Only one problem with the video; I would have had her go elsewhere to buy the second coat (I don’t shop any place that sells fur- yes it limits things but there are a ton of places. hell even overstock (the website) went fur free.

also I had quit using amazon because i was told they sell fur but someone else said they went fur free. if anyone knows definitively please let us know.

Erin
Vegan Retreat Director

That “report” is not even pretending to be objective. It’s nothing more than scaremongering.

Take the “toxic chemicals” section. It’s the standard “Oh my god CHEMICALS!” nonsense. It goes on about how formaldehyde is a carcinogen and may cause leukemia. But fails to mention that it is also used in medicines as well as in the production of the vegetables you buy in supermarkets. The same goes to the other chemicals they write about. “Toxic chemicals” are used in the production of just about every single man made product.

The arguments about the gas usage of snowmobiles used in trapping and transporting the pelts is ridiculous. The energy use is completely insignificant compared to just about any other industry.

The only real conclusion one can draw from this whole report is that pollution caused by the industry is trivial.

Gosh, I hesitate to get into it with fbr, but here goes. 1) Obviously the HSUS isn’t going to be completely objective, but do you think the Fur Council is being at all objective in promoting it? 2) Assuming you’re right that the industry only causes a “trivial” amount of pollution, isn’t it a good idea to eliminate as much pollution as we possibly can? Every little bit adds up. 3) Regardless of the environmental impact, there is no denying that the fur industry causes an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering. Killing thousands (millions?) of animals a year for no reason other than fashion is sick and WRONG!

Okay, so the fur industry is biased FOR fur, and HSUS is biased AGAINST fur. (yawn…) Sounds like a stalemate, and nobody’s mind is changed. Can I go back to my tuna melt now?

Seriously, all that video proves is that HSUS needs better animators.

“Banthe Furtrade”,
1) I never claimed Fur Council is objective, this argument is about an HSUS report. Just because the opposition is not producing objective arguments is no excuse for producing an obviously flawed report like this – it will only hurt their cause and make them look ignorant.

2) No. That argument could be used as a justification for any arbitrary policy or ban on any conceivable issue. Furthermore, if the goal is to reduce pollution then the efforts should be used where they make the most difference, and that is most certainly not at attacking fur trade.

3) Yes, I can understand people who argue against fur trade from ethical grounds, even if I don’t share those convictions. I don’t think using animals for clothing is sick or wrong, although I don’t personally think fur garments look good.

Erin, why do you insist on commenting on every story when all you ever do is spew ad hominem attacks?

herwin, so they’re answering to ridiculous propaganda with their own ridiculous propaganda. And you think it’s fine to have ridiculous propaganda as long as it’s on your side of the argument, and not on the opposite side?

The fact is that these chemicals must be used in production of many goods, including majority of vegetables. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with it. I’m sure you’d like it if everyone was fed with organically grown vegetables, but that’s simply not possible in the real world.

Yes, I get you think it’s ethically wrong to raise and kill animals for clothes or food. However, there are many people who don’t think it’s wrong, and who can logically argue their positions. It boils down to holding different set of basic premises. Only you want to impose yours on others, while nobody is forcing you to eat meat or wear fur or leather.

herwin, what I’m saying is that it’s completely irrelevant that these chemicals are used. The statements they make about these chemicals are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: Scare people who don’t understand how these chemicals are used in practically everything we produce, they’re even used as medicine.

They do _have_ to be used. We couldn’t produce most of the things we have today without them. Yes, I’ll state it again: It’s simply not possible to feed everyone with an organic vegan diet. One does not need to be a god to understand this. Organic vegan diet is a luxury not attainable to the vast majority of the world.

You’re falling into the obvious trap of assuming equality between humans and animals. There is a huge different between killing other people and killing animals. When you stop people from killing, raping, stealing, etc. you’re stopping these things from happening to yourself as well. This is not the case with animals.

Please do watch the following:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=trent_fur&Player=wm

If after watching it you still defend fur is an option, than you deserve one thing – to get the same treatment as those animals!! And yes that is the rule in the fur ‘industry’!! And this really happens, it’s real – I’ve know this for a long time… from different sources.

Whether the fur ‘industry’ pollutes more or less is not even worth analysing…

And fbr please do watch it! Maybe afterwards you can evolve a little bit and stop making pathetic and ignorant remarks…!!!

It’s people like you that make me load humans!!

Steph do you really think FBR is a woman?! Could be now that I think of it.. Hmmmm. Good point. if you know something I don’t know please share

FBR :ad hominem attacks? are you serious? How many times have I sat and explained my stance and FACTS on fur in response to your argumentative attacks that are written for no other reason (as ALL others agree) but to make waves and be a troll.

You say above that someone’s mistake is believing that we are equal to animals. No matter what you say that is a matter of opinion. You obviously believe you’re superior to the animals (and to us judging from most of your posts)
And no one is going to convince you otherwise. Just as no one is going to convince me that our mighty creator or a higher power or even the “evolution theory” made man more superior. When I look out how man has F’d up the world, the environment, the economy, children’s futures and all sorts of other stuff I think the animals are smarter quite frankly. They are at least in touch with nature, their bodies and this planet. Man screwed this planet up all on his own.

And another thing; Do you really think that anyone besides the sick fur industry people themselves think it’s GOOD what they do to these animals? No way! In all my life all the experiences I’ve had with people who wear fur.. they either say they feel bad or don’t want to know what happens with the animals. No one thinks it’s right, good or even ethical. No one, and I mean no one can say it’s ethical what they do in the F’d up country called China to those animals. There are no laws (man they need to get their shit straight) The animals cannot stand up in the cages, they are forced to perform in cruel circuses fairs with NO governing laws at all. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s good except the schmucks who make money off of it.

BUt somehow you come on here and defend it. You totally ignored the part where I explained (A FACT MIND YOU) that in the year 2009 we are not in the cave days where we “need” fur. I haven’t forgotten your earlier ridiculous posts where you tried to argue that people in cold climates are cold and we don’t know what it’s like there. I have lived in the coldest climates in the world FBR. I did not need fur. But like others have pointed out you conveniently brush the things under your big fur rug that you don’t want to talk about. Convenient on a damn blog is it not? I challenge you to a debate face to face. Because the difference between me and some folks on the web (especially the ones who hide behind initials) is I am not afraid to see you face to face and have you come out of your cowardly initial hiding corner and have some balls and be a man (or woman or at least SAY what you are) and see who the audience agrees with. I am 100% confident that however dramatic I might get on here at times that they’d agree with me over you.

There aren’t many more practices more barbaric than the unregulated fur industry (especially in China) but it’s like – if we started a discussion on here about men castrating the women in Africa – I swear to God you’d come on and say it’s an ancient tribal practice and by God they should carve up the women’s private parts and fight us to the end.

You are nothing more than a troll as you were just called in the post above mine. And as countless others have called you.

I must learn to now ignore you too and encourage everyone to do the same. If we ignore him her it then i bet he she will go away. As he she says they don’t even like the look of fur (yes he said that above) further supporting my and others theory he is just like that fat fuck loser at the party who no one wants to talk with and makes everyone uncomfortable because he won’t stop arguing every last point people make at the conversation. The moron that everyone wants to tell to go away but are afraid. Eventually they do and eventually he might be thrown out by the owners bouncers or some guys who just throw him out. Sadly we’re on a web board so this schmuck cannot be thrown out but he can be ignored and that’s what we need to do from here on out. Myself included.

Erin

“Everything WAS organic before 60 years ago ”
yeah!! thats why dfb is such a reall dumb ass. she’s ignoring facts and tries to replace it with inteligent sounding arguments.
i wonder when she will bring up the “eskimo argument” to defend fur..

Whoever, I’ve seen many PETA videos about fur farming. It’s certainly not a pleasant thing to watch, but videos like that do not constitute an argument for banning fur farming. That’s in fact one of my biggest problems with PETA, they seem utterly incapable of composing a reasoned argument for their position and instead resort to tactics like making videos. Thus they most closely resemble a religious cult.

—

steph, I couldn’t care less what you think about me. Pointing out flaws in arguments or presenting your own, complete arguments are the only things that have value. The rest, like you comment, are just a waste of time.

—

Erin, you’ve explained your stance of fur farming many times. What you haven’t done is compose a reasoned argument for it, rather you tend towards arguments such as “Fur is MURDER if you don’t agree with me you need to have your head checked!”

I made no argument about “superiority” of humans, whatever that would mean. The argument I made was that we are different and that the arguments that apply to human rights, for example, do not directly apply to animals. I also pointed out the reason why, if you’d care to read my previous post.

There are people who do not think that raising animals for food or clothing (including fur) is ethically wrong. The fact that animals are treated badly in China has no relevance to the argument.

If you’re going to refer to my previous arguments please quote me rather than paraphrase badly. I have never argued fur is the only option in cold climates, although I have argued that it certainly is a viable option.

And unfortunately you once again deteriorate to a slew of ad-hominem attacks. Like I said, feel free to bash me all you want, I’m perfectly capable of picking the small pieces that resembling logic from a shit storm. In the interest of not making this post any longer than it already is I’ll forego poking you back with ridicule of your websites (as easy as it would be).

—

The Commenter, feel free to point out where I do not follow the accepted rules of argumentation or where my logic is not valid. That would certainly be more fruitful than trying to practice psychiatry over the Internet without a license.

anyway, this topic isnt about the cruelty of FUR but about that FUr industry isnt “green”, and HSUS defenitely educates people showing FUR isnt near “green”.

only cinical FUR people can make statemenst like “if you want to help nature, buy a fur coat.”

“Fur is an organic, renewable natural resource, is it not?”
thats why you are so stupid.
FUR isnt organic becauce , thats the whole point that won’t get through your skull, it uses a lots of chemicals.
It’s also not renewable, and FUR isnt a “resource”.

It is called education because it educates the general public about the use of much chemicals used in the fur industry.
HSUS simply educates about one aspect of the FUR industry, facts that many people just don’t realise. That’s not propaganda. Propaganda is saying false things so many times that people actually will believe it.

“Petroleum based faux fur (and other synthetic clothing) is certainly less environmentally friendly than the real thing in that sense.”
and on which scientific data is that based ? the fur animals did use a lot of food (growing food takes petroleum based fertilzers), they produce lots of CO2, need electricity for their captivity, their skins need lots of chemicals, etc.

You make simpleminded statements based on hot air.

1.”organic” nowadays is used to decsribe if something was produced without synthetic fertilers, chemicals , etc.
“organic” doesnt say much about if its environmental friendly. Many deadly poisons are organic, while a stone isnt organic but is harmless.
2. FUR comes mostly from FUR farms, and is a “product”, and not a “resource”.
3.As stated, FUR comes from fur farms, and fur from wild animals have reduced populations drastically. To call it a “renewable Resource” is laughable and bending any defenition just to serve your own arguments.
4. spreading true information is considered “propaganda” by you ?
Call it what you like, but spreading true information sounds okay with me..

“I purposefully did not assert that the total pollution caused by the production of fur is less than for faux fur”

i did get that idea by reading

“Petroleum based faux fur (and other synthetic clothing) is certainly less environmentally friendly than the real thing ”

what does the “LESS environmental friendly” part mean ?

you seem confused..

herwin, please re-read what I wrote. I already addressed your points. If you still cannot comprehend it, then I’m afraid I can’t put it any more plainly than that.

The Commenter, the copy-paste in your previous post was from a (rather badly written) text about Asperger Syndrome. Thus my reference to you playing a psychiatrist over the Internet. You also continue to do so by conjecturing about how I “feel” and my need to “feel superior” somehow by commenting here.

You can trap animals without destroying their natural reproduction. In fact there is a wealth of literature (as well as mathematical models) on what impact hunting has on animal populations.

Also, I specifically did not insult Erin although she insults me in practically every post she makes. I merely pointed out that doing so would be trivial.

whoever MUCH better analogy you gave than mine was. like someone coming on a well supported gay and lesbian site and continually saying it was wrong etc.. great example!

also highlarious how you said “IT” lol.

Yes I knew that “IT” would not answer my question about why it was impossible to feed the world with organic fruits and vegetables. We did it before 60 years ago… Just ignore IT and IT will go away.

And thank you to science commentator and all others. I’ll give IT one thing. It is good at debating and would make a great politician since it doesn’t answer any of the questions asked of it..

lol ok it’s old and tired now

E

If you can’t defend your ethics in a sensible and coherent fashion, what use are you to the cause?

I may not always agree with FBR, but he has every right to make his arguments; he does it quite eloquently and has a firm grasp on the rules of logic. That shouldn’t scare you guys – that should give you the drive to rationalize with the man, not to condemn him for going against your grain.

It may be frustrating as hell, but I’ve seen the determinism in most of your posts; a cogent response that doesn’t rely on personal attacks or accusations is NOT beyond you.

We’re all here because we care, at least partially, about something above and beyond our own lives. This is a great site, with informative posts – I hate seeing these childish antics play out in what otherwise would have been a healthy debate.

Erin, what’s wrong with being anonymous? Arguments should stand on their own. In fact, arguing while anonymous is beneficial as the audience doesn’t get distracted by who you are rather than focusing on what you say.

I have written a detailed argument before on why it’s not feasible to chase a utopia where everyone is fed with organic vegetarian diet. I don’t know why you want me to keep repeating myself, but I’ll make the main point again:

Non-organic food (i.e., use of various chemicals) is not produced just to spite environmentalists. It’s produced because it’s a more efficient way to produce food. You can get higher yields from the same amount of land and you can keep using that land for longer. The produce will stay edible for longer and can be transported further away. Moving to purely organic vegetable diet would mean that we would have to use significantly more resources to produce food, or in all likelihood we would not be able to produce enough to provide for everyone.

All I need to do is to look at the 2 feet of snow outside my window to realize that fully organic vegetarian diet could not feed people in this part of the world. You can’t grow the produce locally for the vast majority of the year and you couldn’t transport it from elsewhere because organic vegetables don’t stay edible for long enough (you don’t need to go back very long in history to find a time when many fruits were simply not available).

herwin, the air transport of fresh vegetables has been increasing rapidly in the recent past. Want to hazard a guess what they’re flying in, the non-organic produce that lasts for long time or the organic produce that doesn’t last as long?

Sure some organic produce stays long enough to be transported across borders. However, I could not go into a supermarket and maintain a diverse organic vegetarian diet, unless I was willing get many of the produce flown in. In other parts of the world people might be able to. Sure better logistics have allowed more produce to become available, however that is only one part of the issue.

Farmers already rotate crops. They use industrial fertilizers because they’re more effective than organic ones. Of course, the organic fertilizers come largely from waste of farm animals (which wouldn’t exist in a purely vegan world). Going to purely organic farming means less yield per land area and thus more land would have to be used. I’m not sure whether the land could be used indefinitely as you claim, but I certainly know that before industrial fertilizers became available depletion of farm land was a serious problem.

If you go far enough back in history when all produce was organic (although we’ve always eaten animals), you’ll find that the population of the planet was significantly less and that people’s diets were significantly worse. Is that what you want to go back to?

Why do you guys even carry on with FBR?!?!! I log in and all i see on reccent comments is back and forth with this loser.

You WILL NOT CHANGE HER MIND and she OBVIOUSLY gets off on this.

No matter what you say, she ALWAYS says the same things back. That you are unintellgent or your comments have nothing to so with what she is saying or that you can’t PROVE anything.

And even the times people link her to reports showing proof, she poo-poos that too.

PLEASE try to just ignore this animal abuse justifying moron and lets just get on with our lives.

fur is for animals and stupid evil people
I dated a boy who’s father was a trapper and his house always smely like… something putred I asked him one day and he said it was the chemicals used to make the pelts not biodegrade
after the boy behaved like his father and kicked my adopted fox I dumped him though so no worries (:

poor Kitsune she has a scar on her left flank now ):

and another thing why are we suddenly talking about organic food? what does fur have to do with food?(except that people who wear it are food) I mean seriously?!

STAY ON TOPIC
and by the way “IT” GO AWAY!!

Someone once told me: “I would like to have a lamp shade of human skin!”
I guess it’s a right. You don’t have to have a lamp shade of human skin. But someone else can. What makes humans so special?

Specicists declared themselves the judges who arbitrarily decide which animal is cute enough to live, which one has nice fur to kill, which one taste too good to be true.

They do not care that:
Everything that has live wants to live, it will fight to escape from confinement, it will fight for survival and freedom and to avoid pain.

Just like a human would. We all feel pain, we all can suffer, we all want to be free, procreate and have families. We have more in common then not, that is reason enough not to kill other species.

Watch an animals led to slaughter and see how it knows that death is there and how it fights to get away. Every human knows it feels it and abhors it. But some try to go as along with the murdering system. Most can only do it for a while. It is killing not only the animals it is killing compassion and feeling. It is killing society! It is making us a callous people. As long as there are slaughterhouses as long there will be battlefields.

If wanting something is reason enough to produce it, why not put humans on the menu to and use their skin as well. Open up hunting season.

I personally would not partake. I do not kill unless attacked and direct fear of my life. Even then I would still find it a terrible thing to do. But I imagine there are people out there that will justify killing of human for harvesting organs, skin, and food. If there is demand why not supply. Morality to hell.