Ethics of Fur

[severus68]

Sure looks that way.

At the very least one can hear the sarcasm dripping from the words.

Still not a personal attack.

 

[severus68]

So what.
It is our prerogative to bend nature to our will.

The plants and animals are a precious resource put in place by God to for us to use.

We are privileged to live in this world. We should not treat a creature of God, even a non human one, as just a commodity.

 

[vz71]

Yes, looks like they live in the lap of luxury. Got any photos of the inside of the barricks??? Photos of the mink where it actually lives?? Photos of the cages with the animals in them??? Photos of the killing of the minks??? Photos of the skinning??? The bodies without their skin and fur???

At the very least one can hear the sarcasm dripping from the words.

Still not a personal attack.

Well at least you acknowledge the attack.

 

[vz71]

We are privileged to live in this world. We should not treat a creature of God, even a non human one, as just a commodity.

I believe the word ‘precious’ covers that.
Although perhaps I was not clear on that point.

These animals should be well cared for and humanely treated in their service to us.

 

[Marfran]

Originally Posted by cassini forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

I wonder how people can even kill the lives of animals they have cared for?

They do not treat them as pets. They do not spend significant portions of their time with each animal. They feed and water them, and clean the feces and urine, but they do not bond with them. Notice in the photo how the gentleman holds the animal, and notice the protective glove. He is concerned for his safety, as this is not a pet and is probably not accustomed to being held–he may have never even picked this specific animal up before.

This animal has been picked up before. It was picked up when it was first born, to see if it had milk in its stomach. It was picked up again, at least once, to be vaccinated, and, in some cases, they are vaccinated more than once. And it was picked up again when it was moved to its own cage, since mink are solitary animals and need their own space. And you don’t “hold” a mink, unless you want bites in your stomach. Their teeth are like little needles. They are not pets, true. And you would protect yourself against a mink, just as you would protect yourself against a bull or a cow, or even a dog.

He’s not making fun of people who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of animals. That mink farmer is genuinely concerned about the welfare of his animals. What Cassini was doing was using the words that proponents of animal rights use to describe fur farmed animals. Looking at the picture, you can see that’s not so. The animal is well fed. It’s clean. Its eyes are clear, it’s calm–no sign of madness. And it doesn’t appear to be suffering in any way, does it?

And notice the inflammatory language you use: “barricks” [sic] They’re called sheds and they provide protection for the animals from inclement weather such as rain, sleet, and snow but still give them fresh air and light. You’ve been told they have to be kept in cages to protect them from each other and to prevent them from harming one another since they are solitary animals. Photos of the killing? Everything dies eventually. The point is, is it a humane death? It was not pleasant for me to be present when the vet euthanized my pet, but it had to be done. **And what point would there be to showing photos of the skinning and the bodies without their skin and fur? **They’re dead then; they are in no pain.

You do not know the man in the photo. You do not know how much time he spends with each animal or how he treats them. You say that he wears a glove because he is concerned for his safety. In just a few words you show your disdain for anyone that farms.

Original post by cassini=wording is inflammatory. Suggests that animals are well treated, or not mistreated. Presents to us a ***staged photo ***of man holding a mink outside numerous sheds in which animals are housed. Does not show actual conditions in which the animal lives. Only shows us ONE animal. There are thousands of them in the sheds behind him. I point out that this man may have never held this specific animal before. It is not a pet. The man wears a protective glove because he is concerned for his own safety. I point this out for those viewing the photo thinking “Oh, this animal looks happy, the man is holding it…” This is not my disdain, Mary Gail–I point these things out because we should not look through rose colored glasses when viewing this photograph. The reality is not in the photograph. The reality is in the glove the man wears, and what is going on behind him in the sheds.

**And the point of showing how these animals actually live, how they are killed, and their pelts being removed from ther dead bodies, goes to understanding the reality of the process. If a woman who wants to purchase a $5,000.00 mink coat were to see how the 40 minks that died for her coat lived, and were killed and skinned, she might actually change her mind about wanting one. **

 

[Marfran]

Buying a diamond is not supporting an industry of cruelty unless it is a blood diamond from Sierra Leone and now Namibia. That is the difference. I agree, extravagance is relative to many things and I don’t think I want to go into indulgences. We cannot know a person’s motivations. However if you know buying a product is supporting cruelty and/or suffering and that product is not essential to say your health and life, should you buy it?

We can’t impose our convictions on others, we can only share how we feel.

Yes, I agree!!!

 

[vz71]

Presents to us a ***staged photo ***of man holding a mink outside numerous sheds in which animals are housed.

Really? What evidence do we have that the photo is staged?
Please present it.

Does not show actual conditions in which the animal lives.

Again, what evidence is there of this?
Please present it.

There are thousands of them in the sheds behind him.

And the evidence of this??
Please present the evidence.

I point these things out because we should not look through rose colored glasses when viewing this photograph.

Nor should we be making up the facts to suit us.
You have made a number of accusations and have yet to present a shred of evidence for anything other then your own bitter prejudice.

As my 6 year old says…“put up or shut up”
Show us the evidence/proof of what you claim in this picture.
Else simply recant, apologize and move on.

 

[4elise]

Hey look everyone.
Another judgement based upon fallacious interpretation of the Catechism.

Perhaps you would like to address, for the sake of dialogue, how you find this to be fallacious?

 

[Marfran]

Here is a picture of a friend of mine torturing one of his starving, mad, insane, SUFFERING wish I was out of here, terrified, miserable mink.

Yes, looks like they live in the lap of luxury. Got any photos of the inside of the barricks??? Photos of the mink where it actually lives?? Photos of the cages with the animals in them??? Photos of the killing of the minks??? Photos of the skinning??? The bodies without their skin and fur???

At the very least one can hear the sarcasm dripping from the words.

I think the sarcasm was in the post that I was responding to. The photo is staged. We would like to see the INSIDE of the facilities. We would like to see how the animals live, how they are killed, and how their pelts are removed. ***An accurate portrayal of the operation ***is necessary to make an informed decision to purchase, or not to purchase the product of this fur farmer.

 

[severus68]

I believe the word ‘precious’ covers that.
Although perhaps I was not clear on that point.

These animals should be well cared for and humanely treated in their service to us.

No you were not clear. Thank you for that.

 

[vz71]

Perhaps you would like to address, for the sake of dialogue, how you find this to be fallacious?

I have many times in this thread.

 

[vz71]

I think the sarcasm was in the post that I was responding to. The photo is staged.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with the evidence for that conclusion?

If not, I believe everyone here will find difficulty believing you.

 

[4elise]

I have many times in this thread.

My comment to a post regarding the CCC use of the word needless in the English translation vs a direct translation from Latin - useless and indiscriminately:

I understand that when something is translated there are subtle differences - but I would suggest that the translation is done by the Church - and while in it is both - inutilmente = useless) / indiscriminatamente = indiscriminately - I could take the text and substitute
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die uselessly and indiscriminately

Your reply:

Hey look everyone.
Another judgement based upon fallacious interpretation of the Catechism.

My reply to the statement above:

Perhaps you would like to address, for the sake of dialogue, how you find this to be fallacious?

Your reply:

I have many times in this thread.

If you have indeed addressed the meaning of ‘needless’ vs the direct translation of ‘useless and indiscriminately’ and perhaps why the English translation would chose to use the word needlessly I must have missed that.

So rather than the sarcastic ‘Hey look everyone’ it would advance the discussion more if you were willing to discuss directly with me my post, - let me help - perhaps it is why you find this translation lacking in meaning - or unclear in meaning - or you believe overstated in my understanding - I can respect that, but it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion where there is a lack of mutual respect.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Presents to us a ***staged photo ***of man holding a mink outside numerous sheds in which animals are housed. Does not show actual conditions in which the animal lives. Only shows us ONE animal. There are thousands of them in the sheds behind him. I point out that this man may have never held this specific animal before. It is not a pet.

**And the point of showing how these animals actually live, how they are killed, and their pelts being removed from ther dead bodies, goes to understanding the reality of the process. If a woman who wants to purchase a $5,000.00 mink coat were to see how the 40 minks that died for her coat lived, and were killed and skinned, she might actually change her mind about wanting one. **

I was intrigued by the size of the thing. Wild minks around here, anyway, are nowhere near that large. That’s one honking big mink.

The second paragraph reminds me of the “If you know what was in hot dogs, you would never eat one.” thing people say. One could as easily say “If you knew how many rodent hairs and body parts are in your healthy, whole-grain bread, you would never eat it.” I once had a fellow who worked in a spice processing factory tell me what all gets in the pepper, and it’s mighty bad. Other spices have awful things in them too, but pepper, he said, is the worst. Almost nothing we eat is without some kind of repulsive aspect to it. We just don’t know about it.

And, of course, there’s shoe leather, purse leather, the dog and cat food you feed your pets. On the pet food, here’s a cheery thought. A fellow who manufactures it told me that dogs in particular love the smell of decaying flesh. Their sense of smell is about 1000 times as keen as ours, so they can smell it when we can’t. So, dog food manufacturers like to put a bit of it in the dog food to give it that “overripe” whiff that makes it attractive to dogs. The usual source is what they call “farm deads”, the animals that die of natural causes on farms, particularly poultry. They pile them, and people like my friend come around and gather them up. NEVER taste your dog’s food, no matter what the ads say is in it. Never!

 

[vz71]

My comment to a post regarding the CCC use of the word needless in the English translation vs a direct translation from Latin - useless and indiscriminately:

Latin?
I believe you are quoting Italian.
Maybe you should go back in the thread and see where exactly your words are coming from.

In any case, ‘useless’ points us more toward the intended meaning, and any use whatsoever would fit the bill since there is no qualification added at all.
It would appear the CCC simply leaves it at a sin to simply kill animals and leave them to rot on the ground.

So rather than the sarcastic ‘Hey look everyone’ it would advance the discussion more if you were willing to discuss directly with me my post, - let me help - perhaps it is why you find this translation lacking in meaning - or unclear in meaning - or you believe overstated in my understanding - I can respect that, but it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion where there is a lack of mutual respect.

Lack of mutual respect…
Well, I am not feeling very respected either.

Your stubborn insistance that the CCC supports your position places judgement on many others. It is difficult to feel any respect from or respect for people sitting in judgement of me.

The CCC does not support the position.
If you wish to make that lifestyle choice, that is fine. But leave the church out of it.

 

[4elise]

Latin?
I believe you are quoting Italian.
Maybe you should go back in the thread and see where exactly your words are coming from.

In any case, ‘useless’ points us more toward the intended meaning, and any use whatsoever would fit the bill since there is no qualification added at all.
It would appear the CCC simply leaves it at a sin to simply kill animals and leave them to rot on the ground…

I stand corrected - the original post referenced both Italian and Latin - as I speak neither I thought the text that was referenced was the original Latin - but now we have another language to go through -

So then in the Italian it says both useless and indiscriminately - while in English it simply says needlessly … I interpret this to mean I have no ‘need’ for meat therefore this does indeed support my interpretation - you are of course at liberty to a different understanding - or perhaps you simply believe that you need meat.

Lack of mutual respect…
Well, I am not feeling very respected either.

Your stubborn insistance that the CCC supports your position places judgement on many others. It is difficult to feel any respect from or respect for people sitting in judgement of me.

The CCC does not support the position.
If you wish to make that lifestyle choice, that is fine. But leave the church out of it.

You have previously said directly in a post directly to me that you use the term ‘lifestyle choice’ regarding my choosing to be a vegan in a derogatory manner. I would not know how else to interpret this but to say there there is a lack of respect - and when asked about it you defended your position.

If you can point to anything I have said to you which is lacking in respect I will certainly apologize - you find me to be stubborn because I find the CCC supports my ‘lifestyle’ choice - I try to do embody my faith, as I am sure you do. Our faith isn’t something to be practiced once a week for an hour, but rather as you know we are called to live our faith. I can’t leave my faith out of anything - it is what drives my life. In what I eat, what I wear, I have found it better reflected by omitting animals suffering and death because in my daily life their suffering and death is needless.

Therefore I can not leave the Church out of anything I chose to do - you obviously feel very passionate about this topic - and feel judged. I can only speak to how this has resonated in my life, and do not offer judgement on you or anyone else that hunts or eats meat -

Blessings,

 

[fultonfish]

Fur-based ethics and/or morality is a non-issue.

Enjoy the fur and the diamonds.

 

[4elise]

Fur-based ethics and/or morality is a non-issue.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[vz71]

You have previously said directly in a post directly to me that you use the term ‘lifestyle choice’ regarding my choosing to be a vegan in a derogatory manner.

No I didn’t.
I explicitly said otherwise.

Perhaps you should go back and reread the pertinent posts.

If your responses toward me are being influenced by a misinterpretation of what is actually there, I am uncertain how to proceed.

 

[Marfran]

Really? What evidence do we have that the photo is staged?
Please present it.

If you pose for a photo it is staged. This applies to **ALL **photos. Portraits are an obvious example of a staged photo. If you (or I, or anyone else) stands in front of a house, smiles, and poses for the camera–that is a staged photo. Who knows what’s going on inside of the house–it could be unclean, messy, unwashed dishes pilling up in the sink, laundry piled on all pieces of furniture–there could be no furniture at all in it… An unposed photo is called a candid. You walk into the house, unannounced, and start snapping photos of what’s inside. You are in the factory snapping pictures while people work… unposed…