You misunderstand me (probably because I wasn’t clear). Let me try to restate.
The matter of aesthetics is, "I personally don’t find leather more attractive than a regular hardcover. " The decision to be a vegetarian is not a matter of aesthetics, IMHO.
Thank you giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Now, the decision to forgo buying a 100 year old leather book for Vegan-related reasons may be a matter of aesthetics. It is certainly not an issue of animal welfare. But I might disagree with that as well, to the extent that forgoing old leather is a way of expressing one’s revulsion with, um, using cow leather.
Whether cows are actually killed for leather depends upon whether leather is a basically byproduct of the meat packing business, I suppose. But I suspect Opal knows more about this than I do.
Sorry we haven’t been more helpful. To address your question, “What are the alternatives to leather?” perhaps you could describe what it is about a leather-clad book that you like.
I am willing to let the rest of your diatribe go, but I do have to comment on this. I don’t recall there being any mention of certain posters, or those with certain views, or even those asking a goddamn question, being forbidden from posting to certain threads.
As I pointed out earlier, and which you conveniently ignored, I am a meat-eater, yet still object to many animal-based products. In case you don’t get my point, I am not a vegetarian, yet I can still have the same problems as you! Amazing how that works, isn’t it? And guess what? None of it has anything to do with what we each choose to eat!
My apologies for derailing your thread. As I mentioned earlier, it was not my intent to be a jerk. It does not appear at first glance, however, that the same can be said of your response.
The issue of antique leather books is sort of an interesting one. First, there is the issue of buying one, period. It seems like you could not buy one from any place that specialized in leather-bound books, because to do so would be to encourage the valuation of leather, which would contribute to the production of new leather. On the other hand, if you found a century-old leather bound book at a garage sale, it’s hard to see how purchasing it would be encouraging the leather trade at all. A used bookstore that specialized in old books but that did not emphasize “leather” in particular would be somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.
Now then, assuming you bought a leather bound book at a garage sale, or found it on the streets, or had the old family bible. There is the issue of displaying it. One might argue that even displaying it would encourage the idea that leather is a luxury item. One may also simply be digusted by the idea of touching chemically treated skin, no matter what the age. In that case, would it be acceptable to have the cover removed, discarded, and replaced with a nice wood/cloth cover? I don’t think one could make an arguement that this was at all immoral or contributing to the exploitation of animals. (Though I, myself, would find ripping the binding off a first edition Moby-Dick to be another sort of sin) Personally, I think that as long as the leather didn’t digust you, you could even keep it on, so long as the book was old, second hand, and you didn’t make a big deal out of the wonderful leather binding.
I am ovo-lacto vegetarian. I eat eggs. (I would not intentionally eat a fertilized egg, however, and when I have enough money to live somewhere where it is possible, I will probably have a pet chicken or two from which I get my eggs)
A vegan probably would not, if they were aware of the makeup of the paint.
Darwin’s Finch, I’ve expressed my opinion about you in my journal and that is good enough for me. You’re the honored First Person to go on my ingore list with the new board software–congratulations.
As for the issue of whether or not the animals were killed for the leather–it is irrelevant. I don’t believe that you should kill animals for ANY of those reasons.
As for the old leather issue… would you buy a lampshade made of a holocaust victim’s skin? It isn’t hurting anyone new, but the concept is repulsive and you don’t want to “be the kind of person who has those things” most likely. The age of the leather isn’t an issue. The few leather bound b ooks that I have were inherited from my grandparents. I wish they weren’t leather, but they have other value that lis more important in that particular case.
As for the question of “what I find so attractive about leather bound books” … um… I thought I had made it clear that it wasn’t that I found leather bound books so attractive, it is that most of the time a “very high quality binding” or a special edition binding or what have you is made with leather. Sometimes I might want to have a certain book in a more elaborate binding than your typical mass market hardcover… but it seems that the only alternative is the leather cover.
Now aside from people like Darwin’s Award, who will never grasp what I’m talking about… does anyone actually have anything to say about the topic? NOT about why anyone may or may not want leather. NOT about how ethical anything is. For this thread, we are assuming that X percentage of people will not buy a leather bound book. Are there reasonable alternatives? For example, not that I would ever buy a Bible, but many do… say you wanted to give your daughter and her husband a new family bible to pass down through the generations… the kind of thing that is really a family heirloom. Your choices are pretty much… leather or cheesy. Or am I wrong? Is there some other more formal and fancy book binding out there that it is relatively easy to find books bound with, that is of the same level of (whatever)? I’m not talking about having a book professionally bound on an individual basis.
Ok you will probably freak out when I tell you that the first thing I do when I buy a hardcover book is to throw away the dust cover. Unless it is really nice, in which case I put it in a drawer somewhere and never see it again. Dust covers bug the hell out of me… They slip and slide and tear and just all round make it harder to read the book. I used to take them off while reading the book then put them back on, but it seemed like too much effort, so I just started disarding them.
A few things: I believe it is “bad form” to publicly announce who is on your “ignore” list (using the board’s software). Just thought I’d give you a heads up on that.
Also, since you clearly state in your OP that you don’t want to use leather for ethical reasons, I see no reason why anyone would question why you want to avoid leather. But, 'tis true, some veggies don’t mind using leather. I remember an article in Vegetarian Times which interviewed “unusual” vegetarians, that were veggie for dietary reasons. One of them was a furrier. However, this doesn’t apply to you in any way, since you clearly stated your reasons for avoiding leather.
Tedster: Get a grip. Who asked you for your little essay on how to live, or who is “living” or not? Give me a break.
Once again tedster makes a thoughtful and enlightening contribution to a discussion. :rolleyes:
Now, to OpalCat’s OP and the subsequent debate:
Fisrt of all, i think that to argue that a definition of “vegetarianism” should be strictly limited to the food one consumes is not fair to the question raised in the OP. I should add that my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary does indeed only offer a dietary definition of the word, but the most cursory examination of vegetarian websites or discussion with vegetarians should be sufficient to demonstrate that, for many, the decision to abstain from animal products extends beyond the issue of food to other areas of life. Admittedly, there are some people who turn vegetarian for strictly dietary reasons, and who have no problem with non-edible animal products, but many others make broader ethical connections, and this is what OpalCat was referring to in the OP, it seems to me.
As a vegetarian (but not a vegan), the question of leather-bound books is one that i have never really considered. The main reason for this, i think, is that virtually no new books - not even hardcovers - are bound in leather. And whether the standard hard cover is leather or cloth, economics and personal preference still leads me to purchase paperbacks on most occasions. Furthermore, i don’t buy too many books that are old enough or rare enough to have been covered with leather, so the issue doesn’t come up in my day-to-day book purchasing.
That said, i still think i would have less problem with purchasing an old leather-bound book that OpalCat seems to have, especially if that book was one that i really wanted, and that was available in no other format. Now, i realise that in saying this i leave myself open to a charge of hypocrisy, especially as my vegetarianism is motivated in considerable measure by an ethical concern for the uses to which humans put animals. However, i have come to the conclusion that virtually no-one on this planet is able to follow every single one of their own ethical precepts at every moment of their lives. We all maintain a certain level of inconsistency or hypocrisy at one level or another, and most people are willing to sacrifice certain ethical tenets in the face of certain social, political or economic pressures. The big issue is exactly where each person draws his or her line of inconsistency.
At the risk of boring you with personal details, i’ll use myself as an example. I don’t eat meat, poultry or fish, partly for health reasons and partly because of the way that such creatures are raised, caught, killed etc. Yet, given my concern for the conditions under which animals live, i should also refrain from consuming eggs, milk, cheese etc., because dairy cattle and laying hens are among the worst-treated of any farm animals in many cases. Yet i still consume these things, for a variety of pragmatic and rather selfish reasons. In the case of milk, i find it hard to substitute soy milk etc. because i don’t fancy the taste too much. In the case of cheese, i just like the taste too much to give it up. I would like to be able to go vegan, but haven’t worked up the willpower.
Then there is the question of using other animal products, and again i use rather arbitrary criteria in determining what to use and what not to use. So, for example, i own two leather belts because i haven’t yet found anything better for holding my pants up. I concede that this is largely a question of aesthetics, because a piece of string would do the trick, as would a set of braces, but neither of these are always appropriate dress items.
I also wear leather shoes, as i have not yet found a substitute that looks good enough, is comfortable enough, and serves the purpose i ask of those shoes. There are shoes available that look and feel like leather, but are not, and these might provide an alternative. However, last time i checked such shoes cost a couple of hundred dollars, and i’m not a wealthy person. Economics is an issue, for me and for many others facing similar choices.
Now, i wear leather belts and shoes because i have yet to find, within my own little ethical universe, a suitable alternative for these things. However, because i can keep quite warm enough with wool coats and cotton sweaters, and have no real need for the aesthetic qualities of a leather jacket, i do not own one. If i rode a motobike, though, the extra protection provided by leather in a fall might convince me to buy one. But at the moment i stay away from leather jackets. Nor do i wear fur, because i am warm enough in my other clothes, and because i also think it looks ridiculous (again, a personal aesthetic judgement).
Now, those on this board who eat meat probably have no time for my ethical objections to such a practice. And some vegetarians and vegans probably see me as a supreme hypocrite. However, as i said, i have yet to meet someone who was able to maintain complete ethical consistency in every part of his or her life. I acknowledge my hypocrisies and i also work towards correcting them, and maybe one day i’ll go vegan and give up all leather products. But i think that such acknowledgement is better than pretending that one’s inconsistencies don’t exist.
I’d like to add a couple more points about vegetarianism. One problem, in today’s increasingly complex society, is that we often have little idea of exactly where our consumer goods come from. And when we find out, it is often a rather sobering experience, especially for vegetarians. For example, i eat a lot of soy products, yet a large proportion of soy beans sold in the US have been genetically modified, and the whole soy-bean market is controlled by a couple of large corporations with very questionable farming and business practices (e.g. Cargill). So, in this respect, moving from meat to soy still leaves me with ethical dilemmas that i can only overcome by buying (expensive) organic soy products.
Or take the issue of leather. If i substitute cotton for leather, i am contributing to an industry that uses more environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides per acre than any other crop in the world. Again, my ethical dilemma has shifted and maybe even lessened, but it has not gone away. Or say i substitute canvas shoes for my leather ones - those canvas shoes are probably still stitched together by a sweatshop worker in Asia or Latin America making a couple of bucks a day. And they probably have some type of compound rubber soles whose manufacturing process pollutes the air with hydrocarbons.
I try to maintain a certain amount of humility about my vegetarianism and its contradictions. That is why i try not to go around telling others how they ought to eat. (But don’t get me wrong - if you ask me, as people often do, why i’m a vegetarian, you’ll get the whole damn story including my ethical reasons for not eating meat). There is also a rather distinct class aspect to the whole issue. In general, people who make a conscious effort not to eat meat come from economic groups who can actually afford to make the choice. There are plenty of people in the world who don’t eat meat out of sheer poverty and inability to afford it. Also, while vegetarianism and veganism are actually cheaper than meat-filled diets, and are perfectly healthy diets for humans to follow, they do often require more thought about food-combining and dietary needs (especially for women who are more likely to suffer from iron deficiency than men) and a greater willingness to shop thoughtfully. I would not presume to lecture someone with little money, and who has been brought up on meat, on why he or she should give up meat.
For anyone interested in reading some literature on the ethics and the global politics of vegetarianism, and food distribution in general, i would recommend:
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (1990)
James Mason and Peter Singer, Animal Factories (1980)
Susan George, How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World Hunger (1983)
Believe me, this is not intended as a slam, but how can one claim to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian and still have a problem with leather bound books? Because the chickens aren’t killed? Perhaps that question is better suited to GD, (which will invariably go to the Pit) but I am just curious.
I don’t really have an opinion either way, but am a bit confused. I see people here with so many different stances/definitions on what it means to be a veggie that I am confounded.
I don’t mean this as a hijack, but it’s difficult to form an opinion with so many different POV’s re vegetarianism.
And yes, I am familiar with the “classic” definitions, but it is still damned confusing.
I’m sure you could have come up with a better example to illustrate your point. Unless of course you find lampshades made from human skin to be on the same moral level as books bound in cow skin. Do you?
And that is why I asked the damn question in the first place - everyone has their own definition of ‘vegetarian’, to the point where it practically doesn’t mean anything!
However , I see that OpalCat, in a stunning display of maturity, has chosen to take the low road, rather than fight my ignorance. I hope she won’t be too disappointed that I’m not upset about it.
First, I don’t think it is fair to assume that this would be obvious to anyone: you can be anti-anilmal explaotation in a strictly logical fashoin, (as opposed to having much of an emotional reaction), and if that is so, I don’t think that buying or maintaining an old leather book can be classifyed as hypocritical: it dosen’t contribute one whit to the explotation of animals.
Second, if you like the lamp, is there anything wrong with throwing away the shade and getting a new one? That was what I was suggesting.
Opal, please don’t take any of my remarks as a slam: I enjoy starting from some ethical axiom and seeing how it plays out in a variety of situations. If one accepst that the explotation of animals is 100% wrong, “old leather” is an interesting test case of exactly why one believes what one believes.
And did you notice Anemone’s post? Custom binding is a option, and, if you are good wiht your hands, it might even be something you could learn to do yourself. This is why tearing old leather covers off of old books is a viable question: is that a morally acceptable solution for you? If it isn’t, I would find oyur reasons interesting, just as I find all moral reasoning interesting.
But there are a lot of book collectors out there who would find ripping apart an old book to be unacceptable.
If someone prefers not to own books with leather covers, I would rather than they just not buy them, instead of removing the original leather cover.
I own a couple of old books of my grandmother’s, and some of the value is in the well-made (and well-kept) leather binding.
The thought of someone ripping it apart and re-binding it in fabric would give a serious book collector a heart attack.
(not slamming anyone’s moral/ethical choices, mind you; just pointing out that the original binding can hold part of the value)
Back to the OP. Have you considered contacting the publishers of books you’re interested in and asking whether they have non-leatherbound books of those titles?
I can see your point. From my POV, on the one hand the dust cover is there to protect the book, on the other, the dust cover is usually more attractive (and ultimately, may be more valuable) than the book, so sometimes protecting the dust cover is an issue.
“As for the old leather issue… would you buy a lampshade made of a holocaust victim’s skin? It isn’t hurting anyone new, but the concept is repulsive and you don’t want to ‘be the kind of person who has those things’ most likely.”
I humbly suggest , dear, if you ever want people to listen to your opinions and take you at all seriously, you refrain from EVER making such a statement as this again.
—Eve (trying very hard not to say anything Pit-worthy in Cafe Society, as it is Ike’s home)
I think the lack of understanding on the part of omnivores is quite understandable. There appears to be no firm grasp of just what the hell a “vegetarian” is. You will have to forgive us, but since there are apparently ten thousand different ways of escewing various types of animal products and all of them are referred to as either “Vegetarians” or “vegans,” it gets a little confusing. There are vegetarians who aren’t really but just don’t eat beef and pork, vegetarians who eat fish, vegetarians who don’t eat meat but do use animal products like leather, and vegetarians who don’t do either but will eat milk and eggs. Then there are vegans, who as I understand it won’t eat eggs or milk either, but some will use SOME animal products based on what’s reasonable, like cotton clothes if it can’t be avoided, and then there’s “Fruitarians” who won’t even kill plants, and a million things in between.
If we’re a little confused, it’s because it’s confusing. Your personal take on vegetarianism is one of, apparently, a thousand. I was confused by the OP, too, because I always thought, from what I’d read on the SDMB, that it was VEGANS, not vegetarians, who avoided the use of non-consumable animal products. But you aren’t a vegan, right? Because you apparently don’t eat meat, and don’t use animal products, but you DO use animal products, when it comes to eating stuff, such as milk and eggs, providing the animal does not die. It’s a little complicated.
I won’t defend the “huh huh huh just have a steak huh huh huh” crowd because they’re idiots, but when you have five hundred differenct definitions of the words “vegetarian” and “vegan,” don’t go ballistic and start yapping about your Ignore-list when someone thinks you were using Definition 287 when you were actually using Definition 336. We aren’t psychic.
