Couldn’t it be that those who oppose your views do so, not because they dislike animals, but because they favor freedom of choice? People should be allowed to make their own moralistic choices, Vegi. They do not need the likes of you telling them what is right and wrong. If you don’t like fur, don’t wear it. You say that you think its okay to intimidate celebrities into doing or not doing something. What if those same tactics were used on someone who just got an abortion. What if a pro-life person decided to publicly humiliate and intimidate a pregnant woman in order to discourage her from getting an abortion? Would that be acceptable to you? What is the difference between this and what you are advocating? Go ahead now, start the spin.

Like most fanatics, you do not even pay attention to anyone who disagrees with you. You know everything and that’s it. You did not even read my post. I know this because, if you did, you would see that your response does not make sense. I made an observation that goes beyond what you think. I said nothing about me wearing fur. I defended someone else’s right to wear it. Do you comprehend the difference? I further questionedn PETA’s intentions given their past actions and pointed out that animal rights activists really do very little to help animals. None of this even registered with you, because you’re a brain-washed follower.

Comparing what wild animals do to each other in nature, and what supposedly civilised human beings do to animals for their own gain is lunacy.

A lion attacks and kills a zebra, for example, because the lion has no other alternative if he is to survive. A human being who permanently ends the life of a mink so they can gain financially from his skin DOES have a choice, because their own survival does not depend exclusively on doing so. Being a fur farmer is a choice, not a right, and many other forms of employment are available.

To summarise, wild animals hurting and killing other animals is unavoidable, and they do so for their own survival. Human beings hurting and killing animals for fashion IS avoidable, and is done for financial gain and vanity.

I don’t advocate violence against purveyors of animal cruelty. But shaming celebrities out of wearing fur is another matter entirely. There are plenty of people who will want a fur because a celebrity does; discouraging them from doing it will reduce demand for cruel “fabrics.”

Why are you so anti-animal, anyway, fbr?

It is our “nature” to have a high level of intelligence and an exceptional ability to create and use tools and language. We have the ability to perceive our own impact on the environment and to make changes to live harmoniously. We do not need to continue on forever as a barbaric species that thrives on war and creating suffering in others for our own benefit. We can understand evolution and perhaps we can even expand our minds to realize we are a part of it.

Because “nature” is inherently cruel does not mean that we should be. We perceive ourselves to be the pinnacle of creation, yet as a whole we act like an idiotic virus trying to kill it own host. Our violence begins with our diet and expands outward. We feed our “food animals” diets of pesticide-ridden grains and waste animal proteins. We keep them imprisoned and abused. We then kill them and ingest their flesh, which reacts violently in our own bodies, causing us disease. We try to cure our diseases by torturing many thousands of more animals. We hoard everything and go to war to keep what we could easily share.

Nature is a meaningless term. Everything is nature. It is within a practice of compassionate nonviolence that we can achieve something meaningful. If we aspire to be the pinnacle of creation we profess to be then it is our duty to lift all species towards a higher state of being.

I hope that someday you may realize the places in your life where you have become desensitized to violence, and the reasons.