Does Ayu wear real fur?

[Bazaa]

I'm with -Link- ^^
I don't think that if you're not vegetarian you can't complain about others wearing fur or something. This is not about animals dying, it's about the way they die. I want to believe that, when they're killed for food, they aren't tortured like when they're killed for their fur

[*Petit*]

^
But they still are in many places in the world and by many companies, it's not like an animal is killed humanely by default just because it's for food.

Originally Posted by -Link-

I don’t get how you can compare using an animal JUST for fashion, and eating an animal.

Because 1) they are all animals being killed 2) The animals only know they are not allowed to live anymore, REgARDLESS of which type of animal it is.

So from an animal's point of view this is what's going on if it's killed without torture.

Killing animals just for their fur would then not be animal rights issue. are you still following my way of thinking?

Originally Posted by -Link-

Easting an animal at least does us good, animals carry proteins, vitamins and nutrients that many vegetables don’t. I also don’t like how mass production treats those animals but at least they’re being used for a good reason. They aren’t killed in vain; people’s survival depends on that. Now what function does killing it JUST for its skin prove? Does it make us better? NO it’s just an image. And I think it would matter. Put yourself in that situation. If you had a choice of being killed just because you look so nice that someone wants to wear you. Or would you rather be killed because you might give someone a chance at survival?

I see your point, but it's not about ethics regarding animals rights. Also I find it hard to measure of how much importance one thing is to another person. You can also live perfectly happy as a vegetarian. You do not have to eat meat. It's not requied to survive. And let me tell you, there are people in fashion wearing fur that do not eat meat (or eat a lot at all, but that's another issue). Fur bring aestetics and other qualities that, and how much value that holds to another person is not up to you to decide.

Originally Posted by -Link-

Its like, Can’t they just pick up a regular coat? There’s no need to do that. If you're out in the mountains, using the animals fur as a coat is a survival tool. That’s why I'm saying we aren’t barbarians anymore where we NEED to kill an animal to get warm, I mean its ****ing 2007, not 600BC.

Yeah, but then again, you are putting one animal's value above others. Who are we to put the line of which animals we're allowed to kill for "superficial needs" and which animals who are worthy of not being killed. And what is superficial needs? Is hunting game ok? Sure the meat is eaten, but it's not neccessary to eat wild meat to survive, and there's absolutely no reason to go hunting. How'bout lobsters? And then again the silk worms for silk. All are living beings.

On a different issue, I see how throwing away half of the animal just because we're only using one part of it is a waste and contributes to pollution etc.

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by Bazaa

I'm with -Link- ^^
I don't think that if you're not vegetarian you can't complain about others wearing fur or something. This is not about animals dying, it's about the way they die. I want to believe that, when they're killed for food, they aren't tortured like when they're killed for their fur

Reason why you should never eat "Foie Gras", because those animals are tortured to death just so that their fatty livers are served in some rich madam table.

Originally Posted by Halla

^ I agree with *Petit* , as long as you enjoy meat & animal products complaining about the fur-indrustry is hypocrisy. the quality of living is often better for the animals in the fur-farms than in the meat indrustry , the only difference is what happens to the animals after they've been killed.

the anti-fur material often used (whick -link- linked in this thread too) originates from China. in the western fur-indrustry the methods of killing/skinning are much more humane. in China animal rights don't really exist , and people don't know better than to skin animals alive.

fake fur doesn't compare to the real thing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_fur

This is a complete twist of some of our point of views. Human beings have both instincts and traces of animals who eat both meat and vegetables. We have fangs to devoure meat and incisives to cut vegetables. Eating meat is part of being a human being, some manage to go against that and turn into vegetarians, but it is almost impossible to convice all humans to give up on eating meat. While some of you say humans can be strict vegetarians, that's not true unless you take vitamin suplemments. If a human being decides to go strictly vegetarian (and not take the suplements), they will have serious health problems as vegetables can't sufice all the metabolytes a human being needs. That would be a serious problems in poor countries, in which people don't even have the money to buy such suplements. Comparing eating animal meat to wearing fur is completely absurd. You can wear or do several stuff to avoid the cold, that doesn't involve torturing animals. I'd agree with a few exceptions, on which human beings with little resources, living in cold places, actually need the fur as meran of survival. These exceptions are rare, specially if you compare the ammount of animals killed for fur for futile fashionable reasons vs the ammount of fur used for survival, and aren't a justificative to think it's fine for pompous ladies to exhibit their fur in order to show off their fortunes.

And I don't care if faux fur has worse quality. Wanna wear fur, use faux. The fact faux is in worse quality doesn't still justify using real ones, because that's a very futile reason.

[Raleigh]

Originally Posted by *Petit*

^
But they still are in many places in the world and by many companies, it's not like an animal is killed humanely by default just because it's for food.

Eating and fashion are two different things. Eating is neccessary for survival while fashion is something you can live without. Plus many companies are now ensuring on developing non-cruel ways to kill animals in farms. In fact there's a tag used exclusively in Europe which labels the products which animals are treated as humanely as possible.

On a different issue, I see how throwing away half of the animal just because we're only using one part of it is a waste and contributes to pollution etc.

Animals are biodegradable. They don't contribute to pollution if you throw them away. Synthetic things do Plus most of the time the animals used for eating are domestic animals. Animals used for fur are usually wild animals (mink, squirrels, foxes)

I see your point, but it's not about ethics regarding animals rights. Also I find it hard to measure of how much importance one thing is to another person. You can also live perfectly happy as a vegetarian. You do not have to eat meat. It's not requied to survive. And let me tell you, there are people in fashion wearing fur that do not eat meat (or eat a lot at all, but that's another issue). Fur bring aestetics and other qualities that, and how much value that holds to another person is not up to you to decide.

Some people need meat to survive especially young kids who are developing. I dislike meat/fish but not everyone can survive without meat. Most people in fashion barely eat anything as it is evidenced in the super-skinny models we're seeing everyday. Fur is useless since you can have something identical without being cruel so it's pointless unless you're sadistic and enjoy seeing others suffer.

Yeah, but then again, you are putting one animal's value above others. Who are we to put the line of which animals we're allowed to kill for "superficial needs" and which animals who are worthy of not being killed. And what is superficial needs? Is hunting game ok? Sure the meat is eaten, but it's not neccessary to eat wild meat to survive, and there's absolutely no reason to go hunting. How'bout lobsters? And then again the silk worms for silk. All are living beings.

So you'd rather see millions of animals tortured to have some spoilt model like Naomi Cambell prance around with fur coats? I wonder if you'd have the same reasoning if you or your doggie were the one being skinned I don't agree with hunting or using silk or eating lobsters since I find these activities highly cruel too.

[SunshineSlayer]

Originally Posted by ImpactBreaker

This is a complete twist of some of our point of views. Human beings have both instincts and traces of animals who eat both meat and vegetables. We have fangs to devoure meat and incisives to cut vegetables. Eating meat is part of being a human being, some manage to go against that and turn into vegetarians, but it is almost impossible to convice all humans to give up on eating meat.

Exactly. We do have teeth for a reason and animals have been killing other animals since the beginning of time for food - it's how the world works. However, we don't see the lion killing the gazelle because it thinks the gazelle's fur would look oh so pretty to wear. That's the issue here.

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

Some people need meat to survive especially young kids who are developing.

This is particularly true. Iron deficiency in children can be a major problem, and most of the available iron for absorption an human being can find is on meat (ferrous iron). Iron is important for growth, red blood cells and muscles metabolysm. Oh, so beans are rich in iron? True, but the iron in beans can be considered as if the iron is inside a safe in which you've lost the pasword/key to open it (ferric iron). The iron from vegetables are difficult to be absorbed, and even though some of them are extremely rich in iron, this iron is useless for human beings because it can barely be absorbed by the intestines. You can manage to "open a few of these safes" if there's ascorbic acid (vitamin C) on the food you're eating, but it will still be below average. To make things worse, several vegetables have certain substances that makes iron (even the easily absorbable one from the meat) harder to be absorbed (fitates). Iron suplements? They suck (a lot of them have several gastroenteric adverse symptoms), and, unless there's a clear reason to use them, children should be better off without them.

[truehappiness]

Originally Posted by SunshineSlayer

Yeah, I don't get it either. Fur is something completely frivolous - food is not.

IMO, an argument could be made that in the process of getting the meat, you could also use the fur.. :\

[Raleigh]

Originally Posted by truehappiness

IMO, an argument could be made that in the process of getting the meat, you could also use the fur.. :\

Cows and pigs do not make good fur coats.

[truehappiness]

Eeh, that's not necessarily what I mean. LOL

[SunshineSlayer]

Originally Posted by truehappiness

IMO, an argument could be made that in the process of getting the meat, you could also use the fur.. :\

I would agree, but there are problems with that. One, is like Demure_Dusk said. The other is that in order to get the fur, the animal has to be alive.(supposedly) and that would leave the insides open to all kinds of bacteria and the meat would then be unusable. Such a morbid subject we have gotten on.

[*Petit*]

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

Animals are biodegradable. They don't contribute to pollution if you throw them away. Synthetic things do Plus most of the time the animals used for eating are domestic animals. Animals used for fur are usually wild animals (mink, squirrels, foxes)

I think you misunderstood my point, I was trying to point out how killing only for fur is would leave a lot of waste. It was an agrument against it sort of. I don't really see where you're going with this passage as it's obisously against using synthetic fur?

Fur is useless since you can have something identical without being cruel so it's pointless unless you're sadistic and enjoy seeing others suffer.

Again, it will be the last time I post on this, the animals used for fur do not neccessarily suffer more than any other animal used, so whatever the animals will be used for after their death shouldn't matter to them, it's a human issue, not animal rights issue as they no longer feel anything after death. And yes, there are different companies with such labels etc etc in the fur industry also.

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

So you'd rather see millions of animals tortured to have some spoilt model like Naomi Cambell prance around with fur coats? I wonder if you'd have the same reasoning if you or your doggie were the one being skinned I don't agree with hunting or using silk or eating lobsters since I find these activities highly cruel too.

AGAIN, I AM NOT PRO-TORTURING ANIMALS. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE KILLED HUMANELY I DON'T SEE WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KILLING FOR FUR OR WHATELSE, FROM AN ANIMALS POINT OF VIEW. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY WORSE TO KILL FOR FUR THAN ANYTHING ELSE AS LONG AS ANIMAL'S RIGHS ARE OVERHELD. THis was what I was trying to say all along, nothing else.

Of course you can argumen that the less animals killed by humans the better and so on, but no one really did. I do not supprot torture of animals of any kind, nor overconsume overall by humans, no matter if it's chickens or mink.

And if I had to be killed, I wouldn't really care what happened to me after I died, I would prefer not to die.


Fur Farming. Please do compare all you like to regular farming.

[Dustie]

Originally Posted by *Petit*

Fur Farming. Please do compare all you like to regular farming.

Lol, that kinda made me feel uncomfortable. Not sure how much do animals really feel, but I have this feeling it'd be awful to be born in some restricted space, outside the natural habitat, born just to die to become someone's cover for a cold night... makes me think of the movie "Chicken Run".

Too bad animals can't grow their skin back, so that we could use it without killing the animal. Like sheeps.

[Gedatsu]

Originally Posted by SunshineSlayer

However, we don't see the lion killing the gazelle because it thinks the gazelle's fur would look oh so pretty to wear. That's the issue here.

I'm sorry for interjecting here, but I was just reading this thread and it's amazing some of the nonsense I came across.

First off, this is NOT the issue here. Lions, as last I checked, were not the dominant species on the planet. They haven't built cities, established civilizations - they do not read or write and many would argue that they have not yet reached a state of advanced thought processes. So no, we don't see lions doing this, not because lions have higher ethical standards than we humans do, but because THEY CAN'T. Lions don't HAVE "fashion sense"... they don't go to expensive restaurants for rare and exotic foods.

Additionally, it takes a very special creature to differentiate between inhumane treatment of animals for food and inhumane treatment of animals for their fur. Is it insane what some countries do? Sure! Unfortunately, it isn't a practice associated ONLY with the fur trade.

It's just ridiculous to try and label purposes for animals and declare one to be superior than another. It's STILL using the animal, it's STILL interrupting the animal's life.

Get some perspective. I know! Why don't we just shut down all factories (pollution), stop all things that run off of fossil fuels (pollution, depletion of natural resources, global warming), stop using toilet paper (deforestation), stop reading and writing (yet more deforestation), and stop showering (water conservation).

Do I approve of fur? You know, I don't actually give a flying ****. It's amazing how many of you are complaining about these poor animals when somewhere in some dark, dingy, smelly room 50 young girls are sewing clothing made of synthetics - just so that you can afford the luxury of "ethics".

[SunshineSlayer]

Originally Posted by Gedatsu

Lions don't HAVE "fashion sense"... they don't go to expensive restaurants for rare and exotic foods.

Thanks for stating the obvious. I think you missed my point entirely.

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by Gedatsu

Get some perspective. I know! Why don't we just shut down all factories (pollution), stop all things that run off of fossil fuels (pollution, depletion of natural resources, global warming), stop using toilet paper (deforestation), stop reading and writing (yet more deforestation), and stop showering (water conservation).

Nobody is talking about other ecological problems here, so bringing that up is really off-topic. We are talking about FUR and animal torture here, not other means of pollution and ambient degradation. This discussion would branch off into a lot of pointless arguments if we were to dissect every little thing the humanity does wrong. In this thread we're focusing in one particular subject. If you wanna talk and know our opinions about deflorestation, make a thread about it. However, i'll say a word about this comment: showering, using toilet paper, and using fuel are unquestionably MUCH and I mean, zillion times more important to us human beings in general, than a fur coat. I won't even start talking about fossil fuels and their importance because this thread would get polictical and it would be closed. If you compare how much fossil fuels influence global economics, social life, and world polictics, you'll see how futile a fur coat simply is. A fur coat is a futile fashionable item to show off someone is millionaire, it doesn't add anything to society, AT ALL and causes suffering to the animals involved just for that, to be a futile thing these rich madams will probably wear only once (as these rich people usually do). Is that too hard to undrrstand?

[Raleigh]

Originally Posted by *Petit*

Fur Farming. Please do compare all you like to regular farming.

To be honest a fancy site with the lovely photos doesn't impress me. Just give me a professional photographer and people will think that fur farms are an animal friendly environment. Oh give me a break. Europe might be slightly more friendly but many developing countries are unregulated and do not really care about ethics. I suggest reading this site instead and watching the videos. I specifically suggest you check this page to showcase the mass cruelty of fur. To kill them they smash their skulls, break their necks, drown them or electrocute them (to avoid harming the fur). Also while being skinned some animals remain alive and feel that tortuous pain.

Also farming animals are not all reared to be killed. I mean most farm dogs are kept alive, some hens are reared for laying eggs, cows for their milk. I'm not saying that all are reared for their product rather than meat but some are. So there's a difference and it's actually for something which is vital for some people. I still do not agree with it but I see the fur trade as more cruel.

I think you misunderstood my point, I was trying to point out how killing only for fur is would leave a lot of waste. It was an agrument against it sort of. I don't really see where you're going with this passage as it's obisously against using synthetic fur?

Let me rephrase. Animal remains do not contribute to pollution. Synethic aka manufactured materials pollute the land though (plastic, oil, etc).

AGAIN, I AM NOT PRO-TORTURING ANIMALS. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE KILLED HUMANELY I DON'T SEE WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KILLING FOR FUR OR WHATELSE, FROM AN ANIMALS POINT OF VIEW. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY WORSE TO KILL FOR FUR THAN ANYTHING ELSE AS LONG AS ANIMAL'S RIGHS ARE OVERHELD. THis was what I was trying to say all along, nothing else.

I'm not blind and you don't need to write in caps. I know you're not. Problem is that you are not aware of the monstrosity of the fur trade. They are not killed humanely in most cases and are tortured for their life. Also sometimes they skin them alive.

Also animals caught from the wild are actually creating another problem: biodiversity loss. The strongest animals are usually caught in these traps, since they are the most active, leaving the weaker species alive. And let's not forget that many other animals are caught in these traps, especially many innocent pets which end up disabled for life or worse dead.

Imagine an animal being out in a leg-hold trap. Let me tell you that these are extremely painful and animals stay for hours. The pain is so excruciating that they sometimes gnaw their limbs off. Then there are snares which work in a very twisted manner. When the animal struggles to escape they tighten. It has been reported that 40% of animals caught are non-target animals. Even if released animals can suffer internal injuries and die. The target animals are savagely clubbed to death.

In some nations finally some people are developing something similar to a conscience and they're banning them. However I can tell you than in my country where hunting is so popular that hunters disregard law and threaten everyone with their rifles since their intelligence is limited.

Have you ever seen how they kill baby harp seals to avoid damaging their coat? They club them to death. How "heroic". I must say I admire those British who throw paint over those idiots wearing fur coats. I've seen videos of baby harp seals being killed and it was something extremely cruel seeing a path of blood on the white snow while those poor creatures tried getting away. By the way, just adding this so people know, the fur industry is well known to use dog/cat fur for trimmings around coats.

However do not think I am not aware of other cruel activities. Alive lobsters thrown into boiling water, and the illegal trade of exotic animals and so many idiocies humans come up with. I do not support these but I wanted people to be aware of the fur trade because I think it's one of the most futile, useless and cruel industry.


Also Gedatsu, seems you have completely missed the point so don't go around claiming what SunshineSlayer said was nonsense. It's not like we're approving the exploitation of underage children in the third world here. Even the fur which is extracted from animals is usually manufactured by the "50 young girls" in a dirty dingy room, since in developing countries manufacturing is cheap. So don't think buying fur is going to save any exploitation of human beings either.

Plus real fur takes more than 60 times as much energy to produce a fur coat from ranch-raised animals than it does to produce a fake fur. And they load your lovely fur coat with loads of chemicals so it doesn't decompose onto you. (I wouldn't be surprised if they later on found out that it causes cancer or something) Also since fur trade is such a barbaric activity, it's not unusual for a landfill owner to end up with loads of dead carcasses because of illegal dumping.

[Gedatsu]

Originally Posted by SunshineSlayer

Thanks for stating the obvious. I think you missed my point entirely.

If it was so obvious then perhaps you should have rethought that analogy. My point is that you were trying to make an analogy using the idea that a lion kills for food, not for looks. However, because lions don't actually have a choice in the matter, your analogy falls flat. Period. No analogy, no point - which was mine.

To Demure - In no way did I indicate anyone was approving of child labor exploitation. To infer so shows an extreme failure in general logic and understanding. Similarly, I never did suggest that buying real fur would save anything - please see the next response for a clear declaration of my point, something you failed to address. To your most recent comment regarding how the animals are brained, beaten, and otherwise put to death in fur farms, I ask that you admit that any site against such a thing would choose the worst of the worst, the cruelest of the cruel to make their point whereas you might have a hard time finding any sort of zealous website about the humane treatment of animals in some facilities. Also, please look into such things as pig farming, chicken farming, and calf-raising for the purposes of veal (yes, I know, you stated some animals are taken for meat, but you neglected to address the simple fact that they, too, can and often are treated horribly in the process). There's a reason why they're called "free-range" chickens, yeah? It's either naivety or oversight to compare the two without acknowledging such.

Finally, to Impact. No, that's entirely understandable. I do understand that certain of the things I mentioned have a large impact on global economy - but have you thought about how many people might make their livings off of fur trade? I do not have - and I assume neither do you - any hard census data indicating what sort of impact a complete banning of real-fur trade across the globe might have. Remember now, it's not just "real fur - oh baby!" - by oversimplifying the situation you are removing the hundreds of thousands of people that might be affected by it. (note: I am not necessarily suggesting that the real-fur trade has as significant an impact as oil on global whatnots, but it's not as if just a few rich people would be affected, either.)

Also, by pointing out that real fur, too, is possibly processed by this same labor, you get to the core of my point - there are more things in this world worse than killing an animal for its fur - yet people here are judging others because of their belief that there can be humane fur trading. (Here is the point I made, Demure) I think most of us would agree (or have) that the overly cruel or inhumane treatment of animals for any purpose is, well, just that - cruel and inhumane.

I'm just saying that there CAN be a middle ground - you don't need to be ZOMGNOFURZ4EVA or KILLDATANIMALZnTAKEITZFURZ, you can still think that wearing real fur is acceptable as long as it was obtained through humane means.

[-Link-]

geeze this topic got pretty intense. Two days of being without internet and it’s turned into a BBC News report.

I thought about it all, and everyone’s made some good points for and against, while I'm still against we each have our opinions and whether we want it to end or not, its really not up to us as individuals but as a group. I still think we can live without it, call me and old-fashioned hippie but I think everything in life deserves some sort of respect, even the meat we get on our plates.

I dunno if this is appropriate or not, but I don’t really cry so much for the meat on my plate since I already do a prayer before each meal. The important thing is to recognize that the animal gave its life for our wellbeing, and while I guess Petit was right about animals not being a necessity, I come from a Hispanic background and we're just carnivores lol. But anyways, yeah while killing an animal to eat it when there’s alternatives is selfish, the animal didn’t die in vain, I thank it for giving up its life. Take that as you may lol, but it's just how I am. I don’t ever EVER waste food, food is sacred. Fur isn’t.

Either way, this was a pretty cool discussion lol, thanks all for participating Psh, and they say we can’t have a heated argument without getting outta hand

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by Gedatsu

Finally, to Impact. No, that's entirely understandable. I do understand that certain of the things I mentioned have a large impact on global economy - but have you thought about how many people might make their livings off of fur trade? I do not have - and I assume neither do you - any hard census data indicating what sort of impact a complete banning of real-fur trade across the globe might have. Remember now, it's not just "real fur - oh baby!" - by oversimplifying the situation you are removing the hundreds of thousands of people that might be affected by it. (note: I am not necessarily suggesting that the real-fur trade has as significant an impact as oil on global whatnots, but it's not as if just a few rich people would be affected, either.)

Well a lot of people live of criminality, robbing and murdering innocent people. If we were to stop criminality these people would suffer. A right (people having to have a job in order to earn money, etc) doesn't justify a wrong (working with cruel activities for a foolish result). These people who are living of making fur coats could always have other activities.
Also, if we were to stop fur coat sales, the chain of people affected can't even be compared to the ammount of people that would be affected if we were to prohibit the use of fossil fuel, water showering , etc. That's quite unquestionable. You can't really compare such IMPORTANT things to something as banal as fur coat producing.

[*Petit*]

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

To be honest a fancy site with the lovely photos doesn't impress me. Just give me a professional photographer and people will think that fur farms are an animal friendly environment. Oh give me a break. Europe might be slightly more friendly but many developing countries are unregulated and do not really care about ethics. I suggest reading this site instead and watching the videos.

These farms are controlled just as tightly (if not more,because the anti fur movement people are constantly watching them too) as the farms of other domesticated animals, so there isn't any difference. I remember a while ago when some animal rights people were attacking the farms releasing the animals and later on they found a lot of dead animals in the woods, starved to death because they could not survive by themselves...

I've been through all (or at least most) PETA sites already (like furisdead), before making this argument, and making up my mind about this, I have seen thata page and others already.

I'm not blind and you don't need to write in caps. I know you're not. Problem is that you are not aware of the monstrosity of the fur trade. They are not killed humanely in most cases and are tortured for their life. Also sometimes they skin them alive.

I have no idea how you can claim this, as it says in my earlier posts, I have been reading PETA material and other sources...

I'm against cruel farming, but not fur farming that is as humane as other farming. You're making it sound like all fur trade is cruel, or rather the nature of fur trade is cruel, and that's not true.

Also animals caught from the wild are actually creating another problem: biodiversity loss.

Like mentioned earlier in this thread, no serious fashion haouse would use threatened animals in their products. Usually the animals are farmed in their native country or native environment, like crocodile and alligators.

Not only would it be a tradegy if a fashion house used threatened animals, but it would definetly not be good for the image and it would probably suffer a long time profits.

In some nations finally some people are developing something similar to a conscience and they're banning them. However I can tell you than in my country where hunting is so popular that hunters disregard law and threaten everyone with their rifles since their intelligence is limited.

Allthought I couldn't care less about hunting myself and I think it's horrible, if banned a lot of animals would probably catch diseases and starve as there would be too many of them.

By the way, just adding this so people know, the fur industry is well known to use dog/cat fur for trimmings around coats.

And this makes is...? Worse? better? Cats and dogs have any more value than mink? I was not aware...

Originally Posted by Gedatsu

I'm just saying that there CAN be a middle ground - you don't need to be ZOMGNOFURZ4EVA or KILLDATANIMALZnTAKEITZFURZ, you can still think that wearing real fur is acceptable as long as it was obtained through humane means.

Yeah, I think it's important to remember that PETA/Fur is dead is one of many sources of material and it's just as important to be critical on taking in that as taking in any other information.