I guess I should have elaborated on this a little more. Obviously If you know that there is animal/human abuse tied to a product you shouldn't buy it, but the notion that we should not buy fur because there is a possibility that it was harvested inhumanely is just wrong. Peta says that 50% of fur comes from China. We'll overlook the fact that Peta is well known for exaggeration and distortion of fact based data for a moment. So say 50%. That is a huge risk of buying fur from China. So the world boycotts fur. All the people who are selling legal pelts are out of a job, but who cares the animals are safe. What if it's actually 30%, do we still not purchase fur? How about 10%. At what point is it acceptable to purchase fur? All I'm saying is it's a slippery slope once you start down that road. Petas endgame is to stop the fur trade entirely. They are great at playing on peoples emotions to drive their agenda forward. They use websites such as these to influence peoples thinking. The problem is that they are notorious for distorting the facts to further their agenda. So boycot fur if you like, but I am not going to base my purchases on what Peta says.
Just because it's a slippery slope doesn't mean it isn't still a valid objection. You've indicated that 50% probability of inhumane treatment or over would be your limit. That's an entirely abitrary percentage, based on your feelings on the subject. Personally, mine would be lower. We're agreed it's a subjective decision, but that doesn't mean it should be avoided altogether or must be an all/nothing divide. Not that we could ever be sure anyway... Appreciated, like I've said I'm unfamiliar with the organisation but they certainly seem to have that effect on people. Whose word would convince you otherwise?
First of all I don't foresee myself ever buying fur anything, (pictures himself strolling down the street wearing a full length fur coat :033: ) but if I wanted to it would take someone with a better track record than Peta to convince me otherwise. The sad thing is that Peta could be a great organization. Their mission is just but their tactics are way overboard. They have earned such a bad reputation that the good things they do are overshadowed by all the BS they pull.
Which is why PETA is considered an eco-terrorist oganization to the US. FBI has caught some PETA members plotting to blow up certain institutions, meat factories, etc. Even the president of PETA was quoted for saying they would do anything for the animals even if it meant taking away lives. So if you're a PETA member, uncle-sam is spying on you
Well I don't sign up for green stuff like that, and I m not interested in joining groups that do take such action. But the whole concept behind skinning animals in a day and age when we consider ourselves civilized just makes me sick. You don't have to belong to PETA to be humanly disgusted
God-damn, that's messed up. You'd think they'd gas them or something instead of just throwing them to the ground like that. Ugh. You know something though, it hits a point where you have to say to yourself "Is what I'm doing worth the money?" Yes, you may need the job, but you have to put limits on what you're willing to do. Granted there will probably be someone else to come and take your place, but that is the other guy's choice. Personally I couldn't live with myself doing this kind of work. Kind of like when ex-Nazis said "I was just following orders," same type of justification. Doesn't matter if you needed the money, fact is you choose to do something horrible (I think we can all agree that what goes on in that video is pretty fucking horrible.) Everyone bitches at Peta for being a bunch of panseys but at leat they're taking a stand against this shit. So you need the money? Find some other way to make it then. Nothing against you personally Funkstar, just saying that's no excuse.
