Ethics of Fur

[pete_29]

ok I apologize because I didn’t read all of this thread, it’s a longy!

I come from the beef industry point of view and I believe animals that are bred and raised for a purpose, whatever that may be, and then used for that purpose to be fine. these animals for fur are not malnourished and mistreated. if they were, their coats would not be as nice and thus, less valuable. so honestly, what difference does it make (to the “emotional” animal ) if it is killed for meat or for it’s hide? I’m thinking it’s a bad day for fluffy either way, but it comes down to business. harvesting a fur to make an honest living and support your family is not “cruel” in my eyes.

that said, nice horned longhorns are bred and raised for their head and hide, not just meat. yes, the meat is good, lean and always used, but if they were breeding solely for meat, the breeder would probably use an angus or hereford… and those nice even huge sets of horns are worth a pretty penny!

Trophy bucks are not shot for their tough old meat. you ever eat one? but it’s all part of population control and yes, sport. my family hunts and I don’t feel guilty or sinful over it. we have a freezer full of deer meat that everyone including the dogs and chickens benefit from, as well as some cool racks on the wall. and not a single animal on our farm is mistreated or abused. and I don’t feel guilty when the time comes to butcher them. that’s what I have raised them for.

the whole “animal rights” movement, IMHO has gona a bit overboard. I would never advocate mistreatment of an animal, but using one for it’s intended purpose seems fine to me.

ok I’m gonna go brace myself now for the stoning I’m about to get…

Just a small point, even tough old bucks make good burger and sausage.

 

[pete_29]

What a sad game.
This same game could be applied between two people who spoke different languages?

I don’t think so. With people who speak different languages, I think you would get a puzzled look with the words in their own language, What are you talking about?. The dog doesn’t know that it doesn’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[severus68]

An assumption that the animal is capable of that higher reasoning.
They are not, therefore the question would be moot.

My mother used to play an interesting game with the dog.
She would ask it if it wanted its throat cut.
The more descriptive of the mortal wounds, the more excited the dog would become.
We would be describing a hefty cut going ear to ear an eventually severing the head, and the dog would jump up and down, bark, wag its tail, etc. in excitement.

Is it capable of reasoning that it may or may not want its throat cut?
NO. It is simply reacting to our voice.

Are there any more human traits you apply to animals?
Just asking so a proper response can be drawn up.

Curious. When did anyone say dog can understand human language? Dogs understand the meaning of some words after time, they respond to intonation.

 

[severus68]

Britain.
I thought this was common knowledge.

Please don’t jump on to comments made by one person, criticised by many to say the UK is going to introduce Sharia law.

 

[severus68]

So you concede that fur farms are fine?

Else you shouldn’t be trying to change the subject like that.
People on an illegal baby seal hunt are an entirely different thing from people raising animals as a commodity.

Kindly do not put words in my mouth. The thread is about the Ethics of Fur. If you read m posts, it would be clear that I am against the use of fur. I am also against the procuring of fur.

 

[vz71]

What a sad game.
This same game could be applied between two people who spoke different languages?

It could if you want to attribute the ability to understand and communicate abstract concepts.
So how human are your pets?

From what I’ve observed with our pets it is the tone of voice, our facial reactions, body movements that they ‘read’ - not being able to understand language - their ‘language’ interaction with humans requires observation of behavior and tone.

EXACTLY.
They have not the capacity for language.
They are animals, and thus are not built for that.

This is not to anthropromorphize - but rather an understanding that these animals show care and respond to the humans that they live with.

I will not argue the response is there.
However you will be hard pressed to prove ‘care’ is there.
It involves a complex emotion of which the animal is simply not capable.

 

[vz71]

I don’t think so. With people who speak different languages, I think you would get a puzzled look with the words in their own language, What are you talking about?. The dog doesn’t know that it doesn’t know what you’re talking about.

The difference between lack of understanding and being completely unaware.

 

[vz71]

Dogs understand the meaning of some words after time, they respond to intonation.

Correct. There is no understanding of language at all.

 

[vz71]

Please don’t jump on to comments made by one person, criticised by many to say the UK is going to introduce Sharia law.

It has been in the news for quite some time now.
It is not simply ‘one person’ but many who have observed this.

Besides, if I was not meant to respond wouldn’t the post have been private?

 

[severus68]

Correct. There is no understanding of language at all.

Would you be able communicate with whales for instance, in their language? No understanding of languagedoes not ean no understanding at all and this is off topic.

 

[vz71]

Kindly do not put words in my mouth. The thread is about the Ethics of Fur. If you read m posts, it would be clear that I am against the use of fur. I am also against the procuring of fur.

I wouldn’t dream of putting words in your mouth.
The words already out of it are much easier to work with.

However I must point out that there was discussion going on concerning fur farms when you rather suddenly jumped off into baby seal hunts.

We may not have visited fur farms but I have watched videos of baby seals beng killed. One was hooked in the face and dragged on to the ship while still alive. For what purpose? To make money and indulge the tastes of some people with money.

Seems to me you suddenly grew uncomfortable with the fur farm discussion and attemtped to change the subject.

I am left wondering why.

 

[vz71]

Would you be able communicate with whales for instance, in their language? No understanding of languagedoes not ean no understanding at all and this is off topic.

Your premise is wrong.
It has not been proven that whales have any language at all.

 

[vz71]

Would you be able communicate with whales for instance, in their language? No understanding of languagedoes not ean no understanding at all and this is off topic.

It is no more off topic then the concept that prior consent must be obtained from the animal before it is hunted.

If you wish to address consent, then you had better be prepared to prove animals have a capacity for higher reasoning and thought. Language is usually a good place to start.
If you do not, then perhaps you should retract your previous post concerning hunting being unfair because prior conesent of the animals has not been obtained.

 

[Marfran]

An assumption that the animal is capable of that higher reasoning.
They are not, therefore the question would be moot.

My mother used to play an interesting game with the dog.
She would ask it if it wanted its throat cut.
The more descriptive of the mortal wounds, the more excited the dog would become.
We would be describing a hefty cut going ear to ear an eventually severing the head, and the dog would jump up and down, bark, wag its tail, etc. in excitement.

Is it capable of reasoning that it may or may not want its throat cut?
NO. It is simply reacting to our voice.

Are there any more human traits you apply to animals?
Just asking so a proper response can be drawn up.

Doesn’t sound like an interesting game to me. Why would a human being, capable of the gift of language, verbalize descriptive, sadistic, violence to a sentient, living being not capable of comprehending the thoughts conveyed–and do this all within earshot of a human child???

 

[severus68]

It is no more off topic then the concept that prior consent must be obtained from the animal before it is hunted.

If you wish to address consent, then you had better be prepared to prove animals have a capacity for higher reasoning and thought. Language is usually a good place to start.
If you do not, then perhaps you should retract your previous post concerning hunting being unfair because prior conesent of the animals has not been obtained.

I had better? Perhaps you should read the post I was respondng to before coming up with what I meant or did not mean. Do you just respond out of context? Please be clear. I am against procuring of fur by any method. I am uncomfortable with any method of getting the fur, to reiterate.

 

[just_me_1]

Since you do have first hand experience, wouldn’t the mistreatment of the minks cause an inferior product, and an economic loss? To me it doesn’t seem logical that mink farmers would treat their animals cruelly.

My Dad farmed. Some of the sheep in the farm were destined for dinner. He didn’t mistreat them prior.

absolutely. lack of nutrition results in a poor hair coat on all animals and birds. lack of hygene would result in mites or bugs which I’m sure would not be welcome in a fur coat! lol. and animals allowed to run together are often scarred from basic “pecking order” battles. they are animals, after all. they have instincts, not reasoning. all of this would lead to an inferior product I would think.

 

[just_me_1]

I was curious on what the horns were used for?

hang on the wall, put on the front of a cadillac… lol. back in the day they used the caps for powder I guess. but now they are mostly decorative.

 

[just_me_1]

Just a small point, even tough old bucks make good burger and sausage.

very true. ours get a long bath with taters in the crock pot.

 

[Marfran]

ok I apologize because I didn’t read all of this thread, it’s a longy!

I come from the beef industry point of view and I believe animals that are bred and raised for a purpose, whatever that may be, and then used for that purpose to be fine. these animals for fur are not malnourished and mistreated. if they were, their coats would not be as nice and thus, less valuable. so honestly, what difference does it make (to the “emotional” animal ) if it is killed for meat or for it’s hide?

Their fur is so nice because they are* not allowed *to run and frollick, they live in tiny cages. And the purpose is that 40 minks are killed to make 1 coat for someone who can afford the big pricetag??? This is a genuine need??? That 40 animals must die for the ***fashion ***of one person??? You can argue that beef is food and that there is a need, but other than vanity and ego, what NEED does one have for a mink coat?

BTW: the state of New York outlawed anal electrocution in 2007 because it is inhumane. It is still legal in other areas, and this method of death does not damage the fur.

 

[vz71]

Doesn’t sound like an interesting game to me. Why would a human being, capable of the gift of language, verbalize descriptive, sadistic, violence to a sentient, living being not capable of comprehending the thoughts conveyed–and do this all within earshot of a human child???

To illustrate the point that the animal is not capable of higher reasoning, that it is only reacting to voice tone and action, not understanding at all.

The point was made well.

Your characterization of sentient alongside the words “not capable of comprehending” tells me a great deal.

You should quit letting your emotions dictate and start thinking things through.

Oh yes…you are again making assumptions.
Unless you wish to consider a human in their mid-twenties a ‘child’