth good money, after all. So I don't really have an issue with most leather, though in the event that a cow isn't to be eaten, I oppose killing it for leather.

Now, even if several hundred adorable bunnies were killed to make a coat and the meat donated to homeless shelters, while I am ethically OK with it, I still think it's in bad taste. Nothing says "I'm a heartless wench" like wearing what very clearly resembles the corpses of numerous adorable animals. So fur is virtually always tacky, but only sometimes wrong. That's my opinion, anyway.

My opinion is similar to Sleet's: killing animals out of need is acceptable, but since the miracles of our modern society allow us to eat and clothe and embellish oursevels WITHOUT animal sufference, then we can avoid animal sufference as our ethical duty.
Hunting animals to cull their numbers is OK with me too, as long as it is done professionally and as humanely as possible (no poisoning, traps, etc. A clean shot will do), but there is no 'sport' in hunting and I find it offensive that someone could call 'fun' killing an innocent.
So I say.

valerio wrote:My opinion is similar to Sleet's: killing animals out of need is acceptable, but since the miracles of our modern society allow us to eat and clothe and embellish oursevels WITHOUT animal sufference, then we can avoid animal sufference as our ethical duty.
Hunting animals to cull their numbers is OK with me too, as long as it is done professionally and as humanely as possible (no poisoning, traps, etc. A clean shot will do), but there is no 'sport' in hunting and I find it offensive that someone could call 'fun' killing an innocent.
So I say.

/agreed

Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.

Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.

(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)

Private Elliot wrote:

valerio wrote:My opinion is similar to Sleet's: killing animals out of need is acceptable, but since the miracles of our modern society allow us to eat and clothe and embellish oursevels WITHOUT animal sufference, then we can avoid animal sufference as our ethical duty.
Hunting animals to cull their numbers is OK with me too, as long as it is done professionally and as humanely as possible (no poisoning, traps, etc. A clean shot will do), but there is no 'sport' in hunting and I find it offensive that someone could call 'fun' killing an innocent.
So I say.

/agreed

hmm... i guess this is where i would align myself.
meh.

Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.

Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.

(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.

Sleet wrote:

Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.

Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.

(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.

Well here in the Philippines there's something called the pinikpikan or "binugbog na manok" (translated literally as "Battered Chicken"). Most people I know who ordered this say it is one of the best tasting chicken they ever had only to be horrified with the preparation of it. I heard of other preparations for other animals that involve cruelty to the animal though I can't give the names since I myself am unfamiliar with the name itself, but they get really positive feedbacks as long as they keep the secret of the preparation from the diners.

By targeting their meat, I meant slaughtering. I saw some older slaughterhouses which still practice "Pummeling" as a mode of killing the animal. Usually with a large heavy object swung like a pendulum (though not as high). There are other methods as well but I don't think all of them are that painless still.

Well I think that's bad. The animals should be killed as painlessly as is feasible. I don't mean they have to go all the way and do a potassium chloride injection (which would ruin the meat anyway), but bludgeoning them to death is not the best way.

Hypergenesis wrote:

Sleet wrote:

Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.

Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.

(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.

Well here in the Philippines there's something called the pinikpikan or "binugbog na manok" (translated literally as "Battered Chicken"). Most people I know who ordered this say it is one of the best tasting chicken they ever had only to be horrified with the preparation of it. I heard of other preparations for other animals that involve cruelty to the animal though I can't give the names since I myself am unfamiliar with the name itself, but they get really positive feedbacks as long as they keep the secret of the preparation from the diners.

By targeting their meat, I meant slaughtering. I saw some older slaughterhouses which still practice "Pummeling" as a mode of killing the animal. Usually with a large heavy object swung like a pendulum (though not as high). There are other methods as well but I don't think all of them are that painless still.

buh... th.... well then... ?
...
whate part of this is sane?

Sleet wrote:Well I think that's bad. The animals should be killed as painlessly as is feasible. I don't mean they have to go all the way and do a potassium chloride injection (which would ruin the meat anyway), but bludgeoning them to death is not the best way.

Well, I agree but in their defense:
They can't actually go for the most painless kill as it:
1) Time-Intensive
2) More humane methods involves money
a) Which they are short on as they have to sell it at regulated prices.
b) Which they can't afford as they have their families to look after as well.
c) Which is not something they are willing to spend for if it doesn't grant them additional benefits. (General human nature)
3) Risky
a) Some people are especially cautious on how their meat was "made".
b) There are plenty of saboteurs that could (and would) make-up semi-credible stories.
c) What evidence proves that this in an infallible method?
4) It has the same end result.

Not that I am for these reasons, I just prefer that the conversation does not end up one-sided.

@SomebodyYouKnow
I think what I'm saying is, I'm typing against my better conscience. It's not that I agree to such practices, I'm just pointing out that there are different sides for every story told.

The practices of killing animals is strict in Britain including how our meat is prepared for our consumption, it is not illegal to produce meat using some cruel methods (such as battery cage chickens or confine animals to cramp warehouses but all forms of physical, biological, and chemical abuse is strictly forbidden) but it is frowned upon and the EU subsidizes those who produce organic and free-range produce.
We have to kill animals humanely without question (which I have seen myself) and anyone who refuses is severely punished, and killing animals for their fur or for 'sport' is also strictly forbidden, however killing animals to keep 'pests' to controlled numbers is acceptable (some people get around this law by attempting to label some animals as 'pests' such as foxes but fox hunting is still forbidden).
I personally condemn the killing of animals for any reason except for food, but if animals that are killed for food have anything else we can use then we shouldn't waste it.

Added: And I think fur looks so much more stylish on the animal than any human!

well, for me, it depends on the animal and the purpose for which it was killed. cows are killed for food, and thats just how it works, so if you use its skin as well, i see it as making the best of what you got. if you kill it just to make a jacket, while you can wear some other piece of clothing that didn't require the killing of anything, then i think its wrong.
as for the animals, just don't kill animals that are disappearing from the world. :p

I'm a furry, and I don't like the idea of animals suffering (for any reason) any more than the next reasonable person.

But if you'll pardon the oddly ironic colloquialism, I think there are bigger fish to fry. Like say, all the pointless human suffering that occurs because certain other human beings are greedy, self-centered, and or ignorant.

TheDXM wrote:I'm a furry, and I don't like the idea of animals suffering (for any reason) any more than the next reasonable person.

But if you'll pardon the oddly ironic colloquialism, I think there are bigger fish to fry. Like say, all the pointless human suffering that occurs because certain other human beings are greedy, self-centered, and or ignorant.

That's an admirable quality to value human life, but humans can take care of their own problems, animals have no such power of their own.

Valerio pretty much said all I could say.

For me it all depends on whether or not the animal's carcass is not completely wasted and whether or not the animal was of an endangered species. I mean, there are countless amounts of things that contain animal bi-products that we never even think of. Clothes are only one of them. What about the gelatin in gummy bears, the lard that used to be used in almost everything. Were those pigs' carcasses wasted? I don't know, you tell me.

Sketcherofstuff wrote:For me it all depends on whether or not the animal's carcass is not completely wasted and whether or not the animal was of an endangered species. I mean, there are countless amounts of things that contain animal bi-products that we never even think of. Clothes are only one of them. What about the gelatin in gummy bears, the lard that used to be used in almost everything. Were those pigs' carcasses wasted? I don't know, you tell me.

Yes, everything is used up from farmed animal carcasses including; skin, fat, eye lashes, organs, feet and the list goes on. All this low grade 'meat' is processed and turned into cheap food such as sausages, burgers, and meat pies.

I have no opinion. Animals aren't people.

Private Elliot wrote:/Shrug
But I say killing animals for clothing is stupid...

*Elliot is a hpyrocrite, since he has a leather jacket.*

Not just for clothing, but food. Too. Like cows.

Senator_Sunburst wrote:I have no opinion. Animals aren't people.

Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them. Hence why we all have our opinions on what differentiates a legitimate exercise of human supremacy from animal abuse.

Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.

I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?

Senator_Sunburst wrote:

Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.

I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?

It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.

No matter how superior humankind thinks they are, without weapons, allies or technology we are just above the primary predators (or secondary in some cases).

You have to remember, the natural unbalance is humankind's fault which gives us the right to fix it not to unbalance it further.

Hypergenesis wrote: It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.

If animals are not people, then they don't have "fates."


EDIT - I'm just going to drop out of this. This is a topic that I'm particularly charged about, the last thing I need is to rile up emotions here, or get riled up.

That would be a religious stand right?

EDIT - Okay, it's good to see peace walkers. . . (No not the nuclear weapon!)

As long is the species is exotic and invasive.

Senator_Sunburst wrote:

Hypergenesis wrote: It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.

If animals are not people, then they don't have "fates."

I agree with Senator, animals are not like humans (they do not value each other in community like we do, they have no sense of right and wrong like we do, they do not show love or mercy like we do. Animals are creatures of nature and nothing that we can reason or agree with) and therefore have a different place in the world to us, we look after animals in exchange for their meat and that arrangement has lasted for thousands of years.
Besides the whole reason why this arrangement exists is because we can, we can take control of their lives and turn them into food for us and since we can we do.
But since we are in control we have the responcibility of ensuring their welfare, this is what we must always do for them.

Senator_Sunburst wrote:

Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.

I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?

I mean to say that while animals are not people, it doesn't mean that every little thing you decide to do to them is justifiable. If I walked up to a random stray animal and started kicking the crap out of it for no good reason, that would be wrong. It wouldn't be the same as doing it to, say, a homeless person, but it would still be wrong. Animals aren't people, but they're not inanimate objects, either. They belong somewhere in between.

Sleet wrote:

Senator_Sunburst wrote:

Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.

I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?

I mean to say that while animals are not people, it doesn't mean that every little thing you decide to do to them is justifiable. If I walked up to a random stray animal and started kicking the crap out of it for no good reason, that would be wrong. It wouldn't be the same as doing it to, say, a homeless person, but it would still be wrong. Animals aren't people, but they're not inanimate objects, either. They belong somewhere in between.

Unfortunately, that "inferior" mindset is what the killers use to justify to themselves that it's not wrong, same as what slave owners did. They were "property", and some have passed that torch on to animals, which, as a future Vet, is just sickening.

But animals actually are below us, unlike our fellow human. I'm not saying this as justification for hurting animals; I don't even like hurting animals even in ways I think are ethically justified. But they lack the complexity to have human-like rights.

Actually, I read something that's suggesting that we actually should consider giving dolphins at least some "human" rights. It wasn't even any of the typical PETA nonsense but actually a somewhat scientific article. But those are dolphins that are capable of complex social structures, not all animals.

Sleet wrote:But animals actually are below us

That's already judgemental. They just don't possess the same mental faculties as we do, but that doesn't mean there's an universal hierarchy based on the entirely human view of "being better".

Sleet wrote:Actually, I read something that's suggesting that we actually should consider giving dolphins at least some "human" rights. It wasn't even any of the typical PETA nonsense but actually a somewhat scientific article. But those are dolphins that are capable of complex social structures, not all animals.

Depends on the synapse count. Cows and minks have counts of dog, cats and beyond, but they get slaughtered for meat and fur nonetheless.

It all depends on how you value animals to humans, I believe we are above animals for what we are capable of in terms of techology, civilisation, and justice.
Animals have no such capabilities and besides nature intended for animals to eat other animals, we are just the animal at the very top so we are just following natures laws.

People still sell mink in the US? Its illegal to sell mink in the UK as to discourage the trade.

Liam wrote:That's already judgemental. They just don't possess the same mental faculties as we do, but that doesn't mean there's an universal hierarchy based on the entirely human view of "being better".

Well, not exactly in the simplest sense, but they still aren't sapient, so they don't have the moral status of a fully reasoning species. That's why there are now some questions about dolphins, because it's being hypothesized that they actually could be sapient.

Plus telepathic.

Sleet wrote:Well, not exactly in the simplest sense, but they still aren't sapient, so they don't have the moral status of a fully reasoning species. That's why there are now some questions about dolphins, because it's being hypothesized that they actually could be sapient.

And there lies the crux of the matter: They don't have a higher moral status because we don't give them. Moral is something entirely human anyway, so only humans can award statuses based on it. Just because we regard animals who don't share our unique (or at least rare) extra set of mental faculties as inferior, less precious and worth of protecting doesn't mean it's ultima ratio. From the perspective of nature I would even dare to say it's counter-intuitive since there's no goal in evolution, meaning we have the high computing power of our brain because that's our optimal adaptation to our ecological niche.

Other species are optimal adapted to their respective niches and if the ecological conditions change those species either undergo change, too, or die out. This could also happen to humanity in case severe changes occur, whether they are climatical or biological like pandemics, that render the sustaining of our big brain impossible and thus lead to a streamlined evolution into a non-sapient successor species. Truth to be told, the fact that we're a technological species surely diminishes this possibility, but we're nevertheless standing above the laws of biology.

The other aspect is a more philosophical one. Anyone who has a dog, cat or other pet wouldn't call it something less or disavow its possession of a precious mind who's capable of understanding you and your emotions as well as expressing genuine love and affection after all. So, if they are feeling creatures many people care for, but on the other hand we slaughter animals either for their skin or their meat under abhorrent conditions who have a similar or even more complex brain structure, doesn't that make it an outrageous crime?

There is in fact a goal in nature which is to survive, animals will do anything to survive including us because nature demands that the strongest survives. We have survived everything nature can throw at us and therefore become the top predator. It is our incredible survival abilities that puts us above all other animals in terms of nature.

If it was true that animals are emotional creatures than why are they always hostile to us, animals are not emotional creatures but creatures of instinct, they do what they do because they are driven to do it to survive. And pet owners see human traits in their animal companions as a form of self-preservation, it does not mean those traits exist.

Animals with highly developed brains are only to fine-tune their senses, it does not mean they have true Actual Intelligence like we do.

MilesKingford wrote: If it was true that animals are emotional creatures than why are they always hostile to us, animals are not emotional creatures but creatures of instinct, they do what they do because they are driven to do it to survive. And pet owners see human traits in their animal companions as a form of self-preservation, it does not mean those traits exist.

That emotion mentioned therein is generally the loving need to protect their young. But sometimes it's also territory issues. How would you like it if somebody broke into your house, stayed there, ate all of your food, and still continued to mooch off of you? It's the same concept.

Tha Housedog wrote:

MilesKingford wrote: If it was true that animals are emotional creatures than why are they always hostile to us, animals are not emotional creatures but creatures of instinct, they do what they do because they are driven to do it to survive. And pet owners see human traits in their animal companions as a form of self-preservation, it does not mean those traits exist.

That emotion mentioned therein is generally the loving need to protect their young. But sometimes it's also territory issues. How would you like it if somebody broke into your house, stayed there, ate all of your food, and still continued to mooch off of you? It's the same concept.

You pretty much described a family member of mine

Animals who look after their young do it because of chemical hormones that tell them to protect their young, it has nothing to do with love, it is merely natures way of ensuring the best possibility of survive for that species.

As for the territorial concept; animals would immediately attack anything that it sees as a threat to ensure its own survival, we do not do that because we can reason with each other, animals have no understanding of reason so they rely on instrict which tells them to "attack before being attacked".