Lammastide said:

people would still have a beef with you regardless....no pun intended.

AnckSuNamun said:

ImagoMind777 said:

just silly. You always come through with humor

Lammastide said:

www.cowsarecool.com

AnckSuNamun said:

i think we might have a veg in the making here...

IrresistibleB1tch said:

yeah...eventually in the making. It's gonna be an extremely gradual process though, so don't expect me to wake up a vegetarian. My self discipline skills need a lot of work first....not with the whole meat issue, but just in general. Once that happens I won't preach to others though, because I feel that in the end it's still their choice. Good luck to you with the cause....no offense, but you're gonna need it. It's gonna be a long hard fight to spread the word, since meat eaters are pretty much here to stay.

typo
[Edited 9/4/05 19:42pm]

AnckSuNamun said:

...and fur wearers!

CynthiasSocks said:

you need to stop ....but yeah you're right.

I can't believe how fucking cruel people can be! That video is beyond horrible...

CynthiasSocks said:

It takes a lot of guts to say this.

I actually commend you C.Socks, even though your material excess is alarming! I condemn that.

But I don't condemn your eating meat or wearing fur.

I LOVE animals and believe in a Oneness with the world. Life, even that of a small creature, is precious.

But that sanctity must be balanced with a realization that Nature has us at the top of the food/intelligence/power chain and we are going to take life, not gratuitously, but to appease certain needs/desires such as food and clothing.

Now, I'm not going to shoot or approve the shooting of an animal just for fun (although hunters seem to get a kick out of it. ) But I will approve killing for food and garments, basic humans needs or luxuries as they may be.


Why wear polyester when you can wear a garmet of quality made from silk (animal byproduct), leather, or fur. Quality is important. Not all materials are the same. Leather shoes/boots are unparalleled. So is a good tasty filet mignon. I'm sure many people want to say that on this thread, but won't. Why should i eat just veggies and grains. Meat is good and good for you. Protein helps build muscles to make one strong, etc.

Do you cry when a lion kills a gazelle? I almost want to when I see it on TV. It's heart wrenching but Nature and survival are vicious. Let's not romanticize.

We humans are in the survival cycle too. What's more, because we are surviving so well and at the top of the chain we seek to progress beyond the rude meals and clothing of savages that predated us. We want (and have earned by survival rights/victor's rights) fine, well-crafted things of splendor and quality materials. Those are often the products of animals.


Buying at the retail shops and grocery stores, I am of course removed from slaughter, but I know it exists. And I know it's a brutal, real fact of survival that has existed in Nature since its inception.

There's actually some tragic beauty in the fact that life is so sacred and at the same time so compelling and even necessary to consume.


Of course I want the taking of lower animal's life to be done in a humane manner. I'll fight for humane treatment, but not for animal rights.

Only highly reasoning animals at the top of the food chain -- us -- have rights ... granted to us by Nature and its survival of the fittest mandate.

We can grant animals humane treatment and do so as much for the animals as for us, because it makes us better, more sensitive human beings.

CynthiasSocks said:

I still luv ya

... but I can't help not liking that you wear animals that were killed just for their coats

When you posted about wearing fur, you put monetary values by each of the items you own. I can't reconcile the person I know on the Org (you) with someone who will knowingly participate in the killing of hundreds of animals and then talk about these deaths in terms of dollars. That made me almost as sad as the fact that you wear fur - it brought home to me that money is more important to some people than ending suffering.

CynthiasSocks said

One male pelt mink coat - at least 55 wild mink or 35 farmed mink
One female pelt raccoon overcoat - at least 27 raccoons
Two shearling coats, leather and snakeskin coats, jackets, gloves, pants, shirts, belts, shoes - unknown cost.

For your future purchases:

One coat equals, on average:
- 40 sables
- 11 lynx
- 18 red foxes
- 11 silver foxes
- 100 chinchillas
- 30 rex rabbits
- 9 beavers
- 30 muskrats
- 15 bobcats
- 25 skunks
- 14 otters
- 125 ermines
- 30 possums
- 100 squirrels
all of which would have died in agony for your fashion needs.

Let there be no doubt, this is the real cost of wearing fur:

Trapped in Agony
There are several methods used to trap animals in the wild. The most common is the steel-jaw leghold trap. Animals caught in a hidden steel jaw trap suffer a slow, excruciating death. The trap snaps down on the limb of an unsuspecting animal, sometimes breaking the limb. The trapped animals often freeze to death or are attacked by predators from whom they cannot flee. Many frantically chew off their own legs to escape the agonizing pain. If they are still alive when the trapper returns to the scene, they are bludgeoned or strangled to death. The method for killing a trapped animal, as described in, "Fur Trapping: A Complete Guide," is to "Hit the trapped animal just forward of the eyes with the stick. While it is unconscious, use your knee or the heel of your shoe to come down hard behind the front leg. This ruptures the heart, and the coyote never regains consciousness."

The leghold trap is not just cruel; it is also indiscriminate. Trappers discard millions of "trash animals" not wanted for their fur, including domestic pets and endangered species. Trapped animals sometimes leave behind dependent young who are doomed to starvation, adding to the death toll for each coat. Companion animals, such as dogs and cats, have been trapped and killed after wandering into a trap.

The Horror of the Ranch
Animals raised on ranches are kept in cramped confinement and deprived of anything resembling a natural life, until finally they are killed, often by crude and painful means. Methods used include gassing, suffocation, or electrocution through the mouth and anus so that the “product”—the pelt—is not singed or stained with blood. Far from being “humane,” fur ranching is characterized by barren wire-mesh cages, isolation, and environmental deprivation so intense that animals often go insane, as animals used to roaming 15 miles each day go crazy from life in a cage. Animals are forced to endure all weather extremes, and veterinary care is typically non-existent since it is not cost effective to treat an animal whose fate is to be turned into a coat. Animals who are naturally solitary are caged together, often resulting in cannibalism, and animals are often left to decompose in cages with live animals.
[Edited 9/5/05 0:59am]

SynthiaRose said:

what about humans whose reasoning skills are diminished, for whatever reason? do they have rights?

Animals/Aliens fur/skin should only be allowed if the animal/alien died for a better cause than that (I.E. food, accident or natural death)

IrresistibleB1tch said:

I believe in rights for humans as an entire species, regardless of the variance in intelligence/mental capacity.

SynthiaRose said:

Survival of the fittest is not a "mandate". It is, however, something as "highly reasoning animals" we can choose not to ascribe to. We do not need to resort to our inherent topofthefoodchain “right” to survive. Survival is no longer a part of daily life and these natural laws no longer apply. We should be playing a different evolutionary game now.

PREDOMINANT said:

Hi predominant. I use the term "mandate" figuratively as one uses the term "laws of nature."

Nature can't issue mandates or laws but figuratively these terms convey the absolutism I'm looking for. Survival of the fittest is an absolute (interfered with only in some cases ...like when humans prolong the life of a human/animal who's weakened, deformed and actually can/should not live because it can't live independently.)

If you're going to misuse "ascribe" for subscribe, please don't attempt to correct my word choice. My choice can be reasoned, but ascribe ?

Anyway, Yes, I agree we don't have to resort to Nature's survival of the fittest mandate but as I said earlier we've earned the right, being the highest species, to partake of lower species as we see fit for our progress/lifestyle.

All things in reason, though. I'm not inhumane. I don't believe in treating animals badly.
[Edited 9/5/05 7:17am]

PREDOMINANT said:

Like cleaning this planet of unnecessary evil.

The RIGHT? Surely all life is equal. Made from the same source.
[Edited 9/5/05 7:22am]
[Edited 9/5/05 7:22am]

SynthiaRose said:

I don’t want to turn this into a battle of semantics to hide the real discussion. The substitution of subscribe for ascribe is apparently a common mistake, I never claimed to have a sound grasp of English grammar, I stand corrected.

However, I still disagree with your use of the word mandate; you are implying that we have a right (as higher animals) to do what the fuck we like. Even more than that, that it is our duty to dominate and oppress anything that happens to fall below us on the food chain.

I am proposing that, as thinkers, we can chose to opt out of this behaviour in current society and it is not therefore mandatory. Our “right” if anything is to question the law you seem so intent on.

PREDOMINANT said:

now those are the words of a highly evolved being!

SynthiaRose said:

animals of all sorts are highly evolved to function in their respective environments. as humans, we can aspire to higher awareness of the inherent value of ALL beings, not just our own species. and it's very much a choice.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

well said!!!

PREDOMINANT said:

I thought you were questioning my word use not my philosophy. Sorry.

Anyway, back to the philosophical debate. I get where you're coming from. I don't completely disagree. We as humans should check our power. Just because we are the most powerful species doesn't mean we should destroy everything in our wake. The world has suffered enough because of that mentality.

There has to be restraint. Perhaps you and I disagree on the degree of restraint. For example, I do believe in the old school "to the victor goes the spoils" way of thinking. We are the 'victors' in this world of survival.

I fully believe in opting out. I've always believed that as man becomes more rational he's not a slave to nature, instinct, or base needs.

But the argument against meat and animal skin clothing (which seems to be an emotional one) is simply not strong enough for me to opt out. I think both can bring humans much benefit.

I don't want animals in pain. So we need to kill them more mercifully.

SynthiaRose said:

what would you consider "killing them mercifully"? many folks for example consider a metal bolt to the forehead merciful. i presume breeders of animals skinned for the fur industry consider anal electrocution merciful.

i'm sorry, the only kind of merciful killing i can think of is that of a terminally sick or seriously injured animal, none of which happen in today's food or clothing processing.

That is disturbing

And if the debate is to continue regarding fur, I think we could all agree that at the very least the animal should have past away first


[Edited 9/5/05 8:11am]

i got to the first part with the raccoon i think it is... and when they hit him, i quickly turned it off - i cant bring myself to watch that

Electrostar said:

This is something I debate within myself all the time.

We can't create Life from scratch. We can clone it, prolong it, procreate. But without a life source beyond our human reach we can't spark Life.

So, Life in all its forms very precious and sacred to me.

Sometimes in killing a lady bug, I am stung that I have obliterated something from the world that i can't replace.

But again ... that's the tragic beauty. The tension between the respect for life and the yearn to consume it for our good.

We kill bugs, spiders, mosquitoes, bees without conscience. Perhaps their lives are as sacred as chinchillas.

The Circle of Life is set up for consumption/death of lower animals by higher species so they can progress and survive well. Otherwise the world would literally be overrun with critters.

I know humans are not fighting like cave men tooth and splint for survival now days. Now our focus is on the quality of survival. If animal products cause us to live more efficiently and with higher pleasure, then that's progress.

AdamB said:

Passed away of natural causes...not butchered as is the norm,,it saddens me just how many people think there is nothing wrong with the way these animals are killed/tortured

BananaCologne said:

Hey man!

SynthiaRose said:

Typical arrogant, holier-than-thou, backwards human thinking...
If it's OK to make a coat out of baby animals, traumatize the parents and then act as if nothing happened then it should be perfectly OK to make a coat out of human babies, traumatize the parents and if they start whining just bitch-slap them and tell them to just make a new one...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

That is exactly my reasoning, animals have emotions and pain receptors just the same as us.....
Someone a bit earlier on said what about when we kill spiders and bugs, well I for 1 never kill spiders or bugs that I am aware of!