True. If you want to eat meat only from animals who have not been abused, you’ll be stuck being a pescatarian (like me,) and trying your best to forgo any farm-raised fish and not eating lobster, either. 
Read “Skinny Bitch,” and you’ll consider never eating another animal again. At the very least, it will make you think about your choices. Believe me, I do not condemn or ridicule anyone’s food choices, it just seemed that you were concerned only about the treatment of veal, when, basically, all food animals are treated poorly (with the exception of “free rangers,” I suppose.)
That’s true, although it could be argued that wearing wool promotes the suffering that seems to be inevitable in (commercial-scale) animal husbandry.
Why? I don’t care if animals are treated badly. The only animal treatment issues that I care about are ones that threaten to make useful (either for food or for entertainment or whatever; there *are *many reasons why animals are useful) extinct. Why should I care if a chicken suffers in bringing me my meal? All suffering is is a negative stimulus, and so it is morally irrelevant in a non-intelligent being. Do you feel for harmless cockroaches as they writhe in pain after being squished? Do you feel sympathy for your computer when an error message pops up?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Non-human animals are not non-intelligent.
It depends on your idea of hypocritical. Things may have changed quite a bit in the 15 years since I lived anywhere near farm country, but veal is not the only “warehoused” food animal, so to single out veal yet eat all other meat and fowl might be hypocritical.
Do you not eat veal because you think it is cruel to calves? If you haven’t looked into this, you may be a hypocrite and poorly informed as to the realities of veal versus, say, egg layers. On the other hand, we are talking dairy cows (calves) and chickens here, two of the hands down dumbest animals on the planet, so assigning human feelings to these animals is mostly sensationalism.
I personally don’t think there are any legit reasons to be anti-fur, other than the price, but then I tend to do exactly the things that PETA doesn’t want me to do…
There is a meaningful difference between a cow and a computer or a cockroach. You don’t have to care that the cow suffers, but suffer it does. And to me, causing another animal capable of suffering to suffer when I don’t have a compelling reason to do so is morally relevant. In fact, I cannot understand how an animal’s suffering is not morally relevant, nor how you can justify saying that ALL animals are “non-intelligent” and therefore cannot suffer. Are humans the only animal who is intelligent and thus capable of suffering, in your opinion?
That crap-between-covers is just lies, damn lies, and vegan propaganda. It makes no dietary or scientific sense.
I’m not quite sure which word I should use, then. “Sentient” is wrong, and no other animal even comes close to the cultural, moral, and political intelligence of humans (or anything beyond the basic “how can I obtain food”).
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: Rubystreak, yes. Unless of course we ever discover an alien civilization, but that would be on a rather case-by-case basis.
You do realize that is a patently ludicrous and demonstrably false belief, don’t you? There are animals, including non-primates like birds, who are capable of formulating independent speech. Actual, meaningful uses of language, including verbalizations. This has been proven. Other examples of animal intelligence abound across many species. There is so much evidence that animals have sentience, intelligence, and are capable of emotion, that citing it would be a job of work too extensive to undertake after working all day. You could start here if you wish. Suffice it to say that I find your stance on this issue disturbing and, well, ignorant.
Not to mention off-topic and unhelpful. The OP asked for “legitimate non knee-jerk reasons for being anti-fur”, **not **“why it’s morally acceptable to treat animals badly.”
I’m already aware that you don’t care, having read your post upthread. I was responding to the OP, not you.
You may be right. I just know that it made me think a little more than usual about what may be happening to my food before it’s my food…nothing wrong with that. I am intelligent enough (as I think most of us are) to be able to weed some pertinent info out of blatant sensationalism. I actually thought that it was a pretty interesting read. Please don’t tell me how poorly lobsters are treated! 
Well, if you really do believe that animals are incapable of suffering, then you have what you believe is a well thought out reason why fur is absolutely fine. However, most people who have a knee-jerk reaction that fur is bad do NOT think that animals are incapable of suffering, so it really is a rather irrelevant display of ignorance and lack of regard for animals. The OP is looking for legitimate reasons to be anti-fur, not for reasons to discard her anti-fur stance, anyway.
Well, I think wearing the fur of an endangered species is pretty repugnant. I mean, there are furs available from non-endangered sources. Exterminating a species in order to clothe oneself does seem wrong to me. So, for instance, I’d have issues with leopard or tiger fur, but not rabbit or mink or black bear
On the other hand, I think perhaps you need to do some research - I’m pretty sure (although not certain) that geese raise for their down are not normally used for food. Some animals breeds are quite specialized with, for example separate types of chicken used for egg-laying versus roasting.
Erm, that’s what I said, isn’t it? It’s what I tried to say, anyway. Did you mean this as a response to what I said there?
I think I didn’t make myself clear: I generally do believe humans shouldn’t make animals suffer if we can avoid it – and that’s exactly why I want to hear about the complete life cycle for fur *and *all its alternatives. I have a sneaking suspicion that while fur involves obvious suffering of cute fuzzy animals, other choices may involve quite a bit of suffering for less mascot-worthy ones. I wonder if I’m a hypocrite for choosing natural fibers over synthetic, when I don’t really know how much suffering or damage typically results from those natural fibers. Then I realize that I don’t know how much results from synthetics. Then I wonder whether I ought to swear off buying new clothes altogether. I buy some used as it is, but not everything I could (easily) be. (Not counting undies and other extreme examples that almost no one would want to buy used.)
The Greenpeace campaign started by Bridget Bardot against seal fur nearly destroyed several indigenous Eskimo communities on Greenland, as the Greenpeace campaign made no attempt to distinguish between baby-seal fur from Canada and (adult) fur seal from Greenland. The sale plummet and whole communities were suddenly sent out of work and with little else to do took to the bottle big time. And even though Greenpeace later apologised, the damage was done. I’ll hate them forever for this.
I was agreeing with you but said it really poorly. It’s been a long day full of too much thinking. Sorry for any confusion.
This is a slippery slope to hell for people who are concerned about animal rights. It’s a horrible but banal truth that everything we do hurts other living things. There’s no way to avoid it, so one sometimes might feel like just giving up on the effort altogether. This is why you eventually have to just draw lines in the places you can live with, which will inevitable lead to hypocrisy on some level.
I buy a lot of clothes second hand for this reason, and economics, of course.
Yeah, well put. I’m just convinced the information is out there to help me do some somewhat more-informed line drawing than I can at present, and would like to see it. I’ll go dig it up it myself if someone gives me a research grant. I’ve wanted to do that for years.
You need to look at “fur” on a case by case basis.
There are many (for lack of a better word) improper furs and methods of trapping for fur - mink and chinchilla were / are just a few (in the old days)
Speaking to my own experience
- Possum (Opussum) fur is FANTASTIC, it is one of the best materials around for warmth. For a LONG time my uncle made a living out of possum pelts in New Zealand - this was pretty much wiped out by the anti fur movement.
Please remember that Possums are a MAJOR pest in New Zealand forests - not only do they spread TB but they also do huge damage to young growth and strip trees. Possum (when collected for their fur) would NOT be trapped - it damages the sking, they would instead be poisoned.
-
There are now some really awesome blends of possum fur and Merino wool that is (was? I saw the article 8 - 10 years ago) being used for I think Armani suits - the belnd was seriously expensive but very lightweight and durable.
-
Sheep are not just shorn - their hides are also taken and used in sheep skin rugs
I have sitting on my shelf now some beautiful silver possum pelts - my aunt also used to make them into Ug Boots (remember them?) which were really warm and seriously durable.
The upshot is, like many debates, if you make a knee jerk reaction that “fur is bad” (which is what PETA does) you are missing many benefits - but then the same is true of many many debates - we won’t even go into rabbits here, but as a primer…
Rabbits in South Otago devastate the land - they are truely and literally a plague. The government was (and I think still is) paying a bounty for rabbit carcasses. Mostly the carcasses are then destroyed - wouldn’t it be far better if the pelts could be used in coats? And I love rabbit stew But I guess this really doesn’t concern PETA
Yeah, from what I understand there were no native land mammals in New Zealand. Possums are destroying the native wildlife so hunting and decreasing the possum population will help the native fauna.