Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › fur
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

fur - Page 2

post #16 of 25
Besides, minks are cuter than cows.
Mink(s?) are horrible, evil little creatures. Every couple of years some ALF terrorists "free" a couple thousand minks and unleash them on typically a rural population and their livestock. It happened a couple of years ago near here and people's chickens, cows, dogs, everything got attacked and mutilated. Plus there were worries of rabies, although I'm not sure if they were founded in any truth. There are some 'fur' animals that are much cuter than cows, though, you're right about that. I think chinchillas are just a really soft hamster, "IMMSMC"...
post #17 of 25
Thread Starter 
my grandfather was a mink rancher, his hands looked like hamberger.
post #18 of 25
I think this discussion is diverging into two parts, which I feel obliged to address: 1 - It's pretty hard to argue that the fur trade is now a humane one. And it has a long history of treating animals with extreme cruelty to maximize its profits. 2 - Excepting the trim on anoraks, it is the *very* rare occasion that fur looks attractive on men. Really. Maybe Nikita Kruschev could carry it off, but i've yet to see a man on the streets of New York (or anywhere else) look anything but silly, at best. There is a "Seinfeld" episode on this very subject, and for good reason...
post #19 of 25
...and I add, feeling foolish, that I forgot that the original poster was asking about his *wife* wearing fur, not himself. Yoiks. Apologies, will not wait so long between reading the post and replying next time...
post #20 of 25
For those of you who think the PETA employees are whackos, do a bit of research on their website and check out the reasons for some of their opinions. The website is pretty convincing regarding many subjects, but more than that, each employee is an individual, and like other people, some are whacko, and some are normal. Besides, the head of PETA here in the Bay Area is an ex-girlfriend of mind and we are still great friends. Don't get me wrong, I still ove my AE's and she respects that. Just as I respect her choice to participate in non-violent protest. As for throwing paint, the PETA organization is large, and has deep pockets, as well as good lawyers. The employees/activists do not deal with serious punishment, and they certainly don't pay their own fines. -Tom
post #21 of 25
PETA, what a wonderfully tolerant group of terrorists huh? Anybody catch the Penn & Teller special on these guys?
post #22 of 25
Yep, if I needed any more convincing that PETA is the absolute scum of the earth, that episode sure did me in. Murderous, violent ecoterrorist hypocrites, and yet so many people still think they have good intentions.
post #23 of 25
PETA people are crazy. Once I saw a protest against killing rats as well as some vandalisim at a foie gras restaurant.
If you understood their concerns, you would realize that PETA people are not 'crazy.' With foie gras, you are force feeding the ducks by shoving long metal pipes down their throats all the way to their stomachs. A signifgant number die because their stomach burst. With this method, the stomach ends up 10X normal size. If we were to treat dogs like this, it would be stopped immediately. As much as PETA is a easy target, they're responsible for less animal cruelty.
post #24 of 25
Originally Posted by LabelKing,20 Nov. 2004, 7:59
PETA people are crazy. Once I saw a protest against killing rats as well as some vandalisim at a foie gras restaurant.
If you understood their concerns, you would realize that PETA people are not 'crazy.'
While their hearts might be in the right place its their methodology which contributes to why people think they are crazy.  PETA is most definatly a cult.  They brainwash their members to think exactly alike.  Their goal is "animal liberation."  They equate it to the freeing of the slaves in the 1800's.  Thus, anyone who has a cat, dog, parrot, gerbal, or goldfish, etc. is thought of as being the "massa" to some unfortunate "slave" of an animal.  They advocate terroism to get their goals met.  At Michigan State University a few years ago, some one (I can't remember his name) burned down a research lab where animal testing was goin on.  People were injured and almost killed.  PETA celebrated this man, albit quietly as they want to uphold the image they have.  PETA would also like to see the use of products designed and discovered using animal.  EVERYTHING.  Which is hypocritical, because the head of PETA is a diabetic and requires insulin- developed from animals. Definatly check out the PETA episode in the second season of Penn and Teller:Bullshit. which airs on Showtime.  They present the facts to the PETA machine, with a lot of humor.  There are less humorous sources as well.
post #25 of 25
As Mike said, PETA's goal isn't merely to stop unnecessary cruelty towards animals (by the way, PETA killed a substantial percentage of animals entrusted to their care by unknowing people who thought they were providing a good home for animals they couldn't care for... hypocrites), which is a reasonable goal. Rather, they actually believe that all animals should be released and allowed to co-exist in society as equals to humans. Both the obvious philsophical (the inability of animals to engage in rational thought, consent to a social contract, etc) and practical (how to prevent animals from attacking people and polluting the streets were they freed) constraits should tell you how outright insane the organization's mission is. Besides, there are laws and regulatory bodies designed to prevent animal cruelty; it's not like PETA is the only group that exists for that purpose, and considering their warped ideology and advocacy of violence and terrorism, it's hard to see how anyone could support them. On another level, I've heard good arguments how "animal rights" activists are inherently opposed to human rights. Now, that is not to say that people have the right to go around torturing animals for fun, but look at their platforms. Burning down an animal testing lab constitutes a flagrant disregard for fundamental property rights; trying to prevent humans from eating meat for nutrition value or relying on animal-originated products for medical purposes is a statement that the human right to life comes secondary to that of an animal. That just doesn't fly with me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › fur