Am I a hypocrite for being anti-fur?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Rubystreak

Wow. I guess arguing about wearing fur is really academic for you.

Well, you’re correct that I really could not care less about fur.

It’s not just a sign of an antisocial personality because it’s a sign of antisocial personality. It’s because it shows a lack of awareness of the selfhood of others-- a completely self-centered worldview. Sociopaths do not recognize the feelings of others, which is why they behave as they do. Where you draw the line as to whose feelings matter is a critical component of ethics. Many people draw the line at humans. I do not, because humans and higher animals are more similar than they are different.

That’s not the only thing that characterizes sociopaths. They also have no ability to see the long-term consequences of their actions, and so they do not plan for the future and make choices that end up harming themselves. They’re not purely bad people; they’re broken people.

A poor and irrelevant analogy. We’re talking about behaviors that harm other thinking beings, not obsessive counting.

I disagree that it is irrelevant, but I will not discuss it anymore.

Do I really have to prove to you that humans and animals have very similar nervous systems and brain structures? Do some research of your own and get back to me, as this is veering into a major hijack of this thread. I linked to one article in this thread already.

No, that’s not what I’m asking. How does more suffering for animals beget more suffering for me?

I disagree. I think consistency is the only way to avoid being a hypocrite. You also have not applied the Golden Rule correctly in your (very poor) analogy. If you were the employer, would you fire someone for not working? That is the question you should ask.

No, the question would be whether I would fire me for not working, which doesn’t make any sense. Of course I would not fire myself for not working. Functional morality is based on rights and consequences for violating those rights, not simple consistency.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Rubystreak]

@Vox_Imperatoris

No, that’s not what I’m asking. How does more suffering for animals beget more suffering for me?

If the only thing that matters to you is your own personal suffering, and avoiding it, then nothing I say is going to convince you of my point of view, and it’s definitely not going to affect your opinion of fur.

No, the question would be whether I would fire me for not working, which doesn’t make any sense. Of course I would not fire myself for not working. Functional morality is based on rights and consequences for violating those rights, not simple consistency.

No, the question would not be would you fire yourself. It would be, if you were in the same situation as your boss, would you fire the employee who was not working?

[Rubystreak]

VI, Read this, especially Level 6. This is what I’m talking about:

Kohlberg’s conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at a situation through one another’s eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean that all parties–the druggist, Heinz, and his wife–take the roles of the others. To do this in an impartial manner, people can assume a “veil of ignorance” (Rawls, 1971), acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If the druggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over property; for he wouldn’t want to risk finding himself in the wife’s shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved–this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not only impartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If the wife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not be reached.

I realize that extending this to animals is beyond what many people would agree with, but it is a logical extension of the above reasoning.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

I’ve read that before. I think it is largely an empty exercise.

For what it is worth, I think that Heinz should not steal the drug because the druggist owns it and it is his inviolable right to dispense it as he pleases. However, if I were Heinz I would still probably steal the drug unless I thought I would get caught (depending on how strict the penalties were), which is why I think it is an empty exercise. It may still be useful for psychological research, but not as a template for human interaction.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Rubystreak]

@Vox_Imperatoris

I’ve read that before. I think it is largely an empty exercise.

For what it is worth, I think that Heinz should not steal the drug because the druggist owns it and it is his inviolable right to dispense it as he pleases. However, if I were Heinz I would still probably steal the drug unless I thought I would get caught (depending on how strict the penalties were), which is why I think it is an empty exercise. It may still be useful for psychological research, but not as a template for human interaction.

I think it’s safe to say that you and I have almost no overlap in our ethical systems, and therefore further debate is a waste of time. I’m not trying to be rude, sorry if it sounds that way, but that’s my honest opinion.

[InterestedObserver]

As a vegetarian for 13 years or so (although in the last few years I’ve transitioned to a “picavore”, meaning I eat fish now and then…why? I just like it.)

I was even a vegan for several years, but never into the whole movement, in which the term is defined as someone who uses NO animal products of any kind, ever, not just someone who doesn’t EAT animal products of any kind. (Screw you, radical vegans…I can call myself a vegan if I want to when indicating what I eat and what I don’t and still have a wool rug in my house or wear silk :rolleyes:)

First, neither geese or sheep are killed for their down or their wool. Both naturally shed seasonally and it is just easier to harvest their sheddings in a systematic manner by plucking or shearing them en mass than by going around and picking up what they shed or pluck on their own off the poop covered ground.

So I have no issue with either product, ethically.

True, silk worms are slaughtered by the millions for their silk…oh well. Sorry if I am not so advanced that I have a problem with this.

I DO have a problem with the treatment of animals in factory farms and with inhumane methods of raising and slaughter in general. Not so much with hunting, as long as the meat is actually eaten.

When I buy eggs, I buy cage free, veggie-fed, both for the benefit of the hens involved and the health benefits.

I feel a bit guilty when I buy cheese, knowing that most dairy cows end up as hamburger eventually.

I wear leather, but virtually every leather item I own was purchased used. I admit to having less of an ethical delima with it than if I bought it new.

I don’t do fur, at all, even used fur. (though I admit, had Granny left me a fur coat, I’d wear it with pride, and pity the fool who threw paint on it :mad:)

I don’t give a fig if the “harvesting” of fur is “ecologically sound” or not. Hell, HUMANS are a “renewable resource”. For me it comes down to the fact that 1. it is completely unneccesary in this day and age for insulation given the alternatives 2. it is cruel to raise or trap animals and kill them for their fur.

Now, I would have no problem with someone who hunted and killed an animal in the wild, ate it, and used its fur/hide.

Hey, I never said my views were completely rational or consistent.
(why I tend to keep my nose out of the dietary and wardrobe choices of others and just stick to my own)

No, I don’t think you are a hypocrite. I think there can be a lot of gray in this issue, despite what the radicals say. That sort of fundamentalism has put more people off than it has converted, imo. (god, can’t STAND to hang out with those self-righteous jerks…I’d rather go hang with the carnivores and eat side-dishes/salad:smack:)

[Vox_Imperatoris]

I think you could stand a little less oppression of the enter key.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[InterestedObserver]

@Vox_Imperatoris

I think you could stand a little less oppression of the enter key.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Why would I care what you think? Your suffering is irrelevent to me.

[Hazle_Weatherfield]

I’m suffering from Valete, overload! But I suffer equally from Regards, and Enjoy, overload, so I guess it’s just me. The first coupla times don’t really bug me, but after awhile, especially after a ton of back-and-forth, it’s like…ok, I get it! Just a Doper pet peeve of mine, which, now that I’ve mentioned it, should probably just be over in that doper mini-rants thread. Nah, doesn’t warrant a pitting. Guess I’m just having a sensitive day. Sorry for the hijack. Carry on…let the fur fly!

[curlcoat]

@InterestedObserver

it is cruel to raise or trap animals and kill them for their fur.

Why?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@curlcoat

Why?

Yes, I can see why he might think that killing or trapping animals is wrong, period, but I can’t see why he thinks it is bad to do so merely for the fur.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[curlcoat]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Yes, I can see why he might think that killing or trapping animals is wrong, period, but I can’t see why he thinks it is bad to do so merely for the fur.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Actually, my question is why does he think it is *cruel *to farm animals for fur.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@curlcoat

Actually, my question is why does he think it is *cruel *to farm animals for fur.

Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? If he thinks that the animals can suffer (and he said trap them, not farm them) and that it matters, that would be cruel, would it not?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[curlcoat]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Well, that’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? If he thinks that the animals can suffer (and he said trap them, not farm them) and that it matters, that would be cruel, would it not?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

He said raise (which I take to mean farm) and trap. I don’t know much about modern trapping but someone up thread said it wasn’t all that bad these days. I don’t view mink farming to be all that cruel so I was wondering why InterestedObserver thinks it is cruel. Because they will be killed for their fur? If so, does he think it is cruel to farm pigs, chickens, cows, etc? Does he think there is something inherently cruel about raising animals on farms? Etc. I just don’t get why mink farming is viewed to be cruel.

[InterestedObserver]

I do think it is cruel to farm animals using the methods commonly used, whether for meat, eggs, or fur. (in small or overcrowded cages, without access to sunlight or fresh air, exercise, etc.)

And trapping as typically practiced is also cruel, imo.

Now, maybe I wouldn’t feel that way about “free range mink”, captured with “live traps” that don’t involve the smashing of limbs with metal teeth, since they presumably would have enjoyed a fairly good quality of life before being slaughtered and skinned.
Or, as I mentioned, fur from an animal someone hunted in the wild and, preferably, used the other parts of as well.

Of course, I base my opinions on the assumption that animals are capable of feeling pain, fear, and misery. Anyone who has ever spent any time around animals knows this to be a fact, though we could argue all day long over whether the pain, fear, suffering they experience MATTERS. Could argue that about people, FTM.

And get nowhere either way.

[curlcoat]

@InterestedObserver

I do think it is cruel to farm animals using the methods commonly used, whether for meat, eggs, or fur. (in small or overcrowded cages, without access to sunlight or fresh air, exercise, etc.)

Is that the common way to farm animals these days? I am not seeing it, except in the case of chickens. So, lets take chickens and cruelty. What is cruel? Dictionary.com says it is essentially “willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others”. Shall we agree that the chickens are not in pain, since living in a small or overcrowded cage without access to sunlight or fresh air is not physically painful? Is it distressful? Most likely not as a chicken in distress will not lay well, so if nothing else it is not economically feasible for egg farmers to distress their chickens in a cruel way. Are the chickens being treated in a mentally or emotionally cruel way? Doubtful, since chicken have very simple minds and social orders. None of my chickens ever exihibited any different behavior between allowing to run all over the property or being crated up for sale, except for the brief period when they were actually being caught. Chickens appear to be totally reactionary creatures, in that they merely react to what is going on around them, so as long as they are fed, water, kept warm and not threatened, I cannot see how chickens in a crate are being kept any “crueler” than those that are free range. Especially since my free range chickens tended to get eaten alive by coyotes.

And trapping as typically practiced is also cruel, imo.

On that one I defer to whoever it was that posted about trapping as I have zero experience with that.

Now, maybe I wouldn’t feel that way about “free range mink”, captured with “live traps” that don’t involve the smashing of limbs with metal teeth, since they presumably would have enjoyed a fairly good quality of life before being slaughtered and skinned.

I would assume that a mink that was raised in a farm, with constant food and shelter as well as protection from predators, would have had a much better quality of life than one born wild to a perhaps undernourished mother, fighting for food and sex and running from death.

Or, as I mentioned, fur from an animal someone hunted in the wild and, preferably, used the other parts of as well.

Of course, I base my opinions on the assumption that animals are capable of feeling pain, fear, and misery. Anyone who has ever spent any time around animals knows this to be a fact, though we could argue all day long over whether the pain, fear, suffering they experience MATTERS. Could argue that about people, FTM.

And get nowhere either way.

Pain, fear and suffering matters, what I disagree on is what will cause that in a lower animal. For example, I call one of my dogs Bad Dog as a joke quite a bit and it in no way distresses this dog - he just thinks of it as an invitation to play. Some folks think I must be upsetting this dog because he somehow must know what “bad dog” means, and some folks think this is actually me being cruel. Or, another example, there are a number of people that think it is cruel for me to put my dogs in kennel runs when I leave home, or in crates when we go in the car, because those people wouldn’t like to be in a “cage” or “box” themselves. Dogs are den animals and as long as they aren’t in a kennel or crate for an unreasonable time, they don’t care about the time they are in there, as evidenced by the fact that they willingly go in when told, or even when the doors are just open. It is actually less cruel for me to kennel or crate my dogs as it is safer for them, but many people cannot get past how they would feel about it as a human.

[yams]

@vison

We kill ours with CO, we buy bottled gas for that purpose.

Hi vison!

I have a question regarding the actual killing of minks - not you, if you use carbon monoxide, but I am thinking that, as a fur person, you have the Straight Dope on what your compatriots in the trade are up to.

I live in New York, and the other day I was wandering around downtown, and happened upon a group of anti-fur protesters. They were shouting slogans, as protesters tend to do, but I think their jaws must have been too frozen to clearly enunciate in unison, or something, because while they were saying an awful lot, this is all I could make out:

garble garble garble ANAL ELECTROCUTION garble garble
garble garble garble ANAL ELECTROCUTION garble garble

I have a friend who is a hard core vegan, and I know she has told me that a swift jolt of electricity to an animal’s pooper is a common method of killing animals that are used for fur - is this true?

It seems like you are a smaller, mom-and-pop scale fur set-up - do most small enterprises use CO, as you do? Is there some sort of McDonalds of Fur that tickles mink’s sphincters with a lethal dose of AC/DC, or is this an example of PETA propaganda?

If it IS true - why the anus? Do minks have extraordinarily sensitive poopery-bits? Does it make the hair all stand on end to effect a more luxurious look in the final product?

Thank you for any information you can shed on the topic!

love
yams!!

[pancakes3]

Does it matter if it’s CO or anal shocks or throwing them into a pit of shattered glass? The level of pain administered seems marginal when compared to the scope of killing without necessity. The fact that someone can justify wearing fur if it was killed in a “humane” method seems like someone trying to placate their own feeble mind.

[yams]

@pancakes3

Does it matter if it’s CO or anal shocks or throwing them into a pit of shattered glass? The level of pain administered seems marginal when compared to the scope of killing without necessity. The fact that someone can justify wearing fur if it was killed in a “humane” method seems like someone trying to placate their own feeble mind.

I’m a vegetarian and I don’t wear fur, regardless of whether the animal was gassed, shot, trapped, squashed, flash-frozen, microwaved, died of old age in a nursing home, or had a taser pushed up its butt. I asked the question because I am skeptical of anything that has the merest taint of PETA-logic to it, and I am curious as to whether or not the fur industry actually practices such techniques, of if rumors of such practices have been circulated by the PETA anti-fur brigade.
Do you also have a problem with people who justify eating meat if it was killed in a “humane” method, or if it led a “happier” life prior to being killed?
love
yams!!

[lee]

What gets me about the anti fur crowd that I have met is their mind boggling inconsistency I got lots of very nasty comments about a coat I had a few years ago. It was suede lined with faux fur, and not even particularly real looking faux fur. The idiots that harassed me were upset at me wearing fake fur but not real leather.