Step in the right direction or hypocrisy?

[wsionynw]

My view is that it's both, since it takes small steps to achieve the greater goal (a ban on all fur products), but I don't see how it's any worse buying dog fur than mink fur. Personally I don't purchase leather or meat either, but realistically a ban on all fur products is more likely in the foreseeable future.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2462423,00.html

 

[Baron Max]

It's just one more way for the governments to control our lives. Why should anyone want more governmental control over our lives ...that's just beyond my poor powers of comprehension!

Next they'll want to ban ........geez, what'cha think? what's next after that?

Baron Max

 

[Sandoz]

In what world is this a good thing? I love my fur, my leather, and you can be damn sure the few times I eat a good steak no one can part me from it!

 

[Sandoz]

It's just one more way for the governments to control our lives. Why should anyone want more governmental control over our lives ...that's just beyond my poor powers of comprehension!

Next they'll want to ban ........geez, what'cha think? what's next after that?

That's the right response. I reflexively pounced to depend my glorious fur and other animal-derived products, but really what's worse about it is increased government regulation of every single aspect of our lives.

 

[Baron Max]

I think part of the problem is that people don't seem to understand that animals are going to die anyway, whether we make it a little earlier or not!

When I was young and stupid, I fought and fought to keep the wild mustangs free on the open range of the western USA. We sort of won the battle ....only to find that the horses multiplied rapidly and ate up all of their natural grazing ....and died horrendously painful deaths! Geez, and I fought so hard to make that happen?! Thousands of horses starved to death all because of me and my narrow-minded stupidity!

Baron Max

 

[Communist Hamster]

My view is that it's both, since it takes small steps to achieve the greater goal (a ban on all fur products), but I don't see how it's any worse buying dog fur than mink fur. Personally I don't purchase leather or meat either, but realistically a ban on all fur products is more likely in the foreseeable future.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2462423,00.html

Banning trade in the furs of endangered animals is a sensible move, but cats and dogs? Madness. The government should only step in in situations of danger, not in piddling situations like this. It is peoples choice whether they want to buy cat fur coats or not

 

[wsionynw]

Banning trade in the furs of endangered animals is a sensible move, but cats and dogs? Madness. The government should only step in in situations of danger, not in piddling situations like this. It is peoples choice whether they want to buy cat fur coats or not

The issue is to do with animal rights, not consumer choice.

 

[Baron Max]

The issue is to do with animal rights, not consumer choice.

Animal rights??? Who gave them those rights? Do animals have those same/similar rights out in the wilds? If not, where did the rights come from?

Ahhh, yeah ......humans gave animals those rights. Just like humans gave humans those human rights.

Baron Max

 

[Oniw17]

Other than zoos and people who like pets, poducts made from animals are the only significant thing that we're doing to preserve the different animal species.

 

[wsionynw]

Animal rights??? Who gave them those rights? Do animals have those same/similar rights out in the wilds? If not, where did the rights come from?

Ahhh, yeah ......humans gave animals those rights. Just like humans gave humans those human rights.

Baron Max

Indeed they do, the simple right not to be held in slavery by humans. The right to life for it's own sake.

 

[wsionynw]

Other than zoos and people who like pets, poducts made from animals are the only significant thing that we're doing to preserve the different animal species.

I think the various animals rights and conservation organisations would disagree with you.

 

[Oniw17]

I think the various animals rights and conservation organisations would disagree with you.

Because they have the ability to stop the destruction of nature when people need resources or cleared land to live on? Right up until the government takes that ability off of them, or people just don't don't listen. Then there's always peaceful protest...

 

[Communist Hamster]

The issue is to do with animal rights, not consumer choice.

Yes, but that is hardly a government issue. That is what the RSPCA is for. The existing animal cruelty laws are fine, I see no reason why this law is any different from banning killing animals for meat. It is hypocritical.

 

[Sandoz]

I think the various animals rights and conservation organisations would disagree with you.

Yes, that is absolutely right.

Also, I am not an anti-semite.

I think the various neo-nazi and white supremacist organisations would disagree with me.

But I live with it. One day at a time.

 

[Tiassa]

Humans have a longstanding connection to cats and dogs that is different from many other animals. For this reason, I'll side with "step in the right direction". There are some (many?) animal rights supporters who discount the nature of human relationships with various animals. Fish, for instance, are crappy pets in my opinion. They're nothing more than living furniture as pets, mere chotsky. Cats and dogs as pets, however, have a more complex relationship with their humans. It is this relationship that makes them more than fashion accessories or food in my opinion. And it is this relationship that seems to influence the proposed ban.

 

[Communist Hamster]

Fish aren't so much pets, they are just the inhabitants of the aquarium. The aquarium is the pet, and it takes great skill (well, greater than the average joe has) to keep it running optimally. In fact, it's more like gardening than keeping a pet.