"Faux fur" on Sean John jackets was raccoon dog!

[PrinceOfCats]

i remember i saw a video of them skinning an animal alive...it got me so emotional afterwards with my mom and her fur coats =T

Sounds like a fake snuff video to me, PETA probably made it. Anyone who's ever skinned an animal knows you'd lose your fingers if you tried to do it while it was still alive...

 

[misssakura]

Sounds like a fake snuff video to me, PETA probably made it. Anyone who's ever skinned an animal knows you'd lose your fingers if you tried to do it while it was still alive...

Our neighbour in France had a rabbit fur farm, conditions weren't too hot. I have no idea how they do the skinning but I think it was with a stun gun. Something like that, laws have changed since then I believe.

 

[jun3machina]

I just don't understand the point of fake fur, so please feel free to enlighten me. Isn't wearing fake fur still sending out the message that you condone the LOOK of a dead animal? That really confuses me- I mean in effect aren't you are still justifying the look and end result of it, just not the process?

i totally argree with you. i went to school with a pair of twin punk rock girls who protested, vandalized in the name of animal rights...PETA would have loved them....but they had these bizaar personal theories that buying leather jackets at thrift stores was okay even though they were VEGANS and animal rights fanatics. they also wore fake fur.....in my eyes, it's fairly black and white....you either are okay with the fact that you consume and use animals as food and clothing OR you dont. i find these vegetarians that wear leather and vegans in faux fur coats very hypocritical....

 

[misssakura]

'These Vegetarians'. Honestly could you be any more condescending? Some people happen to like the look of fake fur. Some people happen to like drawing antropomorphic characters. Some people cosplay as animals. Some people just like the look of fur and don't feel it necessary to kill animals in order to wear it. If you'd prefer they could call it something entirely different to 'fake fur' but its ALSO provided as an alternative for those switching from the original product. I don't understand why its such a hard concept to grasp.

Imitation is flattery. It doesn't mean that you support butchery of animals in their thousands. Jeez.

P.s. the look of a dead animal? So basically if I say..."Oh I think a fox's fur is beautiful" that I can only say that about a dead fox? Don't be so ridiculous. It's absolutely beautiful on a live fox (and should stay on a live fox) and surely you can understand why people would want to imitate that look. It's a compliment to the beautiful design of nature that people would want to create a cruelty free alternative to such an impeccable design.

 

[jun3machina]

when i said "these vegetarians" i was referring to the group of vegetarians who do not eat meat and who DO wear leather. i wasn't being condescending at all. if i had used caps or something, maybe my intent by using the word "these" would have meant something else, but i did not intend it to. i specified who i was speaking about and then referred to that group i had described. sheesh!

and cosplaying and all of that is not normal day wear (at least for most people). i wont get started on cosplay, as it detracts from my point; to imitate the look of fur or an animal in a cosplay costume is like dressing up as a cat or something for halloween. you are making less of a fashion statement, because it is NOT daywear, and it is more of a theatrical thing. i know, i used to cosplay. but since it is not daywear or regular garb for most, it is not relevant to the point i was trying to make.

when you wear faux fur though, you are still imitating an animal. humans kill animals, they dont evoke them (as in cosplay). when fur, whether it be fake or not, is used in daywear it is to accent the garment, not to evoke a fox or an animal so you resemble them. the accents of fur on jackets go back to days as hunters when humans would decorate their attire with their prize game. as furs became commodities, certain ones were more desirable than others and fur went from hunting trophy and something that was practicle because it kept you warm, to something that became a status thing. then came the furs of the early 1900's, and it ever became more and more of a high fashion status. early faux furs were created because many people could not afford a MINK, thus they'd get the faux fur version because it was cheaper. then during the 1960's the faux fur became more about animal rights then it did about a cheaper way to obtain a luxury look. then comes PETA, and all the tension with fur we have now-a-days as a culture. and many believe that because humans are "the more intelligible race" we should manufacture faux furs and save the animals since we are the evolved species (not my particular viewpoint as i believe a large number of animals are way smarter than a lot of humans out there).

that's where i find a lot of problems with these do-gooder people who think it's their job to "save the animals". they're buying faux fur, yes, but what are they doing to save habitats and wildlife and such then? paris hilton and lindsay lohan are now anti-fur? i think they are doing it more for the anti-fur reputation building publicity than for moral reasons....they'd rather have the postive press than on PETA's worse dressed list, like christina ricci was placed on after doing a W cover editoral with fur. it hurts their public image because of the negativity....but all of that is a whole other discussion....

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

why do so many people automatically associate animal activists with environmentalists? i'm an environmentalist, and in no way an animal activist. i'm also one of those vegetarians who wear leather. i'd never wear a mink coat, but IMO there are plenty of cows in the world.

about paris, christina ricci and all those people becoming anti-fur because it hurts their image... i don't think it matters why they become anti-fur. whether you become anti-fur because of reputation or because you actually care about animals, you're still not wearing dead animals. the effect is the same

 

[misssakura]

There is an aspect of cost yes, and there is an aspect of improving public image for many celebrities. But I can assure you that there are hundreds of thousands of people who merely enjoy the look and feel of faux fur and don't equate it to an antiquated and barbaric process. I'm one of them.

As far as saving the environment, we should all do our share. But I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to not contribute - not killing animals is a way of life and something you do not because other people do it, but because you believe deep down in the practice (heck, I'm sure there are posers, people who dive into a way of life without research merely to sit on a high horse and be morally 'superior' from their standpoint. It's the same as many people of religion who fail to understand their religion but base their evaluation of others on it daily, though there are those who dedicate their time to understanding what they practice and challenging what they are taught to believe). Even if it was proven to me that wearing fur was ethically acceptable, I still wouldn't wear it as I don't believe I'm capable of spilling blood for any reason other than the deepest need for survival which hopefully I shall never encounter.

I'm sure many people only buy faux to appease those around them. Mindsets are changing however and many people genuinely believe (and in my opinion, with reason) that fur, although a beautiful look can be imitated relatively successfully by man without the need for animal slaughter. But people do need to understand why they aren't wearing fur and not just to sway public opinion favourably.

 

[jun3machina]

There is an aspect of cost yes, and there is an aspect of improving public image for many celebrities. But I can assure you that there are hundreds of thousands of people who merely enjoy the look and feel of faux fur and don't equate it to an antiquated and barbaric process. I'm one of them.

As far as saving the environment, we should all do our share. But I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to not contribute - not killing animals is a way of life and something you do not because other people do it, but because you believe deep down in the practice (heck, I'm sure there are posers, people who dive into a way of life without research merely to sit on a high horse and be morally 'superior' from their standpoint. It's the same as many people of religion who fail to understand their religion but base their evaluation of others on it daily, though there are those who dedicate their time to understanding what they practice and challenging what they are taught to believe). Even if it was proven to me that wearing fur was ethically acceptable, I still wouldn't wear it as I don't believe I'm capable of spilling blood for any reason other than the deepest need for survival which hopefully I shall never encounter.

I'm sure many people only buy faux to appease those around them. Mindsets are changing however and many people genuinely believe (and in my opinion, with reason) that fur, although a beautiful look can be imitated relatively successfully by man without the need for animal slaughter. But people do need to understand why they aren't wearing fur and not just to sway public opinion favourably.

understood and agreed! although in some peoples eyes, when combined with outward protests against animal fur and such, can be seen in some eyes as strange. it's just there are a small % of people that fit into that class where they have a PETA shirt on and are struting a faux mink at the same time.....it's like a hardcore religious fanatic who is wearing a shirt in the name of their religion, but out doing everything it condemns. perhaps it's the extremes some people feel they need to go to lengths to express their opinions on certain things physically, but then they outwardly contradict themselves through expressions.

and that last quote is very right on! it's different for everybody, and while i have my own perspectives on it and see people who choose either to wear fur or not wear it (and their choices on other matters of using animals as food clothing etc) as possibly being conrtradictory in MY OWN EYES, not everyone shares my perspective. and that's okay. it's nice we can all express ourselves regarding this matter here, and accept it even if it isn't our own perspectives

 

[jun3machina]

why do so many people automatically associate animal activists with environmentalists? i'm an environmentalist, and in no way an animal activist. i'm also one of those vegetarians who wear leather. i'd never wear a mink coat, but IMO there are plenty of cows in the world.

about paris, christina ricci and all those people becoming anti-fur because it hurts their image... i don't think it matters why they become anti-fur. whether you become anti-fur because of reputation or because you actually care about animals, you're still not wearing dead animals. the effect is the same

i wasn't necssarily bundleing them al up in one package, but i think animal rights people should be more about just fur....because afterall leather is just fur with no hair.........

and i suppose the affect is the same with the celebs, but it seems like their reasons for doing things are tainted a bit. like with peer pressure. i mean in the end, the animals benefit because they aren't getting killed, but the mindset of the humans who are influencing the decisions through their actions are clouding up the thoughts that in my mind should either be okay with fur or not okay.....not okay because i'll get better press and not piss certian people off.....

 

[plasticine20]

Sounds like a fake snuff video to me, PETA probably made it. Anyone who's ever skinned an animal knows you'd lose your fingers if you tried to do it while it was still alive...

Unfortunately, those videos are very real. Sometimes the animals are tied up; sometimes they are beaten beforehand (to the point that they are too weak for retaliation) before they are skinned. Sometimes they're supposed to be dead (via electrocution, bone breaking, gassing, etc) but they're still alive and the skinning happens anyways.

Also, some of the Chinese still do believe in suffering; that suffering is a necessity for certain occassions. So, therefore the skinning of the animal while alive is "justified" in their eyes. I forget for what reason; I suppose I should go back and do more research on this.

 

[Brazilian Girl]

No serious organization (and I believe PETA is a serious one, though often extreme - but let us not get into the whole PETA talk) would need to fake a video. 1) They wouldn't gain anything from it 2) It's pointless, it makes no sense. Animal rights organizations exist because animal cruelty exists, not the opposite.

Seriously, some people often think that "animal rights activists" fabricate facts. Why would they need to be animal rights advocates in the first place if what they defend was fabricated by them? (I'm talking about AR activism in general). If that (or any other) kind of animal cruelty was not real, no one would try/need to raise awareness to it.


But anyway... what's the difference between dog fur and fox fur? Aren't both of them animals who feel the same pain? I really don't understand why racoon dog fur is revolting but chinchila fur is OK.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

organizations don't fake videos?? maybe true, but they do exagerate facts that support their argument and only show limited points of view. it's called propaganda, everyone, not just PETA, uses it.
as for animals feeling the same pain, that's not entirely true, but explaining that involves a long, complicated psychological argument that i'm not going to get into. from a cultural/moral point of view, i think the reason why animals are regarded differently is because they're viewed as a species, and not as individual animals. leather is better than chinchilla fur, because cows are much more abundant than chincillas, and killing a few for leather isn't going to threaten the species as a whole. IMO viewing every single animal individually is too extreme. i've seen PETA brochures, they tell stories about cow X who was mauled by dogs, thrown around, had her legs broken and etc etc. of course it's a sad sad story, but it's one cow. there are more important problems in the world.

 

[Brazilian Girl]

there are more important problems in the world.

but that's just your opinion

I for one believe that NO animal should be put through unnecessary suffering in the hands of men, especially in the name of vanity. To me, the suffering of a chinchila is just as bad as the suffering of a cow. To me, the torture of any animal (and they do feel pain, even if in different levels, they do suffer) is sad and revolting, and the reasons why I feel that way are numerous.

And that's also just my opinion. I'm a person who is truly touched by the suffering of others (be it a neighbor or a single wild animal on the other side of the world), but not everyone feels that way (boy, if we have people killing and torturing each other every day, who am I to expect them to have more respect and consideration towards animals?). So even though it saddens me, I'm fine with that, it's just how the world goes.

 

[misssakura]

there are more important problems in the world.

That's a really dangerous mentality to get into. It doesn't gain the world anything at ALL to lose an organisation that cares for the rights of animals and provides support for a way of living that many people are chosing to take. You instantly assume that, if Peta wasn't lobbying for animals and trying to show a more compassionate way of life, that there would be peace and food in Uganda or democracy in North Korea. My friend Ryan "would care about animals" but unfortunately "there are homeless people in Auckland".

Of course, he doesn't do anything to help them. But this is the complacency found in millions of people.

Not to mention that I firmly believe if people were more compassionate, and if food was distributed more evenly (and I'm talking about not wasting grain to feed cattle to feed the rich) that we wouldn't have as many monopolies on land and forced Dictatorships (just see Guatamala as an example) and people would generally have a better standard of living. But of course people who care about animals just do it because they don't want 'fluffy animal A' to suffer? It's just not that simple. Most people believe that this way of life has a huge reaching impact, it's done for personal reasons yes but it can be far more profound.

Peta has some really ridiculous people in the high rankings. As far as I'm concerned they're terrible terrible spokespeople. I really respect somebody like Juliet Gellatley far more. She's poised, intelligent and approachable. Normal.

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

when i said there are more important problems in the world, i was referring to the suffering of an individual animal. animal cruelty as a whole is a major problem, the individual death of one cow isn't IMO

 

[misssakura]

Isn't it supposed to be representative of the suffering mankind can inflict on animals?

 

[twilight fairy]

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

Isn't it supposed to be representative of the suffering mankind can inflict on animals?

by being mauled by dogs?
i see what you're saying, but in this case, it isn't.

 

[misssakura]

Well i've never seen the exact example you're quoting, never heard of it. Then again isn't it ridiculous to condemn the whole movement by citing just one story? It seems like a pretty ridiculous one off story to me, and PETA should be given a pie in the face if they actually think it is representative of the problems they're trying to challenge. It's like when I watch Animal Hospital and the owners spend thousands of dollars trying to save a sick old hamster. I can't help but wonder at the level of dedication being used to save an old dying animal no bigger than the palm of my hand, I guess that's the elitist side of me.

However, it's obvious to me there are many people who need to be respectful to living things besides themselves. But then again when you have mass consumerism these values tend to get abandoned at the wayside. Just my take.

I really can't help but think that a lot of people have 'evolved' to the point where they feel too much empathy and compassion to harm other living things, the movement that started when Beatrix Potter first started drawing Peter Rabbit and all his friends. The momement that started when some gentlemen in England decided to monitor the welfare of farm animals - which is now the RSPCA. The movement which now includes the green V (Viva!) ticks against vegetarian friendly options - prominent on the page. This isn't a fad - this is a conscious and deeply personal way of life which is only spreading.

And..I forgot my point. Need dinner!

 

[BaroqueRockstar]

However, it's obvious to me there are many people who need to be respectful to living things besides themselves. But then again when you have mass consumerism these values tend to get abandoned at the wayside. Just my take.

sad, but very true. but this can (and should) be used to our advantage as well. forget PETA and all those other animal rights organizations for a moment, and think about the political and economic side of this situation. let's assume that macy's and diddy actually didn't know their "faux" fur was raccoon dog fur. now that they know that they're being lied to by whoever produces those sean john jackets, they should complain or demand some change and added regulations. a fur inspection agency, a product integrity agency, something that ensures faux fur is actually faux.
now if PETA did this rather than throw tofu pies at anna wintour, they might actually get something done...