Recent Fur Article

[JGalanos]

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/jun/23/anti-fur-campaign-has-hurt-fur-industry-but-its-po/living/

 

The most farmed animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchilla, lynx, muskrats and coyotes are also farmed for their fur. PETA reports that 73 percent of the world's remaining fur farms are in Europe, while about 12 percent are in North America.

 

I did not realize lynx and coyote were farmed. Interesting.

[brandy-uk]

A quote from the article..

 

Anti-fur activists don't see it this way. "The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately 15 times that needed to produce a fake-fur garment," PETA said. "Nor is fur biodegradable, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting." PETA said that these same chemicals contaminate groundwater near fur farms if not handled responsibly.

 

strange how they don't wish to mention what fake-fur is made from..or how much 'energy' goes into the production of faux fur..

 

the article is..well to say the least..very biased..

 

but then it would be..wouldn't it..

 

kisses

 

brandy

xxxxx

[White Fox]

Yes indeed. I forgot to look where it is from, but it is very biased indeed. For instance they tell how PETA has come so far ahead. When in fact today they are losing in leaps and bounds. Will they ever lose totally. Nope! But they are going down hill quickly due to their own stupidity.

 

Will they ever smarten up? Let's hope not. Now they are so easy to fight. It just makes that fun.

 

W

[Guest]

As to energy requirements they fail to say what the cost of the oil used to make fake furs really is. The cost of oil is artificially low by a significant amount if you take into account the environmental damage that is NOT being done or paid for in hard cash. The real cost is twice to three times or about $300 to $400 per barrel.

 

Also the fur industry is changing over to non-environmentally damaging products to process the furs as well. They are certainly no more damaging than the products and processes to create the plastic for the furs. The synthetic materials industry is by far one of the most polluting of all. This is why we should all wear as much natural materials as possible.

 

Think carefully about your clothing. Gym shoes are 100% synthetic. Only the soles should be neoprene for very long wear. That nylon shirt or synthetic pants where cotton, wool, linen or silk would be a much better material for those shirts, paints and skirts. Not only better for the environment but better for YOU.

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

The article is just a puff piece. And the author doesn't even seem like much of a journalist, at that. She's probably just parroting psuedo-information she read on a website anywhere. She probably didn't check her sources. She probably doesn't even care much about P∂TA or its agenda. It's all just the same bunch of blather we've seen before.

 

This time it's in the form of a Q & A.

Remember, if somebody asks a question and you answer it, you automatically become an "authority."

Basically, the author is making an exercise in self-promotion. She's using a hot-button topic to generate controversy. Controversy generates interest. Interest generates readers. Readers generate fame.

She's just propping herself up.

 

I wonder if the question came from a real person. Is there a real "Clara?"

I bet you a nickel there isn't!

 

The whole article is tripe!

 

The ONLY thing P∂TA's arguments have going for them is an appeal to emotion. Other than that, they have no basis in fact whatsoever. They use pictures of cute animals with big eyes and "sad" faces to generate sympathy. This is the ONLY thing they've got!

 

They can't even use the argument that they are "saving" any animals because, as we all know, P∂TA KILLS 10 times more animals than they save. They really don't even have a moral ground to stand on because they are KNOWN to be liars and hypocrites.

 

As long as we allow then to narrowly fame the debate in terms favorable to them the argument can not be won!

 

It is like running a 1,000 meter foot race against somebody who only ran the last lap. You can't win. They haven't done the amount of work you have. But, since the other crossed the finish line first, he claims victory. Nobody seems to notice that he only ran the last 100 meters and you ran 1,000.

 

As long as you stand there and let the photographers take pictures of him because he's the one that broke the tape you will never get credit for actually winning the race, let alone having run it!

 

We have to do the same thing to P∂TA. We have to force them to run the whole race. We have to stop letting them frame the debate in terms of a narrow, one-sided argument.

 

Put up a picture of a cute furry animal with big eyes and a sad look on it's face and who WOULDN'T feel empathy?

 

But, because you are in favor of "murdering" those cute animals... for WHATEVER reason... **YOU** are the bad guy!

As long as you let them paint you as the bad guy, you can not win!

 

Stipulate to their argument. "Yes, animals are cute..."

Now what do they have to argue? Nothing! You just agree with them. Right?

 

THEN you bring up the other issues... the environment, petroleum, stewardship, etc, etc.

Force them to answer the hard questions... Which they will not be able to answer. Keep pouring it on. The more questions they can't answer, the worse they look.

 

The LAST thing you want to do is to appear to be "pro-fur."

As soon as you let them make you out to be pro-fur, you have allowed them to frame the debate in favorable terms. Once they have the upper hand, you have lost the argument.

 

What about pro-freedom? -- If we allow a minority group to overrule our rights in this case, who is to say that another minority group won't come along and petition for one of THEIR cherished rights to be outlawed? In order to protect the rights of everybody we often have to allow things we don't like.

 

Again, do not argue minutia. Argue in terms of the larger debate. They won't have a leg to stand on unless you let them get the upper hand.