strictly speaking in ethical terms: how is wearing leather shoes - made of any animal hide - different from wearing this furry thingy?
or are we saying that one animal is more noble & less deserving to die than another, and therefore by extension fur-lovers are more contemptible than your run-of-the-mill cow-hide leather shoe-wearer?
Anon: Agree completely with your sentiments - thanks for stating it so clearly. I would go so far (often too far!) and say that of meat-eaters - are fish, chicken, bivalves, etc somehow more deserving to die or indeed die less painful a death than a mink? And if you carry this arguement to its logical conclusion... insects that you mindless spray to death, the bacteria that is killed - who decides the order of importance? the anti fur movement is for imbeciles with no logic. zero.
indeed. if an anti-fur person can also be consistent & refrain from using any animal products at all, then i'll grant that he/she does have a point. but until then, anti-fur is an intellectually indefensible position and, as you pointed out, hasn't any logic.
There's something mad about these Tom Ford boots that appeal to me...
strictly speaking in ethical terms: how is wearing leather shoes - made of any animal hide - different from wearing this furry thingy?
ReplyDeleteor are we saying that one animal is more noble & less deserving to die than another, and therefore by extension fur-lovers are more contemptible than your run-of-the-mill cow-hide leather shoe-wearer?
Anon: Agree completely with your sentiments - thanks for stating it so clearly.
ReplyDeleteI would go so far (often too far!) and say that of meat-eaters - are fish, chicken, bivalves, etc somehow more deserving to die or indeed die less painful a death than a mink? And if you carry this arguement to its logical conclusion... insects that you mindless spray to death, the bacteria that is killed - who decides the order of importance?
the anti fur movement is for imbeciles with no logic. zero.
indeed. if an anti-fur person can also be consistent & refrain from using any animal products at all, then i'll grant that he/she does have a point. but until then, anti-fur is an intellectually indefensible position and, as you pointed out, hasn't any logic.
ReplyDelete