Can leather be ethical? - Page 8

^ 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

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.

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).

Im not suprised issues of ethics evolves into sets of psycho babble arguments.

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."

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

Quoted for hilarity! You might reread my post... 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. Yeah, a troll with 3000 more posts than you. +1 I wonder how many people it would take to point this for him to understand?

If you have to fret about the morality of what you're wearing perhaps you should just stick to synthetics.

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." 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. 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.). No, they are not mutually exclusive. They reinforce each other's focus. 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. 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.

Cordovan is more ethical than calfskin, because horses are evil.

Seriously. Fuck horses.

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?!)