PDA

View Full Version : The unpalatable truth


sheikess
21st Nov 2006, 19:07
Apologies in advance if I offend anybody with the link below, but I came across this and felt that word of these gross injustices needs to be spread.

I personally - although sympathatic to the cause - had been largely indifferent to the plight of these poor creatures. I now fully understand why somebody would commit arson, for example, against purveyors of these products.

We are losing every shread of decency and humanity if we turn a blind eye to these atrocities: if there wasn't a market for the product, this wouldn't happen. In this so-called age of enlightenment, some seem hell-bent on living in the Dark Ages by supporting the industry.

If you can educate just one person, you might be alleviating the pain of so many innocent creatures.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=fur_farm

matt_hooks
21st Nov 2006, 19:15
Yes, the fur trade is cruel, absolutely no argument about that.

However, the "loony" minority who think they have found a good way of making this point by releasing the animals from farms into ecosystems which they are not native to really don't understand what damage they are causing.

If you've ever seen a Mink attacking a duck or another of our British fauna then you will understand the damage they do. I quite often find animals killed by Mink and then left uneaten.

I do not agree with the fur trade, but I cannot agree with the methods the "ecoterrorists" (or whatever PC name they are hiding under these days) use to make their point!

lexxity
21st Nov 2006, 19:44
Well said Matt.

I also don't agree with the fur trade, but I also don't agree with the loony nutters who go around beating humans up for what they do.

AcroChik
21st Nov 2006, 19:54
Personally, I think the truth's quite palatabe. People Enjoy Tasty Animals.

Placing one's self atop the apex of the moral high ground, a place where the air's so thin it's possible to justify comitting attempted or actual murder by arson to enforce an ideological position is, quite simply, being a criminal. Similar people fly airplanes into office towers.

sled dog
21st Nov 2006, 20:05
I am appalled. the most terrible thing i have EVER seen. I felt sick after the sequence when the poor creature was skinned alive, and then looked up. I am still crying. These bas**ds should be crucified.

Bahn-Jeaux
21st Nov 2006, 20:29
Sickening.
Its one thing killing for fur but those bast***s didnt even go that far before skinning them.

High_lander
21st Nov 2006, 20:31
Well done PETA (People for The Eating of Tasty Animals).

The fur trade is awful, I'm one who agrees with that. But the way PEAT, sorry PETA go around it is wrong.

Shock tactics are bound to work. But when it is aimed at young children, its not fair. Their videos about meat for human consumption is totally vile. Not every abattoirs is like that; and not all animals are treated like that.

ARGH. I hate them

exeng
21st Nov 2006, 23:03
I have to say I was truly shocked by those terrible images. Skinning an animal alive is something I never wish to see again.

I would have to ask how widespread this practice is?

As with most things in life, one will always be able to find examples of man's incomprehensible cruelty. Legislation does not somehow seem to be able to stop it - profit, and perhaps the individuals enjoyment of the methods of their trade will ensure such practices continue.

I suspect that if no single person ever purchased a fur again similar people would continue with their awful abuse.

When one sees examples of man's inhumanity to man (the treatment of Jews, Gypsies etc by the Nazis springs to mind, plus numerous more recent examples) I have to say that I am not really surprised that the abuse of animals takes place in this way.

Regards
Exeng

con-pilot
22nd Nov 2006, 02:00
I agree that in some areas the fur trade is a horrible. It is truly despicable that anyone would skin any animal alive. However, that is the exception, not the rule.

Side note.

C-P nearly going to jail. :eek:

Six years ago Mrs. C-P and I are leaving a party from a very upscale address in New York City, I figured we invited by accident. Anyway, Mrs. C-P is wearing a fur coat, full length. As we are leaving a NYC Cop tells us that are there some protesters outside and we should leave by a side door. Being rather macho (too many glasses of Champaign) I inform the officer that our car is waiting for us out this door and it will be no problem. (Hey, I never have said that I was smart.)

We walk outside and there are some rather scruffy looking people standing around yelling and holding up signs. Naturally, for me, I don't bother to read the signs. As I step outside my shoe lands into something sticky, I look down and see what I think is blood. I start to turn around to tell my wife to back inside and get one of New York's finest I see our driver waving and pointing at us. Then the driver eyes get real wide open and he looks to his right, my left.

I look to my left and see a 'long haired hippie dude' coming at us with something shiny in his right hand. I shove my wife toward the door and then lunged on the 'long haired hippie dude'.

Of course it was red paint in a can that he was trying to throw on my wife's fur coat. It gets all over my overcoat, but the wife's coat is safe.

As soon as I hit the 'long haired hippie dude' with my body a number of New York's finest came in a charge. (Thank you Rudy!)

The 'long haired hippie dude' (getting tired of typing that) wants to press charges against me for assault. However, it was all caught on video tape and the cops arrested the 'guy' for assault on my wife and me.

But, I did not press charges. I did offer to buy him a really nice thick medium rare steak and make him eat it.

(Had to buy a new overcoat. I should have had PETA pay for that, because it was a PETA demonstration.)

Oh, by the way. Guess who kills more animals in a year than any state or city animal shelter in the U.S. You got it, PETA.

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 08:25
I have never really seen what is wrong with the fur trade. I wear leather shoes and occasionally a leather jacket; where exactly is the difference between that and wearing fur?

Is it because a cow isn't cute and fluffy?

Yes, sometimes the animals aren't treated properly but that is the same with leather and any form of meat. The answer isn't to drive the farming off these shores and into less regulated environments.

Polikarpov
22nd Nov 2006, 08:37
I wear leather shoes and occasionally a leather jacket; where exactly is the difference between that and wearing fur?

Good question, I'd guess maybe because leather comes from cattle which are also bred for their meat, and the treatment of any animal in the food chain for human consumption is regulated to a degree not present in the fur trade.

:confused:

XXTSGR
22nd Nov 2006, 09:46
Spot on, Polikarpov. Cows are bred for meat and a by-product of that is, of course, milk. Leather is a further by-product. Veggies who drink milk are therefore aiding and abetting the slaughter of cattle.

Rabbits can be kept for both fur and meat. Goats can provide both leather and meat, as can pigs, of course. Apart from these, I know of no other fur/hide animal that provides anything acceptably edible.

Having read the above posts, I confess I was too coward to watch the video. But then, I was already aware of how needlessly cruel the fur trade can be. In similar manner to the trade in ivory, it's difficult to regulate without simply driving it all underground, thus making fur coats incredibly expensive and thus driving up the cachet factor. Perhaps worldwide education is the only answer - but then there will always be people for whom extreme animal cruelty is of no consequence at all.

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 10:59
OK, so it is OK to kill something if you are going to eat it but it isn't OK to kill something if you are going to wear it (and not eat the meat).

Why?

And the regulation point I can understand; but this still doesn't explain why extremists want to stop fur farms in country with regulations when any shortfall in production will just be made up in countries without regulations (or with more lax regulation).

XXTSGR
22nd Nov 2006, 11:02
I don't think it is a question of eating it or not. It is a question of needless cruelty. That aside, killing another animal to eat it is universal. It's called the food chain. Killing another creature just to adorn yourself and pander to your own vanity or to demonstrate to the hoi polloi your personal wealth is another matter entirely.

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 12:03
I don't think it is a question of eating it or not. It is a question of needless cruelty. That aside, killing another animal to eat it is universal. It's called the food chain. Killing another creature just to adorn yourself and pander to your own vanity or to demonstrate to the hoi polloi your personal wealth is another matter entirely.

Ah, so it is a class issue; you wear fur therefore you are rich and therefore we hate you.

What about wearing, say, fabrics made from hemp / cotton? Here you have a living creature which is brutally harvested and dies just so that people can adorn themselves and pander to their own vanity / make a statement.

The reason that we "adorn ourselves" and other animals don't is due to the fact that we live virtually everywhere on this planet, across wildly different climates, and aren't very hairy or hardy. So is "adorning yourself" with one thing different to using another? Why? Because one is more expensive than something else? Using that argument we should all be wearing sacking as it is probably the cheapest thing and anybody wearing anything else is "pandering to their own vanity".

And why is it needless cruelty anyway? If you have regulated farms that ensure that the animals are well looked after and are slaughtered in a humane manner before being skinned then why is there a difference between using the meat and using the skins?

I do want to make clear that I am totally against treating animals badly and especially the stuff going on in that video; and think that people who do that should probably have the same done to them.

tescoapp
22nd Nov 2006, 12:58
Humans or our ancestors have been killing animals for clothes longer than we have been walking on two legs.

As James says if its done without needless cruelty I really don't have much problem with it.

Fishing with a rod always seemed to be quite a cruel sport to me you hook the thing by the mouth then pull and fight with it for 10-20 minutes. Pull it out so it can't get any oxygen into its body then throw it back in, which I reckon is alot worse than fox hunting.

But also as James says alot of these animal rights demonstrations are to do with social economic protesting as well. Fox Hunting, Fur coats. Medical research. Its more to do with rebelling against capitalism than anything else.

All sympathy and respect for the animal rights lot went out the window when they stole that corpse from a grave yard to stop that farmer breeding some form of rodent.

XXTSGR
22nd Nov 2006, 13:12
The big trouble is that is isn't done without unneccessary cruelty (excuse double/triple negatives). I have now overcome my sqeamishness and watched that video. Not nice (to put it mildly).

Don't get me wrong - I don't condone the tactics of the ecoterrorists, nor am I in favour of any criminal acts simply because some people are envious of other people's money, or as a strike against capitalism. Some of these nutters really need to examine their motives and methods.

However, nobody in their right mind would condone such needless cruelty as is shown in that video - you don't have to be a tree-hugger to see that ethics can't justify such behaviour.

James, I don't say it's a class issue from where I'm standing. There are a lot of people in the world with more money than me - there are also far more with considerably less. I simply count my own blessings. Personally, I find one of my maxims is that you can tell what God thinks about money from looking at the sort of people he gives it to. :} But I do suspect that among some wearers of fur, it is used as a means of showing off that they have lots of money and other people don't nyahh nyahh nyahh...

Furthermore, I don't condemn the fur trade as a whole. I am sure there are ethical people working in it, and working to change the behaviour of its less ethical members. It is possible (and can be highly profitable) to farm animals such as rabbits humanely, slaughter them without cruelty, use the fur and also sell the meat - double the profit.

sled dog
22nd Nov 2006, 13:36
It would appear that the video was shot in China. The Chinese have scant regard for human life ( a reported 3,000 + excecutions a year ), so the poor animals stand no chance. Modern cities, Middle Age minds. Nothing will be done by the West, as China shows growing prosperity, which means more lucrative contracts for the Western nations. I still feel sick, twelve hours after watching the video.:sad:

Whirlygig
22nd Nov 2006, 13:59
exeng asked earlier, "how widespread the practice is". Sled dog has answered it indirectly.

I haven't watched the video but I guess it's similar to one I saw many years ago where a Chinese person skinned a dog alive and left it to die in the street. As I STILL have that image with me, I don't feel the need to have it reinforced.

The Chinese are staggeringly cruel and it's not just for the fur trade but the nonsense that they call medicine as well with the extraction of bear bile from a living (just) bear.

Even a market in Hong Kong was too much for me to stomach - need I continue?

Cheers

Whirls

Did someone say that the hemp/cotton plant was a living creature? That analogy doesn't work!

Juud
22nd Nov 2006, 14:04
Killing another creature just to adorn yourself and pander to your own vanity or to demonstrate to the hoi polloi your personal wealth is another matter entirely.

XX, I wonder if that statement is more indicative of your view on people who wear fur coats, rather than anything else?

I reckon that all here agree on cruelty to animals. Disagreement seems to be about the actual use and wearing of fur coats.
I never saw the need for them before moving to Norway. Upto that time, down jackets & fleece had done me well enough.
During the Scandi winter, I am now very very glad to have inherited different length fur coats from various female relatives.
Of course they are not strictly necessary, but nothing beats them when you're otherwise scantily dressed and still want to stay warm and cozy.
The feeling of sheer luxury imparted by slipping into a flowing furcoat is delicious as well.

Not to mention the ease & comfort of putting one on over your PJs when driving the kids to school at 0800AM in -18C :ok:

And yes, before some of you get het up under the collar, I agree that skinning animals alive is a Bad Thing.

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 14:17
The big trouble is that is isn't done without unneccessary cruelty (excuse double/triple negatives).

In the vast majority of cases I would believe that it is done without unneccessary cruelty (as the best quality fur would obviously come from the healthier animals); but obviously the "animal rights" activists aren't going to show a nice and healthy animal going off to be humanely slaughtered.

This also further points out the reasons for not banning fur farming etc in Western countries as otherwise production will simply go to countries with less regard for animal welfare.

Did someone say that the hemp/cotton plant was a living creature? That analogy doesn't work!

OK, it isn't a creature as such but the point is that it is a living organism that can both sense and react to changes in its external environment.

XXTSGR
22nd Nov 2006, 14:23
Juud, I entirely accept that wearing fur up there where the sun doesn't rise until May and you have to ski across the permafrost to work (let alone nipping out after your sauna to roll in the snow and beat yourself with birch twigs) is one thing... :} ;)

It's another thing entirely in London or Los Angeles! It was to those wearers in more temperate climes that I was referring. Didn't mean to brand all wearers with the same brush.

James, your last post is a very good one - apart from wanting to follow up your silly point about cotton or hemp. Perhaps some EU-wide legislation could be introduced, with inspected farms and traceable pelts so people can ensure that their fur comes from a reputable, humane source and imports from other sources banned...?

Whirlygig
22nd Nov 2006, 14:25
OK, it isn't a creature as such but the point is that it is a living organism that can both sense and react to changes in its external environment.

As such? No, cotton is not a creature at all. This is not offering your argument any creedence.

Cheers

Whirls

James 1077
22nd Nov 2006, 15:03
As such? No, cotton is not a creature at all. This is not offering your argument any creedence.

Cheers

Whirls

OK, sorry, just looked it up and cotton is only the part of the plant surrounding the seeds; which means that the plant isn't killed in the harvest. Sorry about getting that wrong.

However the point regarding hemp as an example is still valid, as is other plant produced fibres.

panda-k-bear
22nd Nov 2006, 15:57
Simple really - fur coats are for beautiful animals and ugly women.

'nuff said.

AcroChik
22nd Nov 2006, 15:59
Simple really - fur coats are for beautiful animals and ugly women.
'nuff said.

Succinct and true.

Tricky Woo
22nd Nov 2006, 16:31
Not true; it's a trite and childish observation.

Back to the real issue: watch any wild-life programme showing a lion, tiger or other predator bringing down its prey. In most cases, the first thing the predator does is to snuff out the life of the victim. Why? Certainly not to prevent untoward suffering, more a matter of convenience. It's bad enough that other predators are eager to nick yer meal, without the meal nicking itself.

In a few cases, the young, inexperienced, or occasional experimenters in the hunting of an unfamiliar prey will be seen 'playing' with its prey. Good examples are killer whales toying with seals, cats playing with mice, or lion cubs catching and letting go some purposely pre-crippled deer. Again, suffering's not considered; it's a matter of life or death to practice these things... to the predator. The predator is indifferent to the suffering of the prey.

Now we consider man's attitude to its prey. Ethics are the concern of man, and here is where I have some major problems with the childish distinctions drawn by the shielded and naive:

I don't think it makes any sense to worry about whether eating an animal or wearing its coat is right or wrong. What matters is whether it's right or wrong to kill an animal.

Next, I don't think it makes any sense to make distinctions between this ugly beast, that fluffy sweet thing, or that clever canine. What the hell has the aesthetic nature of an animal got to do with it? What matters is still whether it's right or wrong to kill an animal.

If it's wrong to kill an animal for whatever utilisation of whatever bit, then there's nothing more to discuss. If it's right for any reason, then there're only two more further thing to discuss: whether it's right to kill endangered species; and lastly whether it should be humane or not.

I'm for the yes it's right to kill animals for the utilisation thereof; no, it's not right to kill endangered specied; and yes it should be humane.

TW

panda-k-bear
22nd Nov 2006, 16:49
Only trite, my dear Tricky, if you should consider that it refers to the woman's appearance and not to her spirit and character.

But thank you for your opinion, nontheless. I shall file it vertically.

sheikess
22nd Nov 2006, 18:14
Before we all go off on a tangent, let me state unequivocally that the reason I started this thread was not to ignite a debate about the ethics of PETA, but simply to illustrate the abject cruelty on display, fuelled by an industry pandering to the vanity of (predominantly) wealthy women.

For the doubters who might say that this form of exploitation is the exception, not the norm - I will quote you the following: Each year mainly in China ( but also Thailand and the Philippines) millions of dogs and cats suffer cruel brutal lives and unspeakable terror and pain before being slowly tortured to death, killed solely for their fur and skins for a merciless trade

I repeat: if there was no market for these products, then there would be very little profit in stringing an animal up and skinning it - a practice that I'm sure even the most callous individual would have trouble condoning. Nobody must attempt to tell me that fur is the only viable and practical solution to keeping the cold out: I've watched footage of people climbing Everest - not too many minks there!

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that anybody throw red paint over a person wearing fur or form a picket line in front of their house- education on the subject would go much further in eradicating the practice.

AcroChik
22nd Nov 2006, 18:22
"...let me state unequivocally that the reason I started this thread was not to ignite a debate about the ethics of PETA..."

I now fully understand why somebody would commit arson, for example, against purveyors of these products.

Welcome to the deep end of the pool :rolleyes:

sheikess
22nd Nov 2006, 18:47
After watching the video, I'm sure everybody (with a semblance of a conscience) can understand why some activists do what they do. But for the more ethically challenged amongst us, I repeat: This is not about PETA, this is about an industry that promotes cruelty by the very product that they sell. Geddit?

AcroChik
22nd Nov 2006, 19:16
I'm sure everybody (with a semblance of a conscience) can understand why some activists do what they do.

Okay, fine. Why not begin a list of escallating actions you find it understandable for animal rights or other activists to engage in.

In your first post you began by understanding the motivation for engaging in arson. What's next on the list of things you understand? At what level of extreme behavior do you withdraw this understanding?

Bahn-Jeaux
22nd Nov 2006, 19:27
As I already posted, I found the video sickening and had I been there would probably have taken great pleasure in battering the perpetrators of that obscene spectacle about the head.

I am not against the utilisation of an animal for a product as long as it is not subjected to treatment such as that witnessed.

That being said, on a daily basis, small furry animals are being fed a substance which will cause them to slowly bleed to death internally and painfully at the end of which, the bodies will rot where they fall.

No-one will eat the meat or wear the skin but then who cares about the rat.

brickhistory
22nd Nov 2006, 19:30
No-one will eat the meat or wear the skin but then who cares about the rat.

With some butter, lemon and garlic, salt and pepper to taste, them's good eatin'!

AcroChik
22nd Nov 2006, 19:40
I didn't know we were talking about Chesapeake Bay softshell crabs and Chincoteague oysters. When's dinner :p

sheikess
23rd Nov 2006, 03:31
AcroChik,
It's probably the point where I don't feel the urge to vomit when watching a video shot in some barbarous Chinese backwater. You clearly have a higher tolerance than most. Don't choke on that oyster, now.

con-pilot
23rd Nov 2006, 05:06
AcroChik,
It's probably the point where I don't feel the urge to vomit when watching a video shot in some barbarous Chinese backwater. You clearly have a higher tolerance than most. Don't choke on that oyster, now.

That comment was probably uncalled for.

(Just my opinion mind you. However, in fact it was out of form.)

James 1077
23rd Nov 2006, 09:15
For the doubters who might say that this form of exploitation is the exception, not the norm - I will quote you the following: Each year mainly in China ( but also Thailand and the Philippines) millions of dogs and cats suffer cruel brutal lives and unspeakable terror and pain before being slowly tortured to death, killed solely for their fur and skins for a merciless trade.

Yes, and it is wrong to treat animals cruelly fullstop; whether you are going to eat them, wear them or get entertainment from them (ie bear baiting and cock fighting).

But how many Western people will wear dog and cat fur knowingly? Most fur coats here are mink, fox or rabbit.

Also I really doubt very much that millions of dogs and cars suffer that much in the fur trade as it makes no sense. If you are selling an animal's fur then ensuring that it doesn't get injured / scratched, it is fed well and has plenty of exercise opportunities has got to be worth the additional cost as the fur will be worth so much more.

The issue of course is that bad treatment may however become more and more common as imbeciles like PETA, who are totally incapable of looking at what are the likely reactions to their actions, force regulated fur farms to close down. With the demand remaining constant places where there is less / no regulation will simply take up the slack.

What PETA should be doing is coming up with a number of guidelines as to how farmed animals should be treated, lobbying governments to ensure these are implemented and then using their numbers to ensure that farms aren't in breach of these guidelines.

Perhaps also some sort of system for verifying and labelling pelts as ethically sourced could also be created (as is for free range eggs for example).

What they shouldn't be doing is trying to shut down the farms in regulated countries and releasing the, often dangerous, animals into the wild for them to outcompete the natural wildlife.

Polikarpov
23rd Nov 2006, 09:35
What PETA should be doing is coming up with a number of guidelines as to how farmed animals should be treated, lobbying governments to ensure these are implemented and then using their numbers to ensure that farms aren't in breach of these guidelines

Quite agree: I don't think it's possible to draw moral distinction between an animal bred and reared for meat and one bred and reared for fur or skin. It is just a happy coincidence that such a useful product as leather comes from animals also bred for meat. If cattle weren't edible, they'd still be reared for leather - I doubt there'd be as vocal a campaign against those wearing leather footwear as those who sport furs. It's not necessary to wear fur, but then it's not technically necessary to eat meat either.

I'd be quite happy to see all animal products regulated to the degree of those in the food chain for human consumption. If you enjoy meat as I do, I can't really see how one could maintain an objection to the use of other animal derivatives - if they are from animals that had been bred and reared to a minimum regulated standard.

The problem with fur is not, I think, a moral one - it's that the industry has always been associated with animal cruelty. If it is possible to take cruelty out of the equation, I can't see a problem (this, obviously, may be no small ask unless a very close eye is kept on imports).