Ethics of Fur

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cassini, you will soon learn that our glorious :bowdown:Marfran :bowdown2: is an absolute pillar of sanctity on a par with Mother Theresa. She has never done anything unethical and never will! :whistle:

Signed, the other person on this thread who was previously involved with mink farming but whom Marfran did not…repeat…did not call a “factory farm mink rancher” or even anything remotely like that because she never put my name on a post. :rotfl:
Sarcasm does not further any discussion. We are on a discussion thread.
 
It says that he told his followers how and where to catch so many fish that their nets could have been torn, and that he was cooking fish on a fire when they came to shore and that he told them to bring some of the fish they just caught and to have breakfast with him.

Oh, and you want proof from the Bible that he ate fish? Why didn’t you say so?

While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them.
Luke 24: 41-43

Yep, no vegan Jesus!
Jesus did not eat fish in the previous example that you posted. I am trying to teach you to be more meticulous and accurate. This is a helpful skill to learn.
 
Really? The soles of your sandals are cloth? Where do you get them? What do you do when it’s raining or snowing?
Rubber soles. What is wrong with you ? Enough with all these personal attacks and wierd interrogatories. Shall I ask - Do you wear a wig, how much do you spend on make-up a month? Do you want such sandals, I will send them to you FOC.

If you cotinue in this mode, I for one will not respond. You just want to spew insults and make personal attacks. You don’t have to agree but you need to show respect. You do not want to discuss.
 
Rubber soles. What is wrong with you ? Enough with all these personal attacks and wierd interrogatories. Shall I ask - Do you wear a wig, how much do you spend on make-up a month? Do you want such sandals, I will send them to you FOC.

If you cotinue in this mode, I for one will not respond. You just want to spew insults and make personal attacks. You don’t have to agree but you need to show respect. You do not want to discuss.
I don’t wear a wig, and I spend $0 on make-up a month. Thanks for the offer, but I will pass on the sandals. :o
 
The cost of a mink fur coat is roughly equal to the cost of one year of parochial high school. I have several kids in parochial high school and feel that investing in a Catholic education for my children is a much better investment than spending that same money for the vanity of a fur coat.
I bet we can all come up with better investments than a mink coat. How does it make a better world to purchase and own a fur coat?
 
I don’t wear a wig, and I spend $0 on make-up a month. Thanks for the offer, but I will pass on the sandals. :o
I don’t think you get my point. I do not want nor should I or have the right to ask you personal questions. I thought you were really interested in my sandals. Oh well.🙂
 
I hope your dogs have adequate shelter. My dogs all are in at night, run on grass and are very happy. I live in a city. My cats have their claws. My animals do want they want, still love me and my dogs protect me.
Not putting you down brother, as my previous post made clear.

yes, my dogs have adequate shelter. My front porch, for example. Their favorite, though, is a large cedar tree with thick foliage that hangs all the way to the ground. It’s particularly attractive when it snows. It makes a big cone of snow. The dogs tend to sleep late when that happens. Must be pretty toasty in under there for a big furry dog. But I will admit, it doesn’t get terribly cold here, and not often, and Great Pyrenees have generous coats. It’s amusing on cold nights to see the cat curl up inside the curl of one of the dog’s bodies. He’s no fool. As if to help out, the dog often rests his head on the cat’s body. Pretty good arrangement for all concerned, I would say.

But back to fur. I am for anything, including fur coats, that makes a woman feel beautiful. Vive les femmes!
 
Not putting you down brother, as my previous post made clear.

yes, my dogs have adequate shelter. My front porch, for example. Their favorite, though, is a large cedar tree with thick foliage that hangs all the way to the ground. It’s particularly attractive when it snows. It makes a big cone of snow. The dogs tend to sleep late when that happens. Must be pretty toasty in under there for a big furry dog. But I will admit, it doesn’t get terribly cold here, and not often, and Great Pyrenees have generous coats. It’s amusing on cold nights to see the cat curl up inside the curl of one of the dog’s bodies. He’s no fool. As if to help out, the dog often rests his head on the cat’s body. Pretty good arrangement for all concerned, I would say.

But back to fur. I am for anything, including fur coats, that makes a woman feel beautiful. Vive les femmes!
You have the Great Pyrrenees. Gorgeous dogs! Ilike all dogs though.

So do I but I draw the line at fur. and anything else that causes suffering. To use the oft quoted phrase only “Beauty without Cruelty”.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marfran forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The cost of a mink fur coat is roughly equal to the cost of one year of parochial high school. I have several kids in parochial high school and feel that investing in a Catholic education for my children is a much better investment than spending that same money for the vanity of a fur coat.
I bet we can all come up with better investments than a mink coat. How does it make a better world to purchase and own a fur coat?
Now you’re reduced to agreeing with yourself? Can you sink any lower?
 
“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…
 
“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…
Bravo! So well said.

Christ did not explictly condemn many things that we now consider wrong. He did say that the greatest command is that of love. God obviously loves all of his creation. Why do we not. He made us in His image and gave us free will which gives us responsibilities towards all of His creation. We have been given the privilege to live in this world.

There is nothing wrong and much right in doing anything that brings us and this world closer to what God created it to be.
 
“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…
As I said earlier in one of my posts, several years ago I attended a class at the local community college on Animal Rights. One of the things that disturbed me was when the teacher said, “Slavery used to be OK, now we know it’s wrong.” It was as if she was equating animals with human beings, which you cannot do. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. Animals are not. There is a hierarchy to creation. By the way, most of the proponents of animal rights in the class were also in favor of legalized abortion, because human beings are a plague on the earth that needs to be wiped out (all human beings except themselves, of course.)

IF animals are in the eschaton, I don’t believe we’ll eat them or wear them; it will be as it was in the Garden of Eden where all creation will live together in harmony. That means lions and tigers, etc. also will not eat other animals. And, if you choose to begin here on earth by not eating animals or wearing them, more power to you. I cannot do that. It’s as simple as that. Short of being forced, I could not survive on a vegan diet.

And finally, based on his letter to Philemon (a very short book in the Bible that doesn’t get much “press”), I don’t agree that the Apostle Paul didn’t condemn slavery.
 
As I said earlier in one of my posts, several years ago I attended a class at the local community college on Animal Rights. One of the things that disturbed me was when the teacher said, “Slavery used to be OK, now we know it’s wrong.” It was as if she was equating animals with human beings, which you cannot do. Human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. Animals are not. There is a hierarchy to creation. By the way, most of the proponents of animal rights in the class were also in favor of legalized abortion, because human beings are a plague on the earth that needs to be wiped out (all human beings except themselves, of course.)

IF animals are in the eschaton, I don’t believe we’ll eat them or wear them; it will be as it was in the Garden of Eden where all creation will live together in harmony. That means lions and tigers, etc. also will not eat other animals. And, if you choose to begin here on earth by not eating animals or wearing them, more power to you. I cannot do that. It’s as simple as that. Short of being forced, I could not survive on a vegan diet.

And finally, based on his letter to Philemon (a very short book in the Bible that doesn’t get much “press”), I don’t agree that the Apostle Paul didn’t condemn slavery.
Alright I have an idea. Why not think, just for a minute that the person, or anyone else on this thread for that matter, was not trying place slavery and animal rights on the same level. Give people credit, most of us are not stupid about this, it would be futile to try and ‘‘free’’ all animals under use. However, slavery can be used as an example of a heinous phenomenon of the past that otheriwse well intentioned people were convinced was morally acceptable. I have read of some slave traders who, maybe to try and ease their guilt, argued that the slave people who would better off with them anyway, rather than free on their own. It appears frequently in the Bible and there is no mention of Jesus explicitly saying that it should be abolished. However we can all agree that He did not approve of it, maybe he trusted the time would come for us to come to our senses? Therefore if you want to argue that there is nothing at all morally wrong about using fur, the argument that oh it was in the Bible and God never said a word against it, does not hold up.

I understand your issues with a vegan diet, however this thread is about fur use, not veganism. People might have unique health problems and will not be able to go fully vegan. However I dont know of any health problems preventing a person from ceasing wearing fur. By the way, I have extremely sensitive skin and live where it is freezing about 70 per cent of the time, synthetic materials serve me well.

God bless
 
“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…
’ “Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering?’

OK. then, while sounding so pious and sanctimonious this animal rights propaganda is typical. Let us look at creation by God, designed by Him Who said it was good. Is a tiger a thing of beauty and good? Is an antelope or zebra a thing of beauty and good? When the tiger runs down the antelope or zebra and begins to eat it before it dies, is that beautiful and good? At this stage we are all SHOCKED at the thought. Yet, it is good, Why? Because it guarantees the continuation of the species we call tigers and they are beautiful and good and the continuation of any species is good.

So where does that leave the ’ Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering?’ Well if you think God created what you people would call cruel, you are more compassionate than Him.

What is cruelty? It is something Humans only are capable of. I think we all know what constitutes cruelty, but the problem comes when one calls something cruel that another see no cruelty in. So, who decides these differences, one of them being fur-farming? God gave that decision to society as a whole. But even within different cultures we have differences. take for instance some of the things that the Chinese do, or the Americans when they shoot bears for sport? So, there are problems with ‘cruelty’. I abhor the sight of a bull in a Spanish bull ring crippled first so that men can have sport finishing it off while looking brave.

Determining cruelty also depends on the ‘minds’ of animals. Ever see antelopes going back to graze after one of them gets caught by lions. No bother. this proves they do not ‘think’ in a manner that recognises cruelty. But when a man puts a dog to live in a barrel as I have seen (and stopped) that is cruelty no matter what the dog is thinking.

Now I believe I have as good an understanding of cruelty as anyone on earth. I will know it when I see it. Keeping mink in cages for many reasons has turned out to be sustainable, just as it was found to be OK to keep canaries in cages. There are no visible defects, it keeps them clean and free from disease, allows them to see what they see, and seems adequat for all other purposes. After 150 years of domestication it is not like caging a wild creature fresh out of the wild which would not meet my approval. Mink do not look out and long to be walking the hills looking for something to kill, that is animal rights propaganda.

The alternative is that they never lived, which they wouldn’t if fur farming was considered cruel and banned by man. Now to say it is better they never lived (a ‘happy’ enough life as I observed) that they never enjoyed their being with their nature is almost to throw life back at God.

And that is enough for the present.
 
’ “Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering?’

OK. then, while sounding so pious and sanctimonious this animal rights propaganda is typical. Let us look at creation by God, designed by Him Who said it was good. Is a tiger a thing of beauty and good? Is an antelope or zebra a thing of beauty and good? When the tiger runs down the antelope or zebra and begins to eat it before it dies, is that beautiful and good? At this stage we are all SHOCKED at the thought. Yet, it is good, Why? Because it guarantees the continuation of the species we call tigers and they are beautiful and good and the continuation of any species is good.

So where does that leave the ’ Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering?’ Well if you think God created what you people would call cruel, you are more compassionate than Him.

What is cruelty? It is something Humans only are capable of. I think we all know what constitutes cruelty, but the problem comes when one calls something cruel that another see no cruelty in. So, who decides these differences, one of them being fur-farming? God gave that decision to society as a whole. But even within different cultures we have differences. take for instance some of the things that the Chinese do, or the Americans when they shoot bears for sport? So, there are problems with ‘cruelty’. I abhor the sight of a bull in a Spanish bull ring crippled first so that men can have sport finishing it off while looking brave.

Determining cruelty also depends on the ‘minds’ of animals. Ever see antelopes going back to graze after one of them gets caught by lions. No bother. this proves they do not ‘think’ in a manner that recognises cruelty. But when a man puts a dog to live in a barrel as I have seen (and stopped) that is cruelty no matter what the dog is thinking.

Now I believe I have as good an understanding of cruelty as anyone on earth. I will know it when I see it. Keeping mink in cages for many reasons has turned out to be sustainable, just as it was found to be OK to keep canaries in cages. There are no visible defects, it keeps them clean and free from disease, allows them to see what they see, and seems adequat for all other purposes. After 150 years of domestication it is not like caging a wild creature fresh out of the wild which would not meet my approval. Mink do not look out and long to be walking the hills looking for something to kill, that is animal rights propaganda.

The alternative is that they never lived, which they wouldn’t if fur farming was considered cruel and banned by man. Now to say it is better they never lived (a ‘happy’ enough life as I observed) that they never enjoyed their being with their nature is almost to throw life back at God.

And that is enough for the present.
Having a different view from yours is not trying to sound pious and sanctimonious. That phrase was a reference to things women use for the sake of beauty. God did make the world a beautiful place without violence. The violence everywhere is a consequence of the fall of Man.

I agree with you that only humans are capable of cruelty.

Animals may not understand the concept of cruelty but they feel the results of cruelty. Minks killing in the wild was not said by any of we the animal lovers,supporters, I believe.

Cruelty is cruelty and it cannot be justified under the guise of culture. Yes bull fighting is terrible.

For me it is a simple issue. I will take your word that you treated your minks humanely. Your taking your elderly physically challenged neighbour’s dog for a walk and stopping a dog being chained to a barrel shows you are a kind person.

Fur is not necessary today, I honestly believe. So I can’t support breeding any animals for their fur. I think trapping animals, bludgeoning baby seals for fur, are worse.

I am not criticising you. you. This is a discussion thread and these are my views.
 
And what about things that ***did not exist ***previously??? What about new inventions??? New technology??? New medical procedures??? (Are all those ethical?) Do we get a free pass for anything new that did not exist in the time of Christ?
As I said before, morality is timeless.

Technology is irrelevent. As is time.
Sin always will be sin.

Attempting to sway morality based upon changing times are circumstance is moral relativity.
 
Cruelty is cruelty and it cannot be justified under the guise of culture. Yes bull fighting is terrible.

.
Don’t really want to open up a can of new worms, but I think a person would do well to read the segment on bullfighting in Michener’s “Iberia” before totally making up his mind about this. It’s not always so, but there can be a certain severe, almost philosophical beauty to it and, given the nature of fighting bulls, it may be less cruel than it seems.

When I was a kid, I always had dogs that could fight the feral animals with which the woods abaounded. And, of course, they kept the hill on which we lived clear of rivals, singular or plural. Two very vigorous dog lives sufficed to get me through babyhood through my teens. We normally had two at a time. Each one that died always died as a consequence of losing its “last fight” with some animal or other. Oncoming loss of prowess due to age no doubt being the reason they lost. A subtle slowness we humans could not detect, perhaps, hearing slightly dulled so the enemy was able to attack from the side. A 1/25 reduction in bite strength, maybe. Tragedy there was, but no shame in the death of Hektor “breaker of horses” at the hand of mighty Achilleus.

While I loved them and mourned their loss, it somehow always seemed fitting to me that they died in the manner in which they did. How very “dog like”, it seemed, and particularly for a proud dog. Like something out of the Iliad, it seemed.

The very first dog I knew of that was “put down” by its owner was my wife’s sister’s dog; a house poodle that had gotten so arthritic that it spent its last year or so terribly impaired and virtually toothless, seemingly kept relatively pain free with “doggie analgesics”. Its mild oncoming incontinence was kindly tolerated. But it was euthanized ultimately, and it was a kindness that it was.

And, of course, its sad last days and end of life reminded me of the proud deaths of my dogs. Notwithstanding that my dogs probably did not, in essaying their final antagonist or in their last moments, think of themselves as one of “the 300”, I had a certain pride in them and in the manner of their deaths. It seemed so worthy.

As Michener describes bullfighting done with “gracia” on the part both of the bull and the bullfighter, it can seem so too.

As one poster observed, the moral content of animals’ deaths is, we could say, as perceived by us, not as perceived by them. With humans, of course, it’s the other way around. And maybe there isn’t a great deal more to know about this.
 
Reading through this thread you will find many that cite fur as the best material for keeping warm in extreme climates.

‘Managed to get by’ implies a struggle.
Perhaps there would not be such a struggle using real fur to keep warm.

Perhaps you should read through this thread again. It has been explained many times that fur is better at keeping people warm in extreme climates.
And there are numerous other advantages outlined within this thread of fur over anything else.

Economics.
Many others have also stated that they have kept warm without fur. Still seems a matter or personal preference - easy to yield to personal preference if one does not find anything objectionable the unnecessary suffering or death of animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top