quote:

---

Many fur or fur-trimmed jackets sold in the United States as having "faux fur" -- or not labeled at all -- are actually made, at least in part, from dog fur, the Humane Society of the United States said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday.

Out of 25 jackets that it tested, the group said, 24 were incorrectly labeled. In many cases, it said, tests showed the fur came from raccoon dogs, nocturnal residents of Asian and northern European forests that bear a remarkable resemblance to raccoons.

---

I wonder if those canines were used historically by the Chinese for fur clothing? I suppose it's like raising rabbits or mink for fur and that the conditions for raising such dogs can vary from acceptable to horrendous conditions.

quote:

---

Sean “Diddy” Combs came under fire after the Humane Society of the United States noted that his Sean John jackets with a supposed “faux fur” trim were actually made of raccoon dog hair. Now, with Macy’s pulling the Sean John jackets, and with an increase in the public pressure, Diddy has been forced to apologize for his faux fur faux pas.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced that Diddy’s Sean John jackets, along with a number of other supposed faux fur clothes from name-brand deisgners, were actually made with raccoon dog hair, an animal found in Asia, most typically in Siberia and Japan. As the Humane Society made their findings public, Macy’s pulled the Sean John Hooded Snorkel Jacket off of shelves and out of Macy’s online store.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Why si so much fuss not made about shops selling leather shoes?

---

It's a matter of truth in advertising. If the shoes are being represented as being made of "faux leather" but they are made of real leather, then that's a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
Why si so much fuss not made about shops selling leather shoes?

---

Because those of us who don't want to buy leather shoes can just ignore those shops.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[QB]But I cannot see how somebody in leather shoes can get on a high horse when it comes to my fur hat.

---

Some reasons:

1) - The treatment of the animals when they were alive. In many cases, animals raised for fur are kept in appalling conditions. The same thing doesn't generally apply with cattle.

2) - Slaughtering an animal for what is, essentially, cosmetic reasons (I'm sure a fleece tuque--or a hand knitted tuque you have purchased to support your local economy --would keep you just as warm as your fur tuque. But, would it be as pretty?) is wasteful. The cattle is being slaughtered for food anyway.

3) - Fur is about class. Always has been. If you can afford that mink coat, you're important. If not...

I am a self-described "practical vegetarian." I have been since 1988. What that means is that I do not eat meat, but I recognize that those that do are not bad people. I also recognize that there is a certain cycle of life thing that justifies the consumption of some meat and meat by-products.

I, personally, chose not to eat flesh. However, I am not a vegan, I have, when travelling, eaten a small amount of meat to be polite, and I do wear some leather (although I chose not to be flashy about it--no leather jacket, but a pair of three-hole docs). Is there an inconsistency there...perhaps. However, I never--I mean NEVER--try to put my choices onto others. Very few people that have come into my life in the last decade or so even know that I am a vegetarian.

I'm only posting here because you asked for an opinion.

As I said, I'm not going to judge you....but, personally, there is something ugly about fur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:

However, I never--I mean NEVER--try to put my choices onto others.

---

That said...

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

Sorry, dudes. Cows don't live happy lives. Neither do chickens. And the end of their lives certainly isn't happy, no matter how supposedly humane their living conditions were.

That said, I'm like dgrollins when it comes to evangelizing the people around me in real life (I consider threads like this different because the subject has been brought up already), and I will on the very odd occasion eat something non-vegan to be polite if it would cause a host undue distress for me not to. It's not a purity issue for me - it's a consumer choice to try not to participate in the animal industry as much as possible. So I don't consider myself "contaminated" if an animal product touches my plate or my body. I just go out of my way to drop out of the animal product economy as much as I can.

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, I don't agree at all. If you think cattle raised for meat are raised humanely, then I think you're living in a bit of a dreamworld, frankly. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
1) - The treatment of the animals when they were alive. In many cases, animals raised for fur are kept in appalling conditions. The same thing doesn't generally apply with cattle.

---

1) I agree that the conditions under which the animals are kept is ethically relevant. And I grant that I did not check into the pre-slaughter living conditions of either the cattle whose skin I wear on my feat or the rabbits whose fur I wear on my head. And I must confess that some research on the PETA website suggests that both cattle raised for leather and animals raised for fur are often kept in appalling conditions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
2) - Slaughtering an animal for what is, essentially, cosmetic reasons (I'm sure a fleece tuque--or a hand knitted tuque you have purchased to support your local economy --would keep you just as warm as your fur tuque. But, would it be as pretty?) is wasteful. The cattle is being slaughtered for food anyway.

---

2). (a) Keeping warm is not necessarily a purely cosmetic reason; and I have worn enough fleece and hand-knitted tuques to know that they are not nearly as warm as the fur hat a friend brought back from Russia. (b) I do not think that the cattle bred for meat and the cattle bred for leather are the same animals -- but I might be wrong about this. (c) As for whether it's wasteful to use a rabbit for fur, I would guess that the rabbit itself is just as edible as the cattle whose skin has been used for leather.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
3) - Fur is about class. Always has been. If you can afford that mink coat, you're important. If not...

---

This is an entirely different kind of consideration. I agree that ostentatious displays of wealth are crass. Mind you, I don't think that I am ostentatiously displayed wealth as I rode my bike home tonight, in a hat something like this or this. (You can get such hats for $25 in Kensington Market.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
... and I do wear some leather (although I chose not to be flashy about it--no leather jacket, but a pair of three-hole docs). ...

As I said, I'm not going to judge you....but, personally, there is something ugly about fur.

Real ugly.

---

quote:

---

I don't care if you choose to wear fur. My point is that it is inconsistent to be against fur but still eat and wear other animals.

---

The fact is yes, some birds/animals used for food, accessories and clothing do live in apalling conditions, some even some have things injected into them.

People should be protesting and actioning those issues solely, as opposed to muck raking people who choose to use end products.

Wearing, or using plastics, has its own debatable issues regarding the environment and impacting upon humans quality of life, as opposed to animals or birds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by glacier76:
So, not wearing fur but wearing leather is still "better" than wearing fur *and* leather.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

By the same token, not wearing leather but wearing fur is still "better" than wearing leather *and* fur.

---

I disagree, because wearing leather does not send the same sort of message (see class argument above) that wearing fur does.

But anyway...I'm not about to run up to you on the street and throw red paint on your hat. As I've already stated, I acknowledge that there are some justifiable reasons to consume animals (whether directly, or by wearing their pelts). It's just not my choice to eat flesh, or wear fur.

Animals eat animals, and humans are nothing but animals. There is no denying that. However, as humans, we have the ability to make choices and, in my opinion, the responsibility to make choices that are humane. So, when it comes to animals, rather than worry about what people eat, I'm more concerned with how people treat animals when they are living.

That's why I support groups like the WWF and local no-kill shelters (Elmira Cat Rescue is true to my heart because that's where Fumo and Massie came from!). PETA I'm not as big on, although I support some of its ideas (and disagree with the vast majority of its tactics). PAWS is better from the activist side of things.

Speaking of PAWS (as an aside):
http://www.paws.org/outreach/campaigns/omak.php

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, I don't agree at all. If you think cattle raised for meat are raised humanely, then I think you're living in a bit of a dreamworld, frankly.

---

Well, there are cows, and then there are cows.

quote:

---

The Limousin herd at Woodland Farm in Fentonadle get through up to 40 pints of local brew a day as part of their enviable diet.

And they even get a massage to help produce the speciality Kobe-style beef, based on traditional Japanese production methods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
[QB}

I disagree, because wearing leather does not send the same sort of message (see class argument above) that wearing fur does.
.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgrollins:
I disagree, because wearing leather does not send the same sort of message (see class argument above) that wearing fur does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Really, it is no one else's business what other people choose to wear. Nor is it anyone's right to pass judgement upon such a thing.

---

I wear leather. Before reading this thread, I thought I wore leather because it's a fetish thing with me. I have a leather car coat, a leather vest, and a pair of the most supple leather gloves to be had on the planet.

Michelle helped me pick them out. Well, not true, but she was there.

I have delayed getting a pair of leather pants. My instinct is that leather pants on men my age strays into creepyville. My daughters support this view. It is not, however, the view of my partner. So, maybe someday.

I, who sees everything as a class issue, never thought about wearing leather as a class thing. But then, yesterday, I had a meeting with some professional types, and I did wear my leather coat, vest and made sure they saw my gloves, and my dress leather shoes clicked authoritatively across thier floor.

When I go to work, I wear my other more utilitarian leather gloves and a jean jacket over a fleece vest. Which is what I wear when I take my van to my mechanic when it needs fixing or maintenance.

So, I guess I also wear leather as a class statement. Maybe not so much to "lord it over" anyone, as much as it is trying to dress to fit in. My vocabulary and accent changes, too.

As far as the ethics of using animal products goes, I am under no illusion that eating and wearing fellow creatures is species chauvanism.

It's impossible to justify.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Actually, you're wrong. It is absolutely well within my rights to judge any actions I wish, including on what people wear or any other consumer choices they make. Happily, I live in a free country, and I have the right to have and express any opinion I like about people's consumer choices, political choices, religious beliefs, and, well, pretty much anything else.

---

No, Michelle I do not think so, just as it is NO ONES right to judge someone for having an abortion, it is no one elses right to judge others for what they wear or eat.

(2) Imagine the following conversation.
Jones: "Though you have a legal right to wear your fur hat, you have no moral right to wear a fur hat."
Smith: "Though you have a legal right to judge my actions, you have no moral right to judge my actions."
Smith is involved in some kind of pragmatic inconsistency: Smith is doing exactly that which she claims she has no right to do. In particular, she is judging Jones's actions, i.e. Jones's verbal actions.

(3) Michelle has every right, both moral and legal (at least legal in Canada) to judge my actions. She has every right to judge my fur-hat-wearing, leather-shoe-wearing, steak-eating lifestyle. She has every right to tell me that she thinks what I am doing is wrong. She has every right to try to persuade me to stop.

(4) She even has every right to judge me and not just my actions. As a pragmatic matter of fact, one is more likely to be persuasive if one restricts one's negative judgements to persons' actions rather than to persons, but she and everyone else has every right to tell me that I am a bad person, and to try to persuade me to be better.

They are completely in favour of wearing fur, in fact they wouldn't even consider an alternative.

Then again, they're cats.

People most certainly can hold their own opinions regarding others "personal" actions in relation to their own body, but it is still none of their business.

If Michelle meant judging actions, as opposed to judging people then she should have clarified that. Though really neither are really acceptable IMV. Moreover, I was quite clearly making the analogy of "personal choice" regarding one's own body. Not a public action against someone or something.

The example you gave is really non-applicable about abuse and theft, those are criminal actions and are not a personal or moral decision for one's self and regarding only one's self.

Nothing I said implies that I or anyone has a right to interfere in this case or in every case.

What I said does suggest the following. Suppose that Smith's actions interfere in an extreme way with the rights of another being, whether an animal or a person. Let's give a concrete example: Suppose Smith's training routine for his pet doberman involves severe beatings.Then I would claim that Jones has every right to interfere with Smith's actions, even using forcible restraint if necessary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
If Michelle meant judging actions, as opposed to judging people then she should have clarified that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Moreover, I was quite clearly making the analogy of "personal choice" regarding one's own body. ... Truly, you cannot take a dialogue about what one is doing; for,to,or with one's self, and apply the same rights to public actions upon other persons.

---

I also noted a case could be made to counteract the promotion of the wearing of plastics/synthetics because of the significant environmental impacts. Impacts that not only are having negative and destructive impacts upon humans. But upon the very animals/birds fish/ amphibians/insects/invirtibrae etc others insist they are trying to protect. Say nothing of the huge amount of pertroleum products some plastics and synthetics use.

Imagine what would happen to the environment if even MORE plastics were consumed in place of leather?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart): ...and hence a suppression of the rights of those animals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Again, you are speaking of things that are against the law. Also, I have already stated that humane treatment of animals should be addressed, NOT the wearing of said end articles on people.

---

I agree that the humane treatment of animals is the root issue. On the other hand, if indeed the humane treatment of animals precludes slaughtering them for fur or meat, then probably I shouldn't wear a hat or eat meat. (I myself do not believe that it is necessarily inhumane to slaughter an animal for its fur or meat.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Animals do not have rights ...

---

I am not sure that I agree with this.

Suppose that Smith has a dog, Fido. We both agree that Smith has a duty to treat Fido humanely. Your view seems to be that the source of Smith's duty is that Smith is a steward of the planet. But it seems to me that at least one source of Smith's duty to treat Fido humanely is something resides in Fido in particular, not just in some generic moral duty to the planet. And this something might indeed be a right that Fido has to humane treatment.

I do not insist on any of this, and do recognize that it is not obvious whether animals have rights, or whether any duties we have to animals stem from some other source.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
This discussion makes me ask: are we turning into the Nanny State?

---

If I'm a Christian fundamentalist, I have the RIGHT to judge you for anything you do. Any Christian fundamentalist has the RIGHT to be judgemental about the way I live my life (and believe me, they'll exercise that right any day of the week!). You have the RIGHT to judge Christian fundamentalists as wackos. They have the RIGHT to judge you as a sinner. I have the RIGHT to judge meat eating as murder. You have the RIGHT to judge vegans who judge meat as murder as self-righteous assholes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Well, if passing and enforcing laws requiring the humane treatment of animals makes us a nanny state, then there's nothing wrong with being a nanny state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
remind, I have the right to judge anyone about anything whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southlander:
true, well said ( and funny!) . Judge implies you are (more?) qualified to give an opinion.

---