or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can leather be ethical?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can leather be ethical? - Page 8

post #106 of 139
^ Well, you da man, wherever you are. True, dat. But I'll raise you one psyco-bauble and two eco paps... i gots my elephant hide boots with matching elephant and water buffalo belt, my alligator shoes, anuther pair of elephant boots in the making for a customer in canada, four large elephant side panels in the bins, my horsehide motorcycle jacket and i just finished rendering out a bunch of leaf lard for baking pies and cookies and biskits and cornbread and such. heres to ya
post #107 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
^The more I read your postings, the more I suspect that you don't read anyone elses remarks except as a springboard for argument....
It you who are not reading others' posts, and/or you are unable to understand the responses--as to your snark, "get an education/illiteracy" and English as a second language comments, stop with the snark. Many of us here, including myself, are far more educated than you; then, we understand you just fine, we just totally think what you're saying is totally preposterous, so it is you and not us who have a problem with English and literacy (in other words, stuff it ... )
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
... But I recognize and hold to convictions that are internally consistent: If you take, you pay. If you receive, you owe. Do your own dirty work and don't impose your problems/weaknesses on others. If you don't know, ask; if you aren't sure, don't pretend. Old fashioned, "ethical" stuff like that. Being ethical is being responsible. And vice versa. If you take a life or are responsible for taking a life, you owe something in return. Even if it is only to witness. Even if it is only once. To do less than you can is to denigrate the value of all life...even if you're a vegetarian.
Actually, your convictions are inherently inconsistent, not to mention illogical and devoid of any reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
I have never said that everyone who eats meat or wears leather must experience the death of an animal...not every time (as several sleepy heads suggested); not even just once in their life. What I said was it is, in my opinion, unethical for anyone who eats meat or uses leather to not have experienced the whole process at least once. To shrink from a first hand knowledge of what is involved and what is sacrificed...on your behalf...is weakness of character if nothing else.
Actually, you did. And that is totally preposterous. Not to mention illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
There is a big difference in what I said and what you and several others have read...the the core of which is that if you haven't done, you don't have any credibility about whether it is ethical or not. You haven't earned it. Why? Because opinions based on supposition and pretense are vapourings, at best...
You're opinions are nothing but vapour, based on supposition and pretense, and why nobody--educated or otherwise here is buying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
As for the kitten story...it wasn't about scary people it was about people who have no sense of honour.
Many people have no honour. The jails are full of them. Has nothing to do with the OP's question.
post #108 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post
either wear leather or dont eat meat or dont i dont give a crap but all this phsyco babble eco friendly peta bullshit is making me sick
im wearing alligator shoes (and watchband) sheepskin pants suede jacket and a mink hat sue me bitches

yep, do as you will in accordance with your own convictions! And if PETA tosses something at you, SUE THEM AND BUT GOOD!!! (bunch of hypocrites ... oh, well).
post #109 of 139
Im not suprised issues of ethics evolves into sets of psycho babble arguments.
post #110 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat View Post
It you who are not reading others' posts, and/or you are unable to understand the responses--as to your snark, "get an education/illiteracy" and English as a second language comments, stop with the snark. Many of us here, including myself, are far more educated than you; then, we understand you just fine, we just totally think what you're saying is totally preposterous, so it is you and not us who have a problem with English and literacy (in other words, stuff it ... ) Actually, your convictions are inherently inconsistent, not to mention illogical and devoid of any reason. Actually, you did. And that is totally preposterous. Not to mention illegal. You're opinions are nothing but vapour, based on supposition and pretense, and why nobody--educated or otherwise here is buying it. Many people have no honour. The jails are full of them. Has nothing to do with the OP's question.
All this and what did you end up saying? The correct answer is "nothing." You didn't critique, counter, or address any of the issues. All you did was a take of on "no, I didn't, yes, you did." Snark? I don't do snark. But even if I did what would you do? Type everything in caps? If you enter into a discussion that you don't understand, can't handle, or makes you sick remember the old saying..."you volunteered for this shit."
post #111 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
All this and what did (I myself) end up saying? The correct answer is "nothing." ... (But since I) entered into a discussion that (I myself) don't understand, can't handle, or makes (me) sick (I) remember the old saying..."you volunteered for this shit."
FTFY. Then, I am reminded of what my niece said to her mother (being my sister-in-law), when she saw people cleaning toilets for a living: "Mommy, it's a good thing you got your Ph.D., else you'd have to clean up other people's shit for a living .... the pay sucks and the job is just plain .... Yuck!" In reality, sounds like you yourself are going through a moral crisis of sorts, and trying to justify your own actions--and fact you didn't go to medical school--to yourself. I understand the debate and everything perfectly, but don't believe that you yourself do. (Your posts prove you haven't a clue as to facts or realities, and that you are a contra and inconsistent: you are trying to justify your own actions to yourself. Random musings of a shoe maker having a crisis of some sort, and reason also for all your snark). For everyone else, as to this whole "disconnect unless kill at least once" garbage (and it is), since time-immemorial, not every member of the human tribe participated in the hunt. Some were doctors, others made clothes, still others gathered fire wood or made homes, while the chief concentrated on law and management, etc. It would be unethical for untrained, unskilled people to go into the woods and hunt, inflicting pain and destruction on animals (and why hunts are regulated and managed). Also, it's illegal for people to fire weapons in a city, where there are no wild animals, not to mention no farming allowed, etc., and for very good reasons, too: least of all sanitation and safety. Others choose to do these jobs b/c that's what they do, are trained to do, and even though the pay is crap, but that's an entirely different issue, now isn't it? But I take solace in knowing they know what they're doing, which means ethical treatment of animals--ie, no improper cuts, no prolonged suffering To each their own, s'sly. BTW, Lasbar, your comments about the military are most thoughtful; ask a man not what he's willing to die for but, rather, what he's willing to kill another human being for. I'd like to think that all who wear the uniform think as you do (then, also why they have the Rules of Engagement, there being military ethics, too
post #112 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
Why do you think my avatar is hypocritical? Or is it another example of not really understanding the English language?
Quoted for hilarity! You might reread my post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
As for showing that what you've stated is incorrect...the last three pages, at least, could have done that if you'd been open enough and studious enough to actually read my posts the way they were written and not with words and assumptions that you projected.
I quoted you directly, both what you said and when you contradicted yourself and I've pointed out that your point has nothing to do with being ethical and everything to do with education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
No matter...I know a troll when I see/read one...
Yeah, a troll with 3000 more posts than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat View Post
[b]It you who are not reading others' posts, and/or you are unable to understand the responses--as to your snark, "get an education/illiteracy" and English as a second language comments, stop with the snark. Many of us here, including myself, are far more educated than you; then, we understand you just fine, we just totally think what you're saying is totally preposterous, so it is you and not us who have a problem with English and literacy (in other words, stuff it ... ) Actually, your convictions are inherently inconsistent, not to mention illogical and devoid of any reason. Actually, you did. And that is totally preposterous. Not to mention illegal. You're opinions are nothing but vapour, based on supposition and pretense, and why nobody--educated or otherwise here is buying it. Many people have no honour. The jails are full of them. Has nothing to do with the OP's question.
+1 I wonder how many people it would take to point this for him to understand?
post #113 of 139
If you have to fret about the morality of what you're wearing perhaps you should just stick to synthetics.
post #114 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13 View Post
I understand completely what you're saying and the difference between what I said and what you said is almost nil. Basically, if a person has never participated in the killing of (what you said) - or killed (what I said) an animal yet they wear leather or eat meat they're being unethical? Lol!...
I don't think you understood what he was saying. He wrote clearly that a person must experience the slaughtering of an animal at least once in order to eat animals or otherwise benefit from the slaughter of animals. You took this as a person must kill every animal s/he eats or otherwise benefits from. The difference is not "almost nil."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13 View Post
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII If you take, you pay. If you receive, you owe.
This has nothing to do with what you're saying about "participating" in the "killing or butchering of animals".
Actually, it does. He's saying that if one benefits from something, one should give something. This is the general principle, which he is applying to the particular case of eating animals. It follows the basic logical construction of a syllogism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13 View Post
Quote:
Quote: Originally Posted by DWFII Do your own dirty work and don't impose your problems/weaknesses on others.
... Once again, this has nothing to do with what you're saying about "participating" in the "killing or butchering of animals".
This too is quite appropriate to his point, namely that if one wishes to benefit from the killing of animals, one should participate directly in it at least once to see if it is something one would like to continue to participate in it again indirectly (eating meat, wearing leather, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13 View Post
Plus, "do your own dirty work" and "don't impose your problems/weaknesses on others" are mutually exclusive. Or, maybe you knew that. I don't know.
No, they are not mutually exclusive. They reinforce each other's focus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13 View Post
Quote:
Quote: Originally Posted by DWFII If you don't know, ask; if you aren't sure, don't pretend.
Once again, this has nothing to do with what you're saying about "participating" in the "killing or butchering of animals".
No, this too had much to do with the point you take issue with. He's responding to the fact that people are ignorant (sometimes willfully) of how the animals we eat, etc., are treated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avocat View Post
...Actually, your convictions are inherently inconsistent, not to mention illogical and devoid of any reason...
They are very logical to me. I think you too misunderstood DW's points. And I agree with him that you seem to (ab)use other's posts as springboards to your own thoughts. Most of what you write seems to agree with DW. Normally I wouldn't take the time to respond to such obviously incorrect posts as you two's, but I have Manton's recent laments in mind -- that those who know are being overwhelmed by those who do not. And it would be very sad if another great member of SF would be run out by such silliness.
post #115 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post
... They are very logical to me. I think you too misunderstood DW's points. And I agree with him that you seem to (ab)use other's posts as springboards to your own thoughts. Most of what you write seems to agree with DW. Normally I wouldn't take the time to respond to such obviously incorrect posts as you two's, but I have Manton's recent laments in mind -- that those who know are being overwhelmed by those who do not. And it would be very sad if another great member of SF would be run out by such silliness.
Emptym, I agree with some of what DW says, but then he contradicts himself and entirely. I also provided him with talking points in order to try and understand what he was saying better (without which, his "argument" simply makes no sense, at all, as some of us do understand the issues, etc., including myself, but enough said). If for e.g. the problem is factory farm practices in the US (which aren't the same practices elsewhere or even at all places in the US), then the answer is better regulation and/or inspection of factory farming in the US to ensure the proper treatment of our food which in fact is regulated by law; then again, so too is speeding prohibited and are military offensives regulated, but alone doesn't necessarily mean that everyone follows the rules, which is the reason why the laws must be enforced to be effective. I totally disagree with his (or anyone else's) "point" thus and also that, to be able to eat meat and/or wear leather, one must kill and/or participate in the slaughter of an animal. Frankly, for unskilled/untrained people to do so would not only be unethical (and illegal), but also cruel and completely contrary to everything else DW said (hence, contra, among other things). I stand by what I said, and since when did responding to silliness (and calling it out as such, for what it is/was, and in a polite and respectful manner I might add, as both myself and TCK have at all times and herein conducted ourselves, despite the snark and thus ignoring it, I further add) become "silly"? Once again, to each their own as it relates to the OP's question, such that the problem if any seems to be in the enforcement of the law, not that there is no law. And to suggest that someone kill and/or participate in the process is in fact silly (not to mention illegal, and well, did I mention silly?). Indeed, if you have a problem with eating meat and wearing the fur/hide, then perhaps try a vegan diet though not the best and wearing synth (though also not the best for the environment, then again, neither are vegan diets either but that's an entirely different argument altogether). Meanwhile, it is and remains an unconverted fact that not all humans participated in the hunt. The chief and doctor etc. certainly did not back then, nor do they today (anymore than do ie. their modern counterparts, being: politicians, lawyers, bankers or doctors, etc.). Nor do all humans clean toilets for a living either before they are "entitled" to use one and flush. One has nothing to do with the other, be it cleaning a toilet to use it or digging a ditch to drive a car on the road, or killing etc. an animal to eat; and to say otherwise is not only silly, but entirely and completely devoid of logic (i.e., it just doesn't make sense, at all). As to gaining a benefit and giving back, like the chief, the doctor, etc. of today and yesterday, who all and continue to eat (food provided for by them and modern counterparts by the hunters and farmers, etc. whose job it was/is to hunt and/or farm/raise our food), the chief ruled the tribe (running the business of the tribe and giving the law, etc.), while the doctor tended to the spiritual and medical needs of the tribe. In turn, giving back (not to mention the chief, doctor, etc. give back far more to the tribe than the hunters but, then again, each of us to this day have different roles to play in society, be we a tribe or a city state, a country or a global village, as we always have). But alas, I (and TCK thus) repeat ourselves ... It has always been this way, and it would not only be inefficient but unethical and nigh impossible to change it, least of all (as also stated) there being no wild animals, farms etc. in the cities (a discussion perhaps for a different thread on a different day). That said, and back to the OP's question: to each and all their own, in accordance with their own religion and conscious. EDIT: Spoon-fed. (Normally I wouldn't take the time, but guess I did, huh?!)
post #116 of 139

Soya bean contains all the amino acides necessary for human nutrition, and can supply all the amino acids (protein quality) usually obtained from animal products.

post #117 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post

Soya bean contains all the amino acides necessary for human nutrition, and can supply all the amino acids (protein quality) usually obtained from animal products.

There are several amino acids found in meat that the human body cannot synthesize, that, while not strictly necessary, do make you far stronger and healthier. There are others that, while they can be synthesized, are far more efficiently found in dietary sources.

The soybean cannot replace animal protein entirely, and neither can anything else. We evolved to eat a varied diet containing meat. We can get by without it, but you're never going to be as healthy as you could be if your diet did contain meat.

I suggest eating fish. I've found that a lot of supposed vegans and vegetarians have no problem eating fish, presumably because they're not furry and cute.
post #118 of 139
OF course leather is ethical without reservation
post #119 of 139
Whoah...did they start making shoes out of people? Ethical?

If you need an argument for buying leather I will give you the argument I give vegetarians for eating hamburger.

You see I am a meatatarian and quite frankly my eating habits are better for the environment than yours. I eat cows and cows are one of the leading causes of methane gas, which depletes the ozone. You on the other hand eat greens which produce oxygen. So who is the asshole now?

I love to make that argument and I love the dumbfounded looks I get from my misguided brethren. So wear your leather proud knowing that you are an environmentalist.
post #120 of 139
To repeat, soybean contains all the essential amino acids required for human health, and therefore can, if eaten regularly, replace animal products in human diets, including milk and fish.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can leather be ethical?