if someone wants a sable coat that is enough to justify them having one if they can afford
I don't think you wish to make my education an issue because I suspect your's would be a rather poor comparative
I'm very familiar with the animal rights movement. They were blowing up fur farms in my area while I was working for a gang unit, and we had a lot of dealings with ALF members as a result.
Just because there is a lunatic fringe associated with this doesn't mean that the fur industry shouldn't be abolished. But thanks for falling prey to some major logical fallacies in all of your posts.
How about if they want a coat made of puppy skins? Can they justify that, if they can afford it? Or, would they be arrested for animal cruelty?if someone wants a sable coat that is enough to justify them having one if they can afford
I went to one of the top rated liberal arts colleges in the U.S. and I've argued my position here coherently and without using logical fallacies. I win.I don't think you wish to make my education an issue because I suspect your's would be a rather poor comparative
and your bit about need is worthless
I will always opt for freedom over the subjective emotions of someone who wants to control what someone else does
I am not willing to put people out of business just to make some feel better about themselves
Because you say so?and your bit about need is worthless
The fact is that furs once served a valuable purpose. They were far warmer, long-lasting, and useful than almost any other product in areas with harsh winter climates. Human beings could not produce products that were the equivalent of fur. That is no longer the case. Many outdoors products are now much more effective than fur at retaining heat and protecting people from the elements. Thus, fur is no longer needed, because there are many products that are equally effective that don't require harming animals.
So, if your neighbor wants to beat his wife, that's okay with you? IF your neighbor wants a coat made of puppy skins, he should be allowed to have it?I will always opt for freedom over the subjective emotions of someone who wants to control what someone else does
More fallacies (appeal to ridicule). First, if fur was discontinued, the free market would, and already has, create similar status items for people with more money than intellect. The people currently employed in the fur industry could pursue making those items. Secondly, we have broad animal protection statutes in this country. Expanding them to fur animals would be logical. Protecting dogs and cats, while allowing minks and foxes to be abused is morally inconsistent. Lastly, you're a proponent of limiting MANY behaviors for moral reasons. Thus, you're being inconsistent on this issue.I am not willing to put people out of business just to make some feel better about themselves
Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 09-10-10 at 04:16 PM.
killing a mink for fur is no different to the MINK than killing a cow for beef
as long as mink are killed in a humane manner its hard to claim its ok to kill cattle so people can eat beef but not mink so people can wear fur==no one is justifying abuse but I suspect minks are treated better than chickens
Banning fur would be a step towards banning meat-I don't want to give the PETA clowns any momentum. Again the issue isn't forcing fur farms to treat animals humanely but outright BANNING the industry no matter how it is run
what do I want to limit? telling libs they cannot take other peoples' wealth is not a limitation on anyone's rights.
in china when you ask someone to WALK the dog make sure you spell it out
IN France Horses are food animals
but mink are traditional sources of fur.
are you against the fur industry because
1) its ok to kill animals humanely for food but its not for fur
2) the fur industry is always going to be inhumane
3) or mink are cuter than chickens
the first issue involves should humans be able to raise and kill animals for certain products. I don't see food and fur being all that different
the second issue is-should farmed animals be treated humanely? obviously yes
the third issue is can the fur industry treat animals as well as food animals
Your argument that fur should not be outlawed for moral reasons has been debunked.
It is ALREADY a criminal act to abuse animals. Protecting fur animals would be consistent with this stance.
Furthermore, we've had those standards for at least a hundred years WITHOUT banning meat-eating. Which renders one of your other arguments moot.
IS this really the best you can do, throw out a bunch of fallacious nonsense riddled with grammatical errors?
Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 09-10-10 at 04:35 PM.