Real fur v faux

[Debrotica]

This is what we should be showing those idiots that support the anti fur establishment , for far too long we have been under the kosh when it comes to wearing real fur , people need to know that real fur does not harm the environment as much as the fake fur that theybrave so much about 

[Luigi]

Good point. Unfortunalety many young people know less and less about nature and do believe in smart phones...

[Fur dale]

I have lots of faux furs just own one real rex rabbit 

[ShortsightedFarseer]

Honestly, I'm not sure about that. I've had several conversations on this topic, and this argumentation line rarely works. Not because it's a bad argumentation, but because it's a wrong type of argumentation. Majority of anti-fur supporters approach this topic from moral standpoint of "killing animals is cruel and therefore wrong". "Our" line of argumentation is a collection of rational arguments. And just as you can't shoot a 5.45x39mm cartridge out of 9mm gun, you can't win fundamentally irrational discussion (no negative connotations attached) with rational line of arguments. It's a matter of compatibility.

In practice, anti-fur supporters "problem" comes from feeling that real fur equals unnecessary cruelty. This argumentation doesn't resolve their moral dilemma in our favour, because it doesn't properly adress their core issue with real fur. Instead, it "just" justifies the cruelty they perceive, which is often not only enough, but also hammers down their point that fur equals cruelty equals wrong. Because, technically, we don't dispute it. We usually assume that the fact that it's good will come naturally from our line of argumentation. But it can't, because if you look at it, their whole point starts with "Real fur is cruel, and therefore also wrong, because...", while pro-fur rhetoric starts from "Real fur is good, because...".

Our rational line of argumentation can't possibly dispute their main issue, because it simply doesn't adress it.
Combined with the fact that it's also rational vs. irrational, pro-fur and anti-fur might as well be talking about completely different topics because of the way everyone involved seems to handle it. The worst part of it all, though, is that... we might not have anything better to offer.

[a_man_of_many_foxes]

Yeah agreed, unfortunately. Most people only see it as murder. They don’t really care about the harmful effects of fast fashion. I honestly feel more people are indifferent to furs and animal products. You just have a small majority with a loud voice and large platform controlling everything. I can’t think of a great rebuttal to someone who sees it as murder. I just don’t see much difference from the meat industry. You need neither meat nor fur to survive so…. I’ll keep on wearing them as long as I'm alive. 

[excalafur]

I refuse to wear fake fur made from petroleum and plastic. It will be a COLD DAY in hell before someone tells me what to wear or what to eat 

[Musquashmmm]

All kidding aside , it’s the Walt Disney syndrome. Anthropomorphism, cute animals that talk etc. Not in the real world‼️
Keep on wearing fur ..

[Joysie]

On 8/14/2021 at 4:16 AM, ShortsightedFarseer said:

Honestly, I'm not sure about that. I've had several conversations on this topic, and this argumentation line rarely works. Not because it's a bad argumentation, but because it's a wrong type of argumentation. Majority of anti-fur supporters approach this topic from moral standpoint of "killing animals is cruel and therefore wrong". "Our" line of argumentation is a collection of rational arguments. And just as you can't shoot a 5.45x39mm cartridge out of 9mm gun, you can't win fundamentally irrational discussion (no negative connotations attached) with rational line of arguments. It's a matter of compatibility.

In practice, anti-fur supporters "problem" comes from feeling that real fur equals unnecessary cruelty. This argumentation doesn't resolve their moral dilemma in our favour, because it doesn't properly adress their core issue with real fur. Instead, it "just" justifies the cruelty they perceive, which is often not only enough, but also hammers down their point that fur equals cruelty equals wrong. Because, technically, we don't dispute it. We usually assume that the fact that it's good will come naturally from our line of argumentation. But it can't, because if you look at it, their whole point starts with "Real fur is cruel, and therefore also wrong, because...", while pro-fur rhetoric starts from "Real fur is good, because...".

Our rational line of argumentation can't possibly dispute their main issue, because it simply doesn't adress it.
Combined with the fact that it's also rational vs. irrational, pro-fur and anti-fur might as well be talking about completely different topics because of the way everyone involved seems to handle it. The worst part of it all, though, is that... we might not have anything better to offer.

We can argue welfare against welfare.. the overwhelming majority of faux fur items are mass produced in factories across the developing world. The financial exploitation of these people isn't the only issue. It's the exposure risk for inhalation of microplastics that should be brought into the spotlight. While some factories would take necessary precautions to protect the wellbeing and health of their workers, not all will... There will always be those who are working 13+ hour shifts in sweltering warehouses filled with floating microplastics, all for a pittance. 

 

We should be arguing animal welfare versus human welfare. I don't think anyone in their right mind would prioritise the temporary wellbeing on an animal over the lifelong health of another human being. We have a higher level of consciousness than almost every other animal of the planet, we also live considerably longer lives. But for those of us who are exposed to dreadful conditions daily... a long, slow, agonising death awaits. The human cost for faux fur, and even all clothing made from petrochemicals is far too high to justify.

 

Just my two cents. 

[ShortsightedFarseer]

2 hours ago, Joysie said:

We should be arguing animal welfare versus human welfare. I don't think anyone in their right mind would prioritise the temporary wellbeing on an animal over the lifelong health of another human being. We have a higher level of consciousness than almost every other animal of the planet, we also live considerably longer lives. But for those of us who are exposed to dreadful conditions daily... a long, slow, agonising death awaits. The human cost for faux fur, and even all clothing made from petrochemicals is far too high to justify.

This was the one thing that recently resolved my own dilemma with real fur, so full agreement on that one. Putting an animal ahead of another human just shows how distant from each other we've grown, and in some cases, it feels almost crazy.
I have yet to try this argument in an anti-fur discussion, but it might work.

[Worker 11811]

On 8/13/2021 at 4:13 PM, a_man_of_many_foxes said:

Most people only see it as murder.

"Murder" is defined as the killing of a human being by another.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

The killing of an animal is NOT murder.  Therefore, any argument that "fur is murder" is patently wrong.

It is improper to debate a point by misusing words in order to bully an opponent.  There are other techniques for debate.  Some of them, such as logical fallacies, are can be used to lure an opponent off the point.  A shrewd debater should be able to spot fallacies and call them out but an average person could be swayed by them.  Such underhanded debating techniques should be avoided but a good debater should know how to use them.

Regardless, bullying is NOT a valid debating technique!

Anybody who does bully others should be called out as such... A bully!

[ShortsightedFarseer]

1 hour ago, Worker 11811 said:

The killing of an animal is NOT murder.  Therefore, any argument that "fur is murder" is patently wrong.

True, but to be fair, "Fur is ehtically questionable killing according to my moral compass" makes for a shitty slogan.

[Worker 11811]

How about, "Don't kill animals for fur?"  Or, better, "Fur kills animals."

If you want to talk about a "moral compass" what about leather?  Maybe it is a byproduct of other industries but it is still the skin of an animal.  Why don't anti-fur freaks harass bikers wearing leather?  If killing animals and taking their skins is ALWAYS immoral then a biker sporting his colors should be fair game, just the same as women wearing fur for fashion.

Why don't they?  Because they are chicken shit!  They choose the soft targets.

Twisting words in order to manipulate people is wrong.

P∂TA freaks who say, "Fur is murder," are as bad as Mao Tse-Tung who said, "Religion is poison!"

[FurRugLover]

Fake furs used as rugs do not hold up to dirty shoes as well as real fur rugs.

[Shy_Fur_Guy]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:14 AM, Worker 11811 said:

How about, "Don't kill animals for fur?"  Or, better, "Fur kills animals."

If you want to talk about a "moral compass" what about leather?  Maybe it is a byproduct of other industries but it is still the skin of an animal.  Why don't anti-fur freaks harass bikers wearing leather?  If killing animals and taking their skins is ALWAYS immoral then a biker sporting his colors should be fair game, just the same as women wearing fur for fashion.

Why don't they?  Because they are chicken shit!  They choose the soft targets.

Twisting words in order to manipulate people is wrong.

P∂TA freaks who say, "Fur is murder," are as bad as Mao Tse-Tung who said, "Religion is poison!"

They won't go after bikers because bikers won't be bullied. They look for soft targets simply because they are fairly certain they won't fight back. Although PETA taking on the Hell's Angels is something I would order on PPV.

[Worker 11811]

My point, exactly!  :)

They only take on the soft targets because they don't actually have the strength in their own moral belief.  If they did, bikers would be on their list, even if they actually never confronted them.

They are weak minded cowards.

[furs limited]

But unfortunately, they are winning.

[Worker 11811]

It can certainly seem like that.

The key to debate is not to think in terms of winning or losing but to think of what has been learned from the discourse.  It is not possible to force a person committed to an idea to change their mind but it is possible to teach them something they didn't understand before.

If a person learns, however gradually, that certain planks in their platform don't stand up to rational scrutiny they will modify their position, over time.

A person who thinks that drinking alcohol is bad might be interested to learn that drinking a small amount of alcohol can relax the body and reduce stress.  They might eventually come to believe that it is sometimes okay to drink.

On the surface, it might seem like that person has lost the debate.  At one time, they said, "Alcohol is bad."  Now, they say, "Alcohol can sometimes be good."  Really, did I actually change their mind?  Sort of.  In reality, I have given that other person some knowledge that lets them modify their beliefs.

This is how we have to deal with the problem of people who are anti-fur.  We have to let them modify their own beliefs.

What if I told an anti-fur person that, in many places, rabbits are used for food.  The person might not like that idea but they will have to concede that rabbits are being killed.  Then, I ask them what should be done with all the fur left over from taking rabbits for food.

I can tell them that there are many people who don't have enough warm clothes to wear in the winter.  I can point out that rabbit fur is more sustainable than other forms of clothing.  Then, I can ask why not put all that left over fur to good use, helping people who need clothes to stay warm when it's cold.

Even the most ardent anti-fur person would have to concede that using rabbit fur in that way is beneficial, even if they only admit it to themselves.

The bottom line is that the other person hasn't lost the argument.  They have learned something that lets them modify their own beliefs.  I did little to nothing to actually change their mind.  They did it themselves.  I only gave them the information and asked a question.

This is how we should approach the anti-fur debate.  We don't try to change minds.  People have to change their own minds.

Nobody wins or loses in concrete terms but, in practical reality, everybody wins when people learn.

[paul2809]

All I have are faux fur and I love them all... just waiting for colder times to wear my furs...

[Furloverzip]

I respect these points and agree with many of them. Regardless of the moral impacts of either, the eco-friendliness of real furs compared to faux furs, I definitely think real furs are just better than faux furs. I started with faux furs, but once I bought my first real fur, I never went back. My faux furs sit in my closet now. Real fur is just better in every single way. Some, like fox furs are softer and more beautiful than faux furs. I will never go back to inferior faux furs, but I don't want this to seem like a diss if you own faux furs and use them. Most faux furs are cheaper and are a decent alternative if you cannot afford the real thing. Also, I think the eco argument of faux furs can be mixed in with the moral impacts on animals argument. Those faux furs that pile up in landfills, some could end up in bodies of water or bits and pieces could be eaten either accidentally or on purpose by both land animals and fish could have serious health issues for them and could potentially kill animals anyway. It's why I think real and faux furs should be allowed to co-exist, much like meat and veggie options. Because both are morally wrong if you look closely into them, and if one person doesn't like one and prefers the other, then good for them. We shouldn't attack each other over this stuff. 

[LeComte]

Interesting thread. 

On 8/13/2021 at 10:13 PM, a_man_of_many_foxes said:

Most people only see it as murder.

If you don't distinguish between humans and animals, it is murder. This is were a lot of people (unconsciously) touch the argument of the anti-speciesists that humans have in principal no moral right to dominate animals. Yet along this line goes a really important argument for me: "We use animals for food and a lot of other things and to me it is generally okay to kill animals for my needs. And fur is one of my needs (for whatever reasons). Nonetheless this does not allow for cruelty, as we are social beings and part of environment/the universe (or creation if you're religious), so we should minimize harm..."

On 8/18/2021 at 8:23 AM, ShortsightedFarseer said:

This was the one thing that recently resolved my own dilemma with real fur, so full agreement on that one. Putting an animal ahead of another human just shows how distant from each other we've grown, and in some cases, it feels almost crazy.
I have yet to try this argument in an anti-fur discussion, but it might work.

One really should try to argue with human welfare first. I should have some talking points at hand...

In a subsequent step, this would also make it easier to introduce the "anti-anti-speciecist" argument that it is generally acceptable to kill animals for the human endeavour.

On 8/25/2021 at 10:01 AM, Worker 11811 said:

This is how we should approach the anti-fur debate.  We don't try to change minds.  People have to change their own minds.

Fully agree, that's the gold standard of convincing someone. The problem is that it takes a lot of time, effort and skills if the topic is complex and opinions differ a lot and on fundamental levels.

[John Jones]

I thought my wife a real fox fur coat about two years ago, from Laura at Fur & Leather boutique - it was a lovely coat nice a big with a huge hood.

Expensive as you’d expect, but compared to the luxury faux fur coats we have the real fur just didn’t feel as soft.

We’ve came to the conclusion that it’s faux fur for us at the higher end of quality though.

[AH7]

On 8/13/2021 at 8:03 AM, Debrotica said:

This is what we should be showing those idiots that support the anti fur establishment , for far too long we have been under the kosh when it comes to wearing real fur , people need to know that real fur does not harm the environment as much as the fake fur that theybrave so much about 

Also trapping pays the bills for working class people and Indigenous fashion designers and fur sewers. Real fur is from the woods and the tundra. Fake fur is from big oil.  Real fur from martens, land otters, beavers, wolverines, wolves is more sustainable than fake fur.

[furlvman1]

8 hours ago, AH7 said:

Also trapping pays the bills for working class people and Indigenous fashion designers and fur sewers. Real fur is from the woods and the tundra. Fake fur is from big oil.  Real fur from martens, land otters, beavers, wolverines, wolves is more sustainable than fake fur.

Some of the new high quality fakes are now being made from plant based materials, rather than petroleum oil. While I have a ton of real fur, I am now gravitating to the high quality fake fur as it is as soft, if not softer than a lot of real fur. And some of it is woven and breathes very well.

[AH7]

14 hours ago, furlvman1 said:

Some of the new high quality fakes are now being made from plant based materials, rather than petroleum oil. While I have a ton of real fur, I am now gravitating to the high quality fake fur as it is as soft, if not softer than a lot of real fur. And some of it is woven and breathes very well.

Doesn't do the job like real authentic wolverine fur does. 

[AH7]

Scientists at UW have proven through research as well as testimony from elders that wolverine is more affective and warmer than the synthetic stuff.

On 9/1/2021 at 3:22 AM, paul2809 said:

All I have are faux fur and I love them all... just waiting for colder times to wear my furs...

I have wolverine, wolf, beaver, sheepskin and reindeer. I am thankful for  beaver, wolverine and wolf.  The first parka that I sew will either have a wolverine paw ruff or a beaver and wolf ruff and probably beaver cuffs. Depends on the color of the cover and liner.