Your fur style - please read thread guidelines in post #1 before posting | Page 19 | the Fashion Spot

Your fur style - please read thread guidelines in post #1 before posting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fur or Fake?

I have a simple rule when it comes to fur; if I'm prepared to eat the animal I am happy to wear the fur. I also believe that people shouldn't eat meat if they wouldn't be prepared to kill the animal themselves. Everything dies eventually, it's a shame people aren't more concerned about the quality of life instead of the length of it.

As for fake fur and pleather, whilst it's nice to think that no animals suffer or die in the production of these materials, they do. Not directly as in fur production, but they suffer none the less due to the impact on the environment caused by manufacturing the products and the chemicals needed to produce these products. So I make an effort to choose natural materials over man-made ones.

I value the environment without discrimination, a tree or plant or lake has as important a role in this world as a rabbit or cow, they should be valued whist they are around and their contribution to the world acknowledged when they pass.

@Woodenhouse - The Nazi comparison is one frequently used by people wanting to indicate just how abhorrent they find a particular belief or action. There are many other examples of one group killing and persecuting another that can be used but you did not choose to use them, you chose to use Nazis. By using this as an your example you are suggesting that those who wear fur are as immoral and dispicable as Nazis. By casting fur wearers in the role of Nazis you also, by implication, cast Jews as animals. I am sure I am not alone in finding this repellant. If this is not what you mean then may I politely suggest that you give as much consideration to the words you use as you seem to give to the clothes you wear and the food you eat.

And since parts of humanity are still treating their fellow man with cruelty and an utter disregard for basic human rights, it could be argued that we not only treat animals as well as humans, but in some cases we treat animals better than humans.
 
i've been wearing quite a bit of fur recently due to location change. most of it is vintage if that lessens the cruelty aspect for some of you.
 
Personally, I do not agree with wearing fur. The idea of me wearing an animal that died-even if it was from natural causes-sickens me. I never really have worn silk because I personally don't like the texture of it. I gave away all my wool and leather because the smell of leather makes me vomit and wool itches too much for my liking. Don't even get me started on fur.
 
i got another vintage fur coat for x-mas...
blk tibetan lamb w/a mink collar....


:heart:...
looks very vuitton/prada fw05
 
Chouchen said:
@Woodenhouse - The Nazi comparison is one frequently used by people wanting to indicate just how abhorrent they find a particular belief or action. There are many other examples of one group killing and persecuting another that can be used but you did not choose to use them, you chose to use Nazis. By using this as an your example you are suggesting that those who wear fur are as immoral and dispicable as Nazis. By casting fur wearers in the role of Nazis you also, by implication, cast Jews as animals. I am sure I am not alone in finding this repellant. If this is not what you mean then may I politely suggest that you give as much consideration to the words you use as you seem to give to the clothes you wear and the food you eat.

I absolutely agree. No matter what the intent, one cannot compare animals to the victims of the holocaust without demeaning the Jews (and all other persecuted groups)

and in addition, the comparison of fur wearers to Nazis is completely absurd.

I believe that if a person is ok with eating meat, or wearing leather shoes, or a leather bag, or coat, it is hypocritical for that same person to claim that killing animals for their fur is cruel. No matter what purpose animals are killed for, they are still killed.

And I don't buy the argument that it's ok to eat meat because it's nescessary for survival- we eat meat because we like it. And we carry leather handbags because they are more soft and supple than synthetic made ones.

Animals are not humans and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as people.
 
kind of like..
we eat animals..
but if they had the chance, they'd eat us too..
 
softgrey said:
i got another vintage fur coat for x-mas...
blk tibetan lamb w/a mink collar....


:heart:...
looks very vuitton/prada fw05
i love this one so much that i may actually wear it out of the house...
unlike the rest of my furs which i only take out for halloween...



:lol:...
plus i just think it will be sooo warm...
needs a bit of tender loving care....*there's a tear at the shoulder...
but i think it will be easy to fix....
 
stilettogirl84 said:
Animals are not humans and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as people.
:blink: Nice to see you're in charge of deciding how important certain living beings are. Has God joined TFS and delivered His word here? :lol:

Oh man... :rofl:
 
I would never wear fur, because I find it completely immoral and unnecessary to wear a dead animal around my neck for decoration. And yes, I'm very intollerant towards those who do wear fur. :doh:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i totally agree. apart from the cruelty aspect of it, i also do NOT find fur to be attractive or enhancing a woman's beauty. It makes the woman look all puffed up and bigger than she really is. who wants to look bigger?:blink: . This is why i wont touch even faux fur.

I think the anti-fur people, by supporting the faux fur movement, are doing it wrong. By doing so, they are telling people "Yes fur is attractive. but please for the sake of the animals, do not buy it. Wear a cheaper and less attactive version of the real thing"...Thats crazy. why would a rich socialite waer a duplicate when they can afford the real thing:unsure: :blink:. The correct way is to flat out deny the supposed atrractiveness of fur.
 
i'm just trying to point out that some things in life aren't as important or consequential as it seems..

thats just my personal opinion.. theres a food chain and balance in nature for a reason.. if a crocodile wants to eat a baby bird.. let it.. what does it matter if the balance is not disrupted? if an animal has already died.. why not put what they've left to use? its not always an exotic or endangered animal that is over-hunted.. what about other cases?
 
the difference is animals kill for food and for survival...we kill them for no other reason than our pleasure and vanity. Or are you saying that this happens everyhwhere in the animal kingdom, why cant we do it?

Also if we are arguing that ppl have more rights to life than animals because we are better, more intelligent etc than them...then shudnt the same logic apply here too? Shudnt we be the "bigger man" and stop these activities that our animal ancestors and our forefathers began out of a totally different necessity than what is there today.
 
i don't think i could ever wear fur but i've got to admit i loved gwyneth paltrow's fur coat in the royal tenenbaums
 
I agree killing for vanity is excessive and unnecessary. I never said otherwise...

but animals are killed for food and survival as well. we are not killing them simply for pleasure and vanity. if an animal has already died, whats wrong with putting it to good use? some natives used skins to build shelters, clothing, etc which are necessities for life.. and it continues today in some tribes.

of course, if you don't need it.. don't take it. but i'm just saying.. whats wrong with it, if the balance of nature isn't disturbed? i don't agree with the illegal and cruel activities associated with procuring animal skins or fur. but what if that were not the case?
 
how many fur coats etc are produced from the already-dead-animal category? How many fur coats you know of that originally were roadkill? Lets not be naive here. :rolleyes: Most of the animals are killed for the fur, not viseversa.
And yeah if its accidentally killed, i see no harm in using that piece of skin etc.:unsure:
 
i'm not being naive. i just wanted to know your opinion since you're anti-fur whereas i don't have a strong stance on it. I don't mean roadkill.. but animals that have been killed by another animal or died of natural causes, etc.. how would an anti-fur person feel about that?

i ask this bc i'm reminded of PETA's childish behaviour nowadays. If an anti-fur person doesn't disagree with using "naturally procured" fur, why don't they try to incorporate this into their strategy? to gently nudge the public in small steps.. after all, its not that they are against fur, they are against cruelty of animals, no? its better than being violent or illegally harass a person by throwing pies, eggs, etc
 
AlexN said:
:blink: Nice to see you're in charge of deciding how important certain living beings are. Has God joined TFS and delivered His word here? :lol:

Oh man... :rofl:

I like how you jump on that one sentence, Alex, and not the rest of Stilettogirl's post pointing out the rank hypocrisy of leather-wearing, meat-eating folks who preach against fur.

Even the animal rights extremists at PeTA have to acknowledge that animals don't have the same rights as people. That's why they kill animals in their shelters by the thousands and strongly advocate for spaying and neutering.

Human rights organizations don't typically advocate genocide and sterilization as a solution for human overpopulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Statistics

Threads
215,559
Messages
15,307,353
Members
89,573
Latest member
jkwarchive
Back
Top