Why is fur bad but leather is ok?

[Quartz]

@TriPolar

Rich people wear fur so it must be bad.

Everyone wears fur in cold climes.

[Canadjun]

@Quartz

Everyone wears fur in cold climes.

Edmonton can get pretty f!ing cold in the winter and I don’t possess any outerwear made out of fur.

[Siam_Sam]

There are plenty of people who won’t wear leather.

[jtur88]

[quote=“Siam_Sam, post:23, topic:757173”]

There are plenty of people who won’t wear leather.[/QUOTE

I have worn the same leather belt every day for about 30 years, it will easily last another 30. I do not know of any belt made of non-natural materials that can come anywhere near that. I don’t have any particular sympathy for the cow that used to wear it, which I have eaten part of. Before that, I happened to have a snake-skin belt, I can’t remember what happened to it, but I was warned that if I tried to wear it back into the USA, customs
officers would confiscate it.

The day we can no longer wear leather shoes, will be a very sad day, but business will be booming for those high-quality long-lasting man-made products at Payless Shoesource.

I also have things made of wood. Those poor trees.

[Siam_Sam]

Yes, I agree. I wear leather myself but was just pointing out that there are those who will not, contrary to what the OP seems to say.

[beowulff]

Leather is a byproduct.
Fur is the product - the rest of the animal is wasted.

[Count_Blucher]

@drewder

Why is fur bad but leather is ok?

Jeez, Drew… Depends on the woman…

[drewder]

@oara

Leather and fur are both wrong, of course.

See I think that this is the only consistent position, but there is no great social stigma attached to a leather product yet people will treat you as a murderer if you wear fur. I really think the whole rich vs not rich thing is a major component.

[panache45]

I really don’t see any difference between killing an animal for its skin, killing it for its fur, or killing it for its meat.

And I don’t think any of these are inherently wrong.

[drewder]

@naita

Leather is a by-product of the meat industry. There are no specialized leather-cows being reared just for the leather, and cows are well domesticated herbivore herd animals being raised in relative comfort.

Fur is generally a product of the fur industry. Nothing else useful comes from this industry other than fur and the animals being raised are barely domesticated predators and are raised in conditions that anyone who cares about animal welfare find appalling. And if they are not raised for fur they are shot or trapped exclusively for their pelts and everything else goes to dog food.

Simplifying it to the extent the OP has done misses this very basic difference and of course ignores that there are plenty of people opposed to both.

Why is eating an animal a more noble use for them than using it for warmth?

[Nava]

@jtur88

What’s the current status of Sheepskin coats? – basically, leather with the fur left on the inside.

Comfy last I checked. Astrakhan is lamb, so sheep as well. And “boar” is usually the domesticated kind really.
Add me to “I’ve never met an antifur person who wasn’t antileather”.

[Broomstick]

@panache45

I really don’t see any difference between killing an animal for its skin, killing it for its fur, or killing it for its meat.

Neither do I - but then, I’m a leather-using meat-eating omnivore.

[naita]

@drewder

Why is eating an animal a more noble use for them than using it for warmth?

Never said it was. It was merely a part of my response to why I think the OPs analysis is missing differences opponents of fur but not leather might emphasise. Personally I’m opposed to the use of fur because raising fur animals is nigh on impossible to do without severe animal welfare issues.

I’d be less opposed to raising dogs and cats for fur, but then you crash with a much wider swathe of sentimental animal politics.

[fjs1fs]

@Der_Trihs

Fur is more likely to be worn by women, often older ones. Leather is more likely to by worn by big, strong, young, aggressive men. If you scream insults at or throw red paint on the latter you’re likely to be beaten up; but you can generally get away with harassing the former.

NM

[TriPolar]

@Laggard

Oh poor poor rich people. My heart breaks.

Anyway, as mentioned already this has nothing to do with it.

I think it does. Rich people make easy targets. It shouldn’t have anything to do with the general issue but if you threw paint on the average person wearing leather shoes or a leather belt this cause wouldn’t be considered at all.

[Sailboat]

I actually know a lot of activists and advocates, and they all universally feel both fur AND leather are wrong.

I’d say the answer to your question is simply “you’re not paying attention.”

[steronz]

@Der_Trihs

Fur is more likely to be worn by women, often older ones. Leather is more likely to by worn by big, strong, young, aggressive men. If you scream insults at or throw red paint on the latter you’re likely to be beaten up; but you can generally get away with harassing the former.

@Pantastic

If you had the choice between throwing paint on a quiet, middle-aged woman or a Hell’s Angel, which option do you think has less chance of severe injury?

@TriPolar

I think it does. Rich people make easy targets. It shouldn’t have anything to do with the general issue but if you threw paint on the average person wearing leather shoes or a leather belt this cause wouldn’t be considered at all.

Throwing paint on people is apublicity stunt, and in order to get the most publicity you need to pick high profile, shocking targets. It’s got nothing to do with the threat of retaliation – certainly celebs wearing fur are surrounded by big burly men, some of whom are paid body guards who would love to punch a PETA protester in the face. I’d posit two theories here. One, throwing paint on blacksmiths wearing leather aprons, or random nobodies wearing leather biker jackets isn’t going to make the news, and so even if it happens quite frequently you wouldn’t have heard about it. And two, since animal rights activists know it’s not going to make the news, they probably don’t waste time on it.

[Pantastic]

@steronz

Throwing paint on people is apublicity stunt, and in order to get the most publicity you need to pick high profile, shocking targets. It’s got nothing to do with the threat of retaliation – certainly celebs wearing fur are surrounded by big burly men, some of whom are paid body guards who would love to punch a PETA protester in the face.

Bodyguards have a lot of things to be careful about in responding to an attack that is obviously not intended to cause physical harm to their charge, because they’re acting under self-defense laws and it’s hard to argue self defense when the ‘attack’ is over and the paint-thrower is clearly not moving to hurt anyone. Especially when the whole event is being filmed and these stunts are well-known not to be the start of a violent attack. There are a lot of people wearing leather who don’t give a crap about that sort of thing.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@beowulff

Leather is a byproduct.
Fur is the product - the rest of the animal is wasted.

If cattle and alligators were capable of soeech, I expect the former would object to being killed and used efficiently than the latter to being killed and used inefficiently.

[Jophiel]

@steronz

Throwing paint on people is apublicity stunt, and in order to get the most publicity you need to pick high profile, shocking targets.

For that matter, if you’re going to ruin a garment for shock value, a full mink coat has to cost more than a leather jacket.