alphonso Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Hi, Kill it, Skin it, Wear it aired here in the UK last night and I must say it did make for grusome viewing. However in the interests of freedom of speech I believe it should be discussed here too. For me it did raise moral issues and cause discomfort with my interest for fur. That was my personal feeling. I believe it is important not to judge others - our freedom is at stake. One of the first green movements was the Nazi Party - yes it is true. I have no problem with peoples choices as long as we all continue to have a choice. You can vote at: http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/G/g-spot/kill-it-skin-it-wear-it/vote.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxglove Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Hi Alphonso, It's good to see that The Fur Den is a more broadminded than other forums I could mention. I've certainly cast my vote on the Channel 4 site. I notice that at the moment the "pro" vote is at 29% and the "anti" vote is 70% with 1% undecided. It's interesting to read through some of the comments (http://answers.polldaddy.com/viewPoll.aspx?view=results&id=848791). If you skim past all the usual over-emotional stuff from the "anti" group, there are a number of far more sensible comments that question the credibility of Mark Glover's material and emphasising the need for the industry to be seen to be squeaky clean by providing the consumer with evidence of ethical production. It would be great to see the "pro" vote go past the 33% mark and absolutely marvelous to see it pass 50%. Foxglove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Fox Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I will have to have a look at this later. It will be interesting to read the comments. As to allowing and not allowing. Since this is definitely on topic for "Fur" it is allowed. Yes, there is anti fur in there, but there is pro fur as well. We will not ignore them. If we do that they only get stronger. What will beat them is having more and more people discuss these issues and understand the truth. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Fox Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Folks, I just voted. This is open to other countries. If everyone here votes we can help the cause. Let's DO it! This is your chance to help the fur industry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 My vote is in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrBrGr Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Mine, too. We're still behind by over a 2-to-1 margin, though . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auzmink Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Keep going, I believe you can multiple vote........ Auzmink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxglove Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The "pro" vote now stands at 34% while "anti" is at 65% with 1% undecided. That's really excellent news, over a third "pro"! Now if it could just get past 50%.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynxette Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I have voted completely for based upon my understanding of the question...I was not totally sure what the ethically vs. not meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxglove Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Hi Lynxette, In this context, an ethical fur is one that has either come from a farm with high animal welfare standards or one that has been taken from the wild. Foxglove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphonso Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 I should have known what the program content would be like from the provocative series title 'The G-Spot'. Every opportunity was taken to show the presenter in tears. OK, most of us respect animals and find gory images stressful... but come on. Where did she think the fur comes from. IMO either she is incredibly stupid OR the tears were premeditated to manipulate the viewers emotions. I am sure that the whole episode was scripted beginning to end and not the open minded exercise it claimed to be. In the end she cut up her furs and binned them on the basis that she could not proove they were ethically sourced. Ethical sourcing. It would appear that the wholesalers buy in the pelts from all over the world and then grade them by colour, quality et.c. for re-sale. So pelts from good sources (good animal welfare) a mixed with those from bad. So your fur garments may have a mixed history. My personal view is that I would prefer to know that my fur was farmed to an international accepted standard. There was one particularly naughty bit of editing trailing the program before the first ad. break. The live mink was seen being taken from its cage and then being simoultaneously crushed and skinned by a machine. It had me fooled too. Following the program after the break you see that in fact the animal was put to sleep by carbon monoxide poisoning before it is skinned and not skinned alive as the editing would have had you believe. At the end of the day there is always an element of hypocrisy with us humans and for me, unless you are prepared to make sacrifices comparable to a budhist monk (who I respect ) and don't see how you can separate out fur as the great evil in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphonso Posted August 12, 2008 Author Share Posted August 12, 2008 Hey I forgot to say thanks for voting. It was about 9/2 against so 3/2 is very positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Barguzin Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 What??? Journos manipulating the facts or their emotions to get their point across?????? NEVER..... well, hardly ever *grin* Their was a comedy show in Oz in the 90's about a "Current Affairs" program. It was played deadpan, no laugh track and ripped the helll outta the pretentious self important prats that head up what passes for investigative journalism. It was a hoot. Now I can't clearly recall if it was in this scene or in a movie starring William Hurt, but yes, shots were taken after the interview showing the reporter crying, naturally with heart felt sobs and trembling lips. Not saying that it happened here, just that certain folk know what will grab the emotions of the LCD (and I don't mean liquid crystal display, either). Oh... Voted *grin* As a country boy, I know where my steak comes from as well as the leg of lamb, chicken and fish. A certain organisation had its way, all would cease and we'd all eat vegies. Not that I hate vegies, but well, sorta like wearing fake when ya can afford the real stuff, ain't it? Changed one word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandy-uk Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I also watched the show and felt that the presenter at the end of the programme made a judgement.. but her judgement was made from a position that I couldn't totaly understand. The presenter went to a mink farm in Denmark and saw the humaine farming of fur. she also went to meet with fur trappers and saw the best presentation of fur trapping... both these meetings were first hand displays of the fur farm/trap system.. she then went to an anti-fur leaders house and watched second hand film footage (yes..it was terrible and disgusting) of animals being killed in horriible ways for their furs.. but she never asked where the films were from, how the images were captured.... or when they were taken...? She sought no hard evidence that those films were current or accurate..??? It seemed to me, like the programme ended with an - anti-fur feeling in order to 'clear' their future from being harrassed by anti-fur campaigners themselves..??? I was moved by the documentary.. i really didn't like the images I had seen.. but I couldn't understand how second hand films from a very anti-fur protester could be taken as a swinging argument when I had also seen such 'good' farming systems personally.. I will vote now.. brandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 Brandy; Do you think you would ever eat Beef if you saw in person cattle being slaughtered, humanely I might add. It's not something most newscasters would approach unless they had their own hidden agenda. This is why I was suspect of this presentation from the first metion. OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbernard92 Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I don't want the furs I may buy to come from animals that were brutally murdered and lived short horrible lives, I want a coat that has character with animals who lived in the wild for a long time, or of animals who were well cared for and killed in a humane way..... I believe it is possible to find a happy medium between fur lovers and those with concern about animal rights..... sure there will be extremists on both sides who may disagree with whatever standards we have... (fur lovers who may think its too expensive to manage an up-to-standard fur farm, and animal rights people who still think it is inhuman) but I think one day this can be worked out to the point where the majority agrees on something that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandy-uk Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Off... I have seen beef slaughtered and I have seen many many animals slaughtered from deer to rabbit... I have many close friends that are farmers and I have no issues with animals being used for meat or leather or fur.. The images were very extreme and the filming seemed to be set up to be 'anti-fur' but in an almost..'pro-fur' style of shooting.. it was clever...but if you looked past the 'cover' of the documentary.. it didn't make sense... to get a good and honest idea of the fur -industry in china.(and I am sure it is not great)..the presenter should have gone to that country to source her information.. but she didn't.... it just seemed strange..very----pre determined... so in a way.. yes..! I am sure the programme had set its borders and parameters long before they even started..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonGav Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Yes, Brandy, you have to wonder at the age of the "slaughter" scenes, but more importantly their source. I wonder if any of the "anti" footage was staged to further their agenda. At least you know they were sought and carefully chosen for their graphic impact. I have worked on many documentaries, and believe me the producers know going in what their message will be. All the way through pre-production, the actual shooting and interviewing, and post-production editing, the slant is maintained -- just to "help" their message along in every way possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrBrGr Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I have worked on many documentaries, and believe me the producers know going in what their message will be. All the way through pre-production, the actual shooting and interviewing, and post-production editing, the slant is maintained -- just to "help" their message along in every way possible. Other than our "magnificent obsession," that's another thing RonGav and I have in common. I worked for many years in the television industry as a writer, producer and a director before I went into higher education. I, too, have not only been involved in the production of documentaries, I have produced some. He is 100% absitively, posilutely correct! There is a goal - a story that is to be told, and everything goes into making that happen. These people knew what they were doing, alright, and even though their poll may indicate that many people believe their slant (don't forget that the largest part of the TV audience doesn't have a mind of its own, so if it's on TV, it must be true!) it is encouraging that fur lovers came in with close to 40% of the vote. True, some of those votes were ours, but this forum isn't that busy right now, so it would seem that votes might have come from viewers as well. Must come as a bit of a shock - and disappointment - to the producers, who no doubt believed that the poll would be an exclamation point rather than a rebuttal . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Fox Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Say folks. We are now ahead there. (You don't suppose that someone could have voted twice do you? ) Good work folks. Comments in there were well thought out and really presented the issue in an informed sort of way. That is what is needed in these instances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Worker 11811 Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 The poll is flawed by design and will tend to produce a skewed result. There are 5 possible votes. One of them is the "Agnostic" vote. That is basically meaningless and steals votes from one category or another depending on how the poll is skewed. In this case, I think it will tend to steal votes from the "Pro" vote. You can essentially think of any "Agnostic" choice in virtually any poll the same way you think of Ross Perot's bid for President in 1992. Another vote stealer in this poll is the "Guilt" position. (i.e. "I would wear fur if I didn't feel guilty.") That is a "Pro" vote disguised as an "Anti" vote. People who voted here are essentially Pro-fur but have been cowed into voting Anti-fur by a vocal minority. A "Guilt" votes is essentially saying "I am Pro-fur but I cave under pressure." As of the time I wrote this message the votes are: Pro: 100 Conditional: 182 Guilt: 13 Anti: 184 Agnostic: 5 TOTAL: 484 In terms of percentages: Pro: 20% Conditional: 38% Guilt: 3% Anti: 38% Agnostic: 1% TOTAL: 100 (Numbers rounded off for simplicity sake.) Take all of the "Pro-fur" votes and compare them to all the "Anti-fur votes and it comes out to approximately 58% - 41%. (In favor.) Now, remember what I said before: We've got 'vote stealers' in this poll. The "Guilt" votes can essentially be considered "Pro" votes and the "Agnostic" votes can be ignored all together. If you add them up that way, you get 62% - 38%. (In favor.) Basically, the way it is written, this poll is meaningless! It's just another example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove any point, regardless of reality. Just remember, folks! 50% of the people living in the United States make up half the population of America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 And I thought they were 25% If you look at it like a profit margin where 50 points is twice the price then it is 25% of the population OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Fox Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Worker You forgot to tell us. Just remember, folks! 50% of the people living in the United States make up half the population of America! Who makes up the other half of the population of America? Reminds me of an old teacher of mine. Kept telling us that anyone living in North or South America were Americans. I know. White, get out of here! W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian! Therefore we're all Italian OFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brandy-uk Posted August 15, 2008 Share Posted August 15, 2008 Hi Everyone... I have just had a PM sent to me.. someone who has not posted on here for a while and is now experiencing logging in problems..(over to you admin.. ) They wanted to bring a statement to light, something for us all to see, and so they have asked me to post it on their behalf... below is a copy of their post.. ................................................................................................................................................ Hi Brandy. How's things. Good with you I hope. I was wondering if you could do me a favour. I haven't logged into the Den for ages now, and when I tried this evening to post something in the "Vote now "Thread, It says I was logged in, but still wouldn't let me post a reply. Just thought in view of what was being said about the "chinese footage" in the Merrilee documentary, people might be interested in this link. http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF08q.htm I'm sure many of you have read it already, and it is probably in the library somewhere, but it would seem appropriate to remind people of it at this point. Do you think you could post it for me, It makes interesting reading, and has some good links to follow as well. Best wishes (Raven, or Ravens 8 even) x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now