Why is fur so despised in society?
As soon as you see someone with fur, they are immediately labeled as inhumane and an animal abuser.
And I'm against fur, but what really bothers me is this double standard. Yes, animals suffer because of fur, but animals suffer even worse, and in larger numbers, because of meat, eggs, and milk. Factory farming is terrible, yet everyone still buys cheap sausages at the supermarket.
Fur actually makes more sense in my opinion. You can use it your entire life, unlike meat or something like that, which only lasts for five minutes.
My own theory is that fur is simply too expensive for most people, so they can't afford it anyway, so they can't use it. Then they can rant about how awful fur wearers are and how they would never do it (because they can't even do it), and they can portray themselves as animal rights activists.
(1 votes)
Loading...
The difference between fur and meat eggs and co is that for fur artificial replacement there are the same or better properties. In meat, etc., this is not the case
It is. Even if you can still buy meat from good posture, most do not
And you now believe the meat from good posture would improve the situation? The animal is as dead after slaughter or as dead as it was kept before.
You’re perfectly right if you could avoid it would be great but as long as you want to afford meat today it’s not different to at least for most
I am in itself extreme against meat, but if it shouldn’t be tortured yet
I don’t have that double moral. I don’t care if my fur, my leather or my meat is suffering and dying. It’s worth it.
If there were no plastic fur aftermath, much more people would probably wear the original. In the same way, it will probably also be with meat (replacement).
If I hunt, then logically the skins of the animals fall.
So why shouldn’t they be used if the animal (e.g. for reasons of population control) has to be caught anyway?
Is it better to carry jackets instead with a plastic wadding lining, the microplastic of the morning, which is also made from an increasingly scarce raw material (petroleum), and whose production pollutes the environment more than the germination of pelts with biological and plant resources?
This applies only to “precious fur” of certain, expensive animals kept in breeding farms. But I’m not talking about this. I wouldn’t buy it either.
But the fact is that, for example, rabbit fur is cheaper than an art fur. For this reason, some of the garments from the Far East are also “stumbled”. Their alleged “art fur collars” are sometimes, for cost reasons, for rabbit fur instead. 😉
For example, if you wear lambskin I find the OK, the lamb is eaten and something useful to throw away is discardable in my eyes.
Just as if the fur comes from animals that are hunted (must) like red fox or the immigrant raccoons, there are no moral problems with me.
But if the fur comes from animals that were only bred for it and, unfortunately, as often as often have to live in absolutely enigmatic conditions and partly are not even properly dead before they are pulled off the fur, it is just disgusting. Especially since all the animals you can’t even eat, the cadavers are simply destroyed.
Why do we have to kill red foxes? Shelled game must be hunted because these animals can cause quite damage in our cultural landscape. We forstwirte suffer from the strong wilderness, but what damage do foxes cause?
I’m not a hunter, so I don’t know any details, but the fox I’ve heard several times. Even the more and more overhanded raccoons are somehow attempted to keep under control.
Of course, one also tries to cope with the amounts of wild boars and deer is very happy to land on the plate but it is not only about forestry but also about the health of a population.
Yes, I am very intense about foxes and that for over 30 years. The fact that they also tear fasane is not bad for the ecological view, because Fasane are as strange as raccoon and marder dog. The fact that foxes eradicated native wildlife has not yet occurred since the end of the last great icing over 10,000 years ago. This, by the way, even without massive chasing of the fox
First of all, Luxembourg is not “thirsty of kilometers”.
And then: Clearly, the respective foxes push outwards, the foxes there also go outwards etc. And the ones at the edge then wander over the border.
But if we do not have to go through in detail now, the point is that the example Luexemburg does not say anything about this.
And that you are not interested in foxes in the forest (from the narrow view of the forest that the animals only subdivide into “narrowed / peeled trees or not”) is clear. On the other hand, in Niederwildrevieren in the march, where the small graves (which also belong to the fox) e.g. proved to tear over 60% of the young fasane. There is a need for regulation.
We’ve already changed hundreds of foxes ind telemetry and we haven’t had any such fox that has migrated dozens of kilometers.
Source?
“Hunderte von Kilometeren”? The map of Luxembourg once looked at how big this is?
Na sooo far don’t wander foxes. In any case, the juvenile foxes born directly on the border migrate a few kilometers across the border, but by no means wander over hundreds of kilometers
Sorry, this is unfortunately a completely unusable example, which is spread in hunting opponents’ journeys but persistently.
Of course, the fox density has not increased further. If an area is “saturated” with foxes, then the remaining animals migrate. And you hardly want to tell me that the Luxembourgish border is “fuchstight”?
For this, the surrounding areas now have increased fox quantities and chase them accordingly.
Like I said, I’m not a hunter.
If I look at the city’s foxes in Cologne, it won’t surprise me that the traffic jam is growing again… The cubbles are partly regular
In Luxembourg, the hunt for foxes has been banned for 6 years and there the foxes have not become worse than with us, nor has the fox density increased. Many species regulate this even without human interventions.
Meat is a basic food and without killing animals now not to have.
Pelze, on the other hand, serve only as a stupid status symbol and are superfluous because there are better synthetic materials. The killing of animals only for the extraction of fur is therefore unnecessary.
And what about the furs that are due to food production (sheep, rabbit, …) or In the case of predatory deer (fox, raccoon) in any case occur?
This is, of course, just as OK as meat use. From the question, I think that it is true that we are talking about the contrast between breeding & killings for the use of meat or for the use of pure fur.
Each killing of animals should therefore have a comprehensible and fundamentally necessary purpose and it is represented by use such as meat consumption (food, eggs…). Population control is of course just as useful…
I have something against fur, because some animals are killed for their fur and ONLY as matter, but the sausage helps you survive.
You could say “And DeR PeLZ HäLT WarM”, now it doesn’t just keep fur warm, there’s something like a fireplace when you can afford a fur, then something like that.
But in the end you don’t need meat and even if, from good attitude. Most buy but mass meat
In contrast to the fur, you need the meat more urgently, but you should avoid both.
Well, it doesn’t just fill sausages. Nice double mortal.
I don’t know where you’re from, but I haven’t seen anyone wearing a fireplace to stay warm.
You can also fight against cheap sausages and be against fur. Being alone for the reason for pelt, just because some (nearly not all) people buy cheap sausages don’t light me up.
Today we no longer need furs, because we can make clothing differently (and this is also lighter and more practical – with similar thermal insulation).
I wrote that I am against Pelz, but I am excited by the double morality of society. There is no need for meat, not cheap.
Your question was “why is Pelz so despised?”
Because you can easily dispense with it by buying other products that are equally good in terms of thermal insulation and other properties.
You can also buy meat substitute products (sometimes I am), only these products do not taste to all people.
Exactly. Why is Pelz so despised, but with other torments of the animals will look away? Why is the fur the enemy?
So I don’t buy cheap sausages and nothing from mass livestock.
In addition, food and a garment that only serves for decoration is a minimal difference.
P.S.: Your theory is nonsense.
I think it’s this living skin…
Animals are tortured wherever they serve as products
No, not everywhere.
I believe you. I think this is only a possible argument.
What animals are we talking about?
There are animals that are fried extra in fur farms, clear. But what about all the animals that are slaughtered anyway for food production (cannabins, sheep, …). I’m sure they won’t be skinned alive.
So you shouldn’t be flattered when talking about “Pelzen”.
So the theory is complete garbage
It’s just my personal impression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKcXRGyX7VQ