• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on furs

Would you support such legislation in your own country?


  • Total voters
    46
YEah, I love how you keep making these generalizations that are totally inaccurate. I have no problems with people in Alaska trapping furs for their own purposes. However, I do have problems with the fur industry overall, and most especially fur farms.

I don't like factory farms of any kind. They are horrible polluters to the groundwater. As we've seen from recent food scares, they are dangerous. They're horrible neighbors. And, the treatment of animals is shameful.

Just because we eat animals doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated in as humane a way as possible.

As far as banning hunting and fishing, why on earth would we want to do that? I live in the South. Most of my neighbors hunt and fish, my dad hunted and fished, I fish, my boyfriend fishes, and my kids fish. We're responsible stewards.

I know, as someone who grew up on a farm, the difference between farm practices that are responsible and respectful of animals, and those that aren't.

Why don't you try arguing the actual topic, instead of creating strawmen. *yawn*

didn't you are your ally make a massive generalization about the fur industry

I didn't say you want to ban hunting-I am saying those spearheading the fur ban movement want to ban hunting and fishing
 
You NEED a fur coat? What, you pimpin in the hood, yo?

bwhahhahahahhaahah.

Chill out, bro. No one is trying to steal your guns on this thread, or your capital gains.

And stop with the strawmen. They're lame. Didn't you have to take a basic rhetoric/logic class in law school?

Again you are in no position to tell someone else what they need

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
 
didn't you are your ally make a massive generalization about the fur industry

I didn't say you want to ban hunting-I am saying those spearheading the fur ban movement want to ban hunting and fishing

I don't have allies. Deal with what I wrote, or fail. And, I refuse to defend Ingrid Newkirk. She's a moron.

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.
 
Again you are in no position to tell someone else what they need

I am in the position, however, to say that the industry is a massive source of pollution and animal cruelty, and neither of those things should be tolerated. I'm a voter, too, Turtle.

if someone wants a sable coat that is enough to justify them having one if they can afford

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?

I don't think you wish to make my education an issue because I suspect your's would be a rather poor comparative

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 have allies. Deal with what I wrote, or fail. And, I refuse to defend Ingrid Newkirk. She's a moron.

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.

fallacies? LOL-I merely noted that those who want to ban the fur industry are often the same people who want to ban hunting

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
 
fallacies? LOL-I merely noted that those who want to ban the fur industry are often the same people who want to ban hunting

That's a fallacy called poisoning the well. Just because Ingrid Newkirk also opposes hunting and fishing does not mean that everyone who opposes the fur industry is a rabid moonbat.

and your bit about need is worthless

Because you say so?

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.

I will always opt for freedom over the subjective emotions of someone who wants to control what someone else does

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 am not willing to put people out of business just to make some feel better about themselves

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.
 
Last edited:
That's a fallacy called poisoning the well. Just because Ingrid Newkirk also opposes hunting and fishing does not mean that everyone who opposes the fur industry is a rabid moonbat.



Because you say so?

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?



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.

beating another person violates HUMAN rights

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.
 
How about wearing a coat made out of puppy skins? WOuld you be okay with that?

are puppies somehow different than minks? the chances of that selling is about slim to zero though

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
 
are puppies somehow different than minks? the chances of that selling is about slim to zero though

So, as a country, we already have standards for humane treatment of fur-bearing mammals. Correct? Expanding those protections to close relatives of dogs (coyote, foxes), as well as other mammals is not out of line with our existing standards for humane and ethical treatment of 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:
So, as a country, we already have standards for humane treatment of fur-bearing mammals. Correct? Expanding those protections to close relatives of dogs (coyote, foxes), as well as other mammals is not out of line with our existing standards for humane and ethical treatment of 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?

talk about idiotic arguments

why should the fur industry be banned

is it because its more cruel than raising animals for food or is it because you don't think fur is "necessary?

easy question
 
why should the fur industry be banned

is it because its more cruel than raising animals for food or is it because you don't think fur is "necessary?

easy question

False dichotomy. I've already provided my reasons for banning the fur industry:

1) Fur is no longer the most effective form of winter insulation. There are other, better products that are available, rendering fur obsolete.
2) The fur industry causes environmental damage through the use of factory farming techniques.
3) The fur industry is cruel and inhumane.
4) We have longstanding standards for animal cruelty that aren't being enforced with fur animals, and should be.

I also believe that we will eventually need to ban factory farming of meat animals for the same reasons, beyond the fact that it is simply impossible to raise safe, healthy meat animals when they are confined into tiny cages, living on top of one another. This is an incredibly unsafe practice that requires factory farms to administer high doses of antibiotics to these animals to keep them from getting ill because of their living conditions. This practice, of course, is contributing to increased numbers of drug-resistant bacteria (causing major human health problems). ANd of course, factory farming has also led to increased problems with foodborne contagions.

As I've stated several times, I have no problems with eating meat as long as the animals are humanely housed, cared for, and killed. That simply isn't the case with modern fur farming (or, for that matter, factory farms).
 
Last edited:
False dichotomy. I've already provided my reasons for banning the fur industry:

1) Fur is no longer the most effective form of winter insulation. There are other, better products that are available, rendering fur obsolete.
2) The fur industry causes environmental damage through the use of factory farming techniques.
3) The fur industry is cruel and inhumane.

I also believe that we will eventually need to ban factory farming of meat animals for the same reasons, beyond the fact that it is simply impossible to raise safe, healthy meat animals when they are confined into tiny cages, living on top of one another. This is an incredibly unsafe practice that requires factory farms to administer high doses of antibiotics to these animals to keep them from getting ill because of their living conditions. This practice, of course, is contributing to increased resistance to antibiotics by bacteria, and damaging human health and increased problems with foodborne contagions.

As I've stated several times, I have no problems with eating meat as long as the animals are humanely housed, cared for, and killed. That simply isn't the case with modern fur farming (or, for that matter, factory farms).

so again it comes down to need for fur

now tell me-if the food industry is able to operate without being inhumane why cannot the fur industry.

if we can have a food industry that is humane and does not do significant environmental damage than we can clearly have the same thing for the fur industry

or are you arguing that abuses of the above is ok for meat raisers but not fur farmers?
 
now tell me-if the food industry is able to operate without being inhumane why cannot the fur industry.

if we can have a food industry that is humane and does not do significant environmental damage than we can clearly have the same thing for the fur industry

or are you arguing that abuses of the above is ok for meat raisers but not fur farmers?

These questions were answered in my post above. The one you quoted but clearly did not read.
 
These questions were answered in my post above. The one you quoted but clearly did not read.

I have no problem with fur farming as long as it is carried out humanely
 
It isn't. For that matter, neither is meat/egg/milk production, at this point in time. Does that bother you?

it ranks about 37th on the things that bother me

but the point is-the use of the animal is not the main or even secondary issue here

BTW I catch or shoot alot of what I eat
 
it ranks about 37th on the things that bother me

The health implications of factory farming bother me enough that we buy eggs and meat from local organic farmers. The animal suffering aspect of it bothers me because I grew up on a farm, and we actually got pretty attached to our cattle before we ate them. As lives go, they had pretty decent ones until they had a a quick (albeit not painless) death. But then, how many of us can hope for a 100% painless death? Very few.

BTW I catch or shoot alot of what I eat

I have no problems with that, it's a cleaner and more wholesome way of doing it. I wish more Americans had a closer connection to their food.
 
Last edited:
You like me now, don't you? ;)

I judge a post on its merits not who posts it-I can bash you all over the forum or you can do the same to me and if you say something intelligent I will give you credit for it
 
I would oppose a fur trade in endangered animals, but not oppose a general fur trade and definately not oppose the traditional fur hunting of the Inuit peoples in northern Canada, Greenland, and Alaska -- though the EU has laws against their import...
 
I would oppose a fur trade in endangered animals, but not oppose a general fur trade and definately not oppose the traditional fur hunting of the Inuit peoples in northern Canada, Greenland, and Alaska -- though the EU has laws against their import...


The beauty of the Inuit people is that nothing--I men nothing--is wasted. Fur, meat, and organs are all consumed or used for something else. They seem to have a balanced appreciation for mother nature and take good care of her. There so much we can learn from them.
 
I would oppose a fur trade in endangered animals, but not oppose a general fur trade and definately not oppose the traditional fur hunting of the Inuit peoples in northern Canada, Greenland, and Alaska -- though the EU has laws against their import...

What about the traditional hunting practices of the American people in the United States? Something wrong with those people, they can't be shown the same special considerations as others?
 
The beauty of the Inuit people is that nothing--I men nothing--is wasted. Fur, meat, and organs are all consumed or used for something else. They seem to have a balanced appreciation for mother nature and take good care of her. There so much we can learn from them.

No, they don't.

They live in one of the harshest environments on the planet and they are forced to be efficient with the limited resources at their disposal.

Ain't no mystical "oneness", it's the result of desperation.
 
Anyone ever wonde why people who aren't living in barren environments abandoned fur as an essential article of clothing some time ago?

Yes, that's right. People more resources to draw from figured out that sheep wool can be spun into yarns and threads and that in turn can be woven into cloth that can be sewn into clothing using the same eyed needles originally invented to sew furs together. They also discovered vegetable fibers, such as flax and cotton.

So, suddenly, when they killed an animal, it's skin could be used for leather, but it's hair wasn't valuable any more, especially from animals with short coarse hair like cattle.

It, as always, is a matter of economics.
 
Back
Top Bottom