It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only the Truly Needy Have Any Excuse to Wear Fur

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Gazrok...I'm still confused on this one as I musta missed something...where is anyone trying to push it on others?


Didn't mean to insinuate that it was done on this thread... More "foreseeing" it happen and heading it off than anything else, hehe...as well as a comment on the practice itself.

The big gripe is against PETA itself...as THEY try to force it down our throats. Show us the literature, present your argument, etc. Fine. But tactics like throwing blood on others' property, and other such guerilla tactics just tick me off....




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
@Lost1

I don't understand how you can call giving away coats to the homeless as a violent terrorist act.
I am staying on topic, this is a discusion about PETA.
I thought that was what I was refering too.
YOU started the extremist/terrorist thing, I was just commenting on your post. So YOU stay on topic, OK?

“Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?”
The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal—human or otherwise. However, all large movements have factions that believe in the use of force.

From the PETA web site FAQ.
www.peta.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Leather is the by product of our food.

Is all leather obtained thru the food industry?

..fur is the killing of an animals for no reason other than to take it's skin. [/quoet]
But minks just aren't very tastey.

Not to be too much of a jerk, but notice how the pics above of the little cute fox and the baby seal gettign clubed are of cute animals? Its like that dennis leary bit, people only want ot save cute animals. "Save the dolphins, eat dolphin free tuna? Eff the dolphins what about the god damned tuna!"

Now, granted, thats a joke, just like the biker leather bit, but it does bring up a valid point. Is the problem phyiscal suffering, or the suffering of something one sympathizes with? If chinchillas and minks were also processed as food, would it make wearing their furs okay? For some yes, for others no.

What the heck do they do with the skinned chinchillas and minks and what not? They just throw it out? Wouldn't it be in the corporation's interest to sell it for like animal food and other products?

where is anyone trying to push it on others

Well, by saying that the truly needy are the only ones that have an exucse, or that one needs an excuse to wear it, one is in effect trying to get someone to behave a certain way. Irregardless, anyone buying fur and leather products probably should think about what was involved in order for it to be gotten, but they're hardly horrible people if they say 'screw those minks'. And obviously the animals shouldn't be brutalized and there should be humane killing of them. But lets face it, animals is one thing, PETA is pushy about it and genuinely does seem to want to force people to think and act their way.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
No animal should live in a cage. Period. It is in that way I agree with LadyV. Outlaw the caging of animals. People who have never lived 'out' don't realize that traditional varieties of chickens, horses, etc. stay close to the house without cages. And she is right, hunting for other than food is just inexecusable. There are plenty of starving out there. Donate your meat if you won't eat it, then get a different 'hobby'. And if I stroll down the street in a parka I sewed myself, don't throw blood on me.

Lively subject, eh? Bravo!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
< sarcasm>Wow ANOK! Im glad I read the FAQ on PETA's website. It cleared many things up for me. This thread is going in the wrong direction. PETA and its members should be considered Saints! Out of all the problems in this world, animals should be top priority.< /sarcasm> So, animals shouldnt be in cages you say? Well, we put our own kind behind bars, yet I dont see people supporting for their release from behind bars. I got a big laugh when I saw the section about animal companionship. The lady is holding a dog with a collar for christs sake. Nothing says I am for the ethical treatment of animals more than a restraint device around an animals neck. Thats what a collar is. A restraint device. Way to go PETA.

[edit on 8-12-2004 by lost1]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
We put our own behind bars when they commit crimes...
all of my animals have collars.....not for restraint, but for their safety. Rabies tags, license, home phone number...sheeeesh! You choose the right screen name for sure!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
PETA is a bunch of maniacs. I don't own any fur articles, but what's the big deal? I wear leather shoes, leather jackets, cars have leather interiors. Leather is in. What's the difference?

[edit on 04/12/8 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
PETA is a bunch of maniacs. I don't own any fur articles, but what's the big deal. I wear leather shoes, leather jackets, cars have leather interiors. Leather is in. What's the difference?

I would assume that if you read all the reponses here...you'd know what the differeance is to some.....



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost1
< sarcasm>Wow ANOK! Im glad I read the FAQ on PETA's website.


That's too stoopid to even warrant a reply. You're not pointing out any hypocrisy you're just exposing your own ignorance.
Do you know any PETA members? Ever been to a meeting?
What do you base your opinion of PETA on? What ya read in the state papers...LOL

BTW collars on animals is law in public places, in a lot, if not all states.
A dog collar is not a restraint. This is a restraint;
(warning; gross pic)
www.all-creatures.org...

The only reason ppl bash other ppl who are trying to make the world more compassionate is because they don't like their conscience being tested.
We are very adapt at comming up with excuses to justify our wrongs.

[edit on 8/12/2004 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I just love this thread. You know, at the turn of the century in the grand state of Pennsylvania, that is, around 1900, there was no deer population. They had all been killed. Did PETA re-establish the herd? NOPE How about animal rights activists? NOPE I know where the current herd in Pennsylvania came from.....HUNTERS. YEP, that's right, you heard it here first, the GAME COMMISSION re-established, and maintains the herd. The friggin animal rights lunatics, and certainly PETA, don't spend a dime on it. Actually, I'd go as far as to say PETA does nothing to maintain the Bear, Fox, and/or Turkey population in Pennsylvania either.

www.allegheny-online.com...

I once saw where a herd overwintered in deep snow, actually, on the Gettysburg Battlefield. The bark was stripped from the trees due to starvation, and the carcasses laid all about. Death from disease, starvation and the like is something of which PETA and the other animal lovers fail to recognize, along with the general degredation of the herds health if left to populate unchecked.

I eat venison.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
@smokeenmirrors

Animal rights is NOT about maintaining herds (so they can be hunted?)

It's about the unnecessary ABUSE of animals, in such places as factory farms, battery farms, vivisection labs, Fur farms etc...
HUGE diff man!
Why are ppl so defensive about this? Treating animals fairly and humanely is NOT necessarily a threat to your meat-eating-hunting-I'm a man so I must KILL-fraternity. Being kind to animals is not a threat to testosterone.
Go ahead and do your stuff, but let's be REAL men about this and treat animals as you know deep down in your heart they should really be treated.
It's not hard, in fact it's easy.
LIFE is LIFE and should be respected as such no matter how many legs it has.
That's why we are so easily calouse towards other Human beings, our own selfish needs come above all else. Another example of the strong exploiting the weak. NO different than the rich exploiting the poor. Government exploiting it's population. Husband beating the wife.
"I'm bigger and better than those bellow me, it's my right to abuse and exploit"
Animals feel pain and fear and all the other things we do. What's gives us the right to inflict that upon them. Because they can't speak up for themselves, it's OK to treat them the way we do?
It's easy to justify the wrongs we do, with stoopid excuses like "we're the top of the food chain" or whatever other excuses ppl think up, pick your own.
It's got nothing to do with "how cute and furry an animal is" # that...
It's about basic respect for life, for nature, for the earth, for your home, for yourself.
If you live in modern amerika you DON'T need to abuse animals for vanity or food, there is no excuse. If you do then you make that choice, but don't tell me it's necessary.


More on the "herds" thing;
www.parkc.org...

(edit: for smiley)



[edit on 8/12/2004 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Man has been wearing fur ever since we started walking upright.

I'm sorry I missed the giveaway, I would have gone down and got a warm coat. It gets cold here in Seattle in the winter, and fur keeps you warm better than anything else invented by man or nature.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Man has been wearing fur ever since we started walking upright.

I'm sorry I missed the giveaway, I would have gone down and got a warm coat. It gets cold here in Seattle in the winter, and fur keeps you warm better than anything else invented by man or nature.



Hey thank you engineer, another one of those excuses I was talking about.
I'll add it to my list.

Man USED to be able to beat their wife, lawfully.
Man USED to be able to keep slaves, lawfully.
Man USED to be able to send young children to work, lawfully
Man USED to be able to hunt foxes in England, lawfully.

You see things we USED to do since we began to walk are not necessarily good now are they?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I'm feeling lucky today, so I'll risk this:

I have no use for PETA. None.
If they were truly charitable in this endeavor, we wouldn't be hearing about them doing it. They just want the publicity.

I have a wonderful mink jacket. I've had it for years. I think it is a tuxedo cut, it reaches hip length. It looks good on me and it keeps me warm.
I make no apologies for wearing it.


I have had pets all my life.
I do not believe in killing WILD animals for their skins. But, ranched animals are not endangered species.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
What I wanna know is, is when can we start wearing the skin of rich people?...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
PETA=NAZI
Wearing fur is our right because we are the apex predator.

Eating other animals is our right becasue we can.becasue they are essential to our survival.Becasue they would eat us if it was the other way around,and becasue they taste so good next to potatoes.PETA should think about that,plants are alive too!!why is it any more ethical to eat plants than it is to eat animals????
to be a true follower of PETA you HAVE to follow it's logic to it's full conclusion,that your existance is detrimental to the world,and you should kill your self as soon as possible,preferably near some roaming scavangers so you can make them happy.Can you see where thinking like this goes?
If there is any cows or chickens or mink that have a problem with my statements,then please post a reply and i will apologize



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Samhain if you really want answers to your ...er questions then pls take the time to read all of this;

www.peta.org...

Before you post a bunch of stoopid excuses for diabolicle behaviour pls get yer facts straight. If not then pls feel free to remaine ignorant.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

lost1
Anyone else who thinks that real furs should be no more, better not own a pet. Because by owning a pet, you are enslaving that animal. Right there proves that you dont care about ethical treatment for animals.


You never had a pet? please tell what is unethical about having a cb(captive born/bred) pet, provided you supply all its needs sufficiantly, both physical and phsycological. ? How is that enslavement? please look up the definition, then realise that cb animals will simply die, unable to fend for themselves in the wild. explain your statements, dont make wild broad strokes, they make look ignorant and stupid.


I never said anything about not showing ethical treatment towards animals


See above quote.


Even if its for sport and you dont use the meat for food, you are still keeping the balance of nature. You are thinning out thier numbers. If there are too many of a particular animal in the area, there can be a scarcity of food adn they die.


This is assuming you have studied in depth the habitat of the animal and the biodiversity of that habitat, before blasting away like a redneck. i.e. What other species the hunted animal relies on for food and what other species within the same habitat rely on the hunted animal for food, and so on. You make another broad stroke without any specific reference, simply to try an make a point. More often than not , culling interferes with the natural balance with disaterous results echoing through the food chain.


astrocreep
Well, no matter what statement it makes, I'm glad to see the poor getting something to help keep them warm. I too disagree with killing an animal for its fur alone. I can undersatnd using cow hide for leather because we eat the meat and thats the primary reason although I disagree with inhuman methods for killing them.



I wholeheartedly agree with above Astrocreep. I think Peta's main problem with folk eating so much meat, using so much wood etc etc etc, is simply that it all ads to the suffering of animals directly or indirectly. For example
the apparent increase in meat consumption (demand) leads to the nessesity of more intensive farming methods to supply that demand and hence more suffering for food animals involved, i.e battery hens, etc etc
The more reasonable members of Peta dont expect anyone to stop eating meat but rather cut down consumption and for farmers/gov to look at better methods to lessen suffering and cruel unatural conditions our food animals live in. Like any org, there are sadly fanatics, who give the org as a whole a bad name and subsequently detract from the real issues and messages, because folk hear these fanatic nuts and lump the lot in one basket.
I dont see hypocrasy in caring about the well being of food animals and weather they are humanely killed, while enjoying eating meat. Ive eaten meat all my life and I accept that animals must die for that. However I dont accept, that these animals are kept their entire lives in cruel, filthy, conditions, having no natural behaviour whatsoever, and then slaughtered inhumanly


chakota
No animal should live in a cage. Period. It is in that way I agree with LadyV. Outlaw the caging of animals


Sorry but this too is a rather broad stroke. While I agree with it in the most part, i.e.
zoo animals should be kept in natural surrounds with as much space as possible, not behind bars. For the most part zoo's are doing this now.
Birds / Bats should not be kept caged, they have wings and are ment to fly free, I dont why i feel this way over another animal, perhaps its irrational.
I have no problem with caging other pets (depending on species) provided they have ample room to excersise and be phycologically happy.
Obvious a dog in a cage is not right, nor a horse or a whole lot of animals.
But a pet mouse in a large cage, or hamster, or rabbit in a very large cage, why not. IF the animal has the means to behave naturally as its wild counterpart (*) i see no problem, or unethical treatment in that.
(*) Obviously I take into account a species that has a very large natural range, ie Elephants travel far and wide, and no zoo can provide that, possibly western plains zoo being an exception, its pretty big and its concept is open range.
www.zoo.nsw.gov.au...



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Samhain if you really want answers to your ...er questions then pls take the time to read all of this;

www.peta.org...

Before you post a bunch of stoopid excuses for diabolicle behaviour pls get yer facts straight. If not then pls feel free to remaine ignorant.


I'm not ignorant in the least bit.do you have to call names to feel like your making a point.
The logic behind Peta is laughable.
I'm sorry,but there isnt anything unethical or diabolicle about eating animals.peta condones violence against fur wearers and the meat industry.
The fact that they are giving furs OUT is a sign of the BS hypocritical behavior they use.
and my errr.... questions were rhetorical.look it up.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Samhain, please read my post above. I dont work for Peta. I dont support Peta. I do agree with some of their concerns.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join