Does Ayu wear real fur? - Page 5 - Ayumi Hamasaki Sekai
Ayumi Hamasaki Sekai
· Ayu's Official Site · Ayu's twitter · Ayu's YouTube · masa's translations · Misa-chan's translations ·


Go Back   Ayumi Hamasaki Sekai > Ayumi Hamasaki Forums > Enquiries

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 9th March 2007, 02:31 PM
Raleigh's Avatar
Raleigh Raleigh is offline
glitter Initiate
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 11,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gedatsu View Post
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.
Huh? You obviously did not get my point. You were complaining about child labour involved with synthetic fur and I was pointing out that child labour is not only linked with synthetic fur trade. So you are obviously the one not getting the point, at all so do not be rude.

Quote:
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.
That doesn't justify anything, these actions are still being done in many countries, especially since fur trade is highly unregulated in many developing countries so the animals are still sufferring cruelty.

Quote:
Also, please look into such things as pig farming, chicken farming, and calf-raising...
Did I ever say I supported these? I don't eat meat and I am aware of other activities which are cruel to animals and I do not support them. However the case we are discussing is fur trade and not farming, pollution or global warming. You cannot justify a bad action with another action which is just as bad. Also I was mentioning the point that they weren't killed since you were discussing the case that "they are going to be killed anyhow" so do not take it out of context.

Quote:
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.
Do we look like crazed anti-fur trade people? As Impact said most fur coats get purchased by rich people and not commoners which only use it once and we are mentioning how this doesn't justify the death of all those animals. That's all. There are worse things but we are talking ONLY about freaking fur trade and nothing else.

Quote:
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.
That's only in some nations which are aware of fur trade and it's cruelty and rightly so. In many other countries fur trade is unregulated so the animals do actually suffer. C'mon do you seriously believe that they are being regulated in Africa or Asia? There is a difference you fail to see: fur is something frivolious, food is neccessary, otherwise we die. Would you rather own a fur coat and die of hunger?


Quote:
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.
To a point it is cruel because you are killing loads of animals for something which is frivolious and can easily be replaced. These animals are not domestic animals. Most domestic animals have been protected by men for years and used to being protected by humans and have little chance to survive in the wild. However wild animals have instincts and also require a bigger space than those tiny cages they are put in. These wild animals might be treated well, in some farms but they still suffer psychological problems and are not happy to live in a tiny cage since it is not their natural enviroment and they have not adapted to human environment like dogs and cats have done.

Quote:
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.
Are you kidding? Most of them have no clue what a "threatened species" is let alone care unless people start speaking up. Their aim is provide fashion and get loads of profit. And why do you think there's so much illegal hunting of rare animals such as tigers and seals? Canada has in vain tried to slow down harp seal hunting but the hunters think of their pockets rather than saving "threatened species". Obviously rare fur is still a very profitable fashion material. Most women would rather but the rarest and most expensive coat to flaunt their power.

It's only in the past few years that fashion is finally getting aware of this and they are providing fur-free fashion shows. However there's still a long way to go. Also no they are not usually farmed in their environment. I never considered a cage as a natural environment as most fur comes from caged animals.

Quote:
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.
Wow then I wonder how all animals and fish did not catch diseases and starve before humans started mass hunting? If you research well the food web is well designed to have a stable system. Natural predators exist to keep down the number of animals so they wouldn't "starve". Also the predators and largest animals have less cubs so that they would not eat every single animal alive.

Quote:
And this makes is...? Worse? better? Cats and dogs have any more value than mink? I was not aware...
You misunderstood my point. I am showing how hypocritical some people are by calling their doggies their "best friends" and then go wearing their own fur on them.

Quote:
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.
Yeah but they are providing us with the horrible truth that so many fur companies are so conveniently hiding. Also I suggest reading here and here to see that a percentage of the fur trade doesn't give a fig about humane treatment or threatened species. Guardian are independent journalists and rarely side with any part.
__________________


Even if you cannot hear my voice. I'll be right beside you dear.

Set by pepper

Crossover x A Hitomi Shimatani Forum


Last edited by Raleigh; 9th March 2007 at 02:41 PM.
  #82  
Old 9th March 2007, 08:02 PM
Gedatsu Gedatsu is offline
PAPER DOLL Initiate
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpactBreaker View Post
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.
Well, the issue here isn't illegality... how do you make the logical jump from fur farming to murdering innocent people? This thread is being bombarded by failed comparisons.

I would like to point out that YOU are making a *judgement call* based on YOUR values. "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)." - at least make some attempt at the subtlety in your righteousness. No offense, but who are any of us to tell someone living in China, working hard every day to feed his family, "You, you no longer work here. This is cruel, go find something else to do to feed/provide for your family!" It's unfair to push your ethics onto the entire world. Please don't counter with something as ridiculous as, "Well, then who can say murder is wrong?" - besides the fact that they are incomparable, such is the purpose of *laws*. They help to detail in a society (be it local, country-wise, or global) what is and is not "ethically" acceptable behavior. Sometimes societies agree, sometimes they don't.

If we're just going to start saying people should stop doing things because it's morally offensive to *us*.... yeah.

At the risk of turning this even MORE political, this is *exactly* what the U.S. does. Too bad I'm moving to Japan AFTER Bush is out of office /sigh

-disclaimer- Anything I say is not MEANT to be rude unless I specifically indicate someone to be an ***. I appreciate the stimulating discussion!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
You cannot justify a bad action with another action which is just as bad.
I didn't justify the fur trade. I simply said it's silly to use food-farming when it is just as bad. As you said, "So there's a difference and it's actually for something which is vital for some people." Veal is not vital. Not all types of meat are *vital*, hence why I was pointing out the cruelty involved there as well. There *isn't* a difference... you cannot differentiate between the cruel treatment of animals for one use or another! Cruel is cruel, I'm sure you would agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
Do we look like crazed anti-fur trade people? ...There are worse things but we are talking ONLY about freaking fur trade and nothing else.
TBH, yeah, but only a tad (grin). I again refer to my above point.. we are NOT talking *only* about the "freaking fur trade" - you yourself brought another animal-related industry into the discussion, and my point is the same as in the above paragraph.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
There is a difference you fail to see: fur is something frivolious, food is neccessary, otherwise we die. Would you rather own a fur coat and die of hunger?
I call BS. I don't know about other countries, but in the US the amount of grain wasted, either to keep prices stable or to feed livestock (such as beef cattle), is an extremely large amount. Yet again someone is taking a heavily moralistic perspective and assigning biased value. You're trying to pit "frivolous fur" against "righteous food" - but you forget that many people eat more than they need to, throw even more away, etc. It's not as if all fur goes to rich people and all food feeds the most needy and hungry lol That's some non-existent utopia. Read this - of course I don't have the time or resources for full-out fact-checking, but it indicates that both the US and UK waste a great deal of food. In case the significance is missed, this in reference to the *necessity* of food.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
Wow then I wonder how all animals and fish did not catch diseases and starve before humans started mass hunting? If you research well the food web is well designed to have a stable system. Natural predators exist to keep down the number of animals so they wouldn't "starve". Also the predators and largest animals have less cubs so that they would not eat every single animal alive.
Enter the human being onto the scene long ago. Higher reasoning capablities, loftier goals. The food web IS made to work so that there is a stable system. But the moment humans started learning to process animals into things such as tools, ornaments, clothing, that web got ****ed. Natural predators do exist, yes, but unfortunately human beings have taken the role as THE natural predator. Your last statement does make sense, but again I point out parents who have 5+ children. Humans do not obey such cut-and-dry rules.
  #83  
Old 10th March 2007, 04:22 PM
*Petit* *Petit* is offline
ourselves Initiate
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bruxelles
Posts: 4,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post

That's only in some nations which are aware of fur trade and it's cruelty and rightly so. In many other countries fur trade is unregulated so the animals do actually suffer. C'mon do you seriously believe that they are being regulated in Africa or Asia?
No, and like I mentioned, I do support that. How many times do I have to repeat it? You can't treat the entire industry as a whole, just like with almost every other industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
There is a difference you fail to see: fur is something frivolious, food is neccessary, otherwise we die. Would you rather own a fur coat and die of hunger?
I see that difference, but I don't think there's a difference for the killed animals. Point is, humans kill animals. And like I mentioned earlier unless your argument is, as long as the we imagine (theoretically for just this passage) that the animals are treated the same way in life, that it's a waste to kill only for fur (which would not be an animal's right issue), I don't see how you could "justify" it to the animals, and thus I don't see why one thing is more horrible than the other. Idon't think cows and pigs are less worthy of living than a shark.

(And just for the record, I don't like meat, I manage fine hardly eating it at all,.. )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
To a point it is cruel because you are killing loads of animals for something which is frivolious and can easily be replaced.
Like someone wrote in an earlier post, the effect of fur cannot easily or perfectly be replaced. Usually fake fur is spottable quiiiite easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
These animals are not domestic animals. Most domestic animals have been protected by men for years and used to being protected by humans and have little chance to survive in the wild. However wild animals have instincts and also require a bigger space than those tiny cages they are put in. These wild animals might be treated well, in some farms but they still suffer psychological problems and are not happy to live in a tiny cage since it is not their natural enviroment and they have not adapted to human environment like dogs and cats have done.
Well, like I mentioned, these so called wild animals still didn't manage to survive when the animal rights people released them. But I still agree with you that those cages aren't the best place to have these animals, and that they're probably better off in a more natural environment (allthough I've never seen any research on this). However if they were only in the wild it would be harder to regulate the number of creatures and they would be more prone to extintion because of over hunting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
Are you kidding? Most of them have no clue what a "threatened species" is let alone care unless people start speaking up.Their aim is provide fashion and get loads of profit. And why do you think there's so much illegal hunting of rare animals such as tigers and seals?
Please show me a link to a page of a MAJOR fashion house that still uses Tiger? Tigers and other animals are also being hunted for a number of other different things (like teeth and, believe it or not, testicles), not mostly their furs.

Also, the biggest luxury company today, LVMH, does a lot of things to support the environment. The last time I checked Jean Paul Gaultier was providing the company from which his mink came from. YES, they are mostly concerned about getting people to buy their stuff, but they also know that more and more people would like to know where their products come from and how it's been cultivated. ESPECIALLY in the luxury business which sells not only a product , but also a more ficle "luxury experience" and "dreams" these things are very important.

(I have no clue about the seal issue , but I haven't really seen any seal furs being used by most major luxury companies either as it is probably too controversial. I do however know a few small brands selling it as it's still sold around here, but this is the country of whale hunting so it should be no surprise. =P )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
Wow then I wonder how all animals and fish did not catch diseases and starve before humans started mass hunting? If you research well the food web is well designed to have a stable system. Natural predators exist to keep down the number of animals so they wouldn't "starve". Also the predators and largest animals have less cubs so that they would not eat every single animal alive.
This is very basic biology, but it doesen't work as easily as that anymore because humans have interfered and regulated the populations for so many years. We had epedemics some years ago on foxes here that nearly wiped out all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk View Post
Yeah but they are providing us with the horrible truth that so many fur companies are so conveniently hiding. Also I suggest reading here and here to see that a percentage of the fur trade doesn't give a fig about humane treatment or threatened species. Guardian are independent journalists and rarely side with any part.
Again, I don't see why we should ban all fur trade or why it's a shame to use it if you know the animals are being treated well.

THis certainly turned into an interesting thread, I think well just have to agree on disagreeing, allthough I think in the end most of us are against bad treating of animals.
  #84  
Old 10th March 2007, 04:45 PM
ImpactBreaker's Avatar
ImpactBreaker ImpactBreaker is offline
The Judgement Day Guardian

 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brazil
Posts: 15,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gedatsu View Post
I would like to point out that YOU are making a *judgement call* based on YOUR values. "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)." - at least make some attempt at the subtlety in your righteousness. No offense, but who are any of us to tell someone living in China, working hard every day to feed his family, "You, you no longer work here. This is cruel, go find something else to do to feed/provide for your family!" It's unfair to push your ethics onto the entire world. Please don't counter with something as ridiculous as, "Well, then who can say murder is wrong?" - besides the fact that they are incomparable, such is the purpose of *laws*. They help to detail in a society (be it local, country-wise, or global) what is and is not "ethically" acceptable behavior. Sometimes societies agree, sometimes they don't.
What? you're talking some nonsense there. First of all, Animal Torture is a crime. I was just comparing crime with crime. Using fuel fossils isn't a crime.

It is unfair to tell such people to do other activity for their lives but it isn't unfair to torture animals? I disagree. I'm not the one forcing my ethics here, but you're making use of extreme compassion to justify something that is WRONG. When an animal specimen is about to be on complete extinction, the hunt has to drastically be stopped, and legal measures to stop such people of doing such activities is done. A good example would be with lobster hunting. Some people are extremely poor but have the material to catch lobsters and live of such activities, but there are times lobster hunting is legally forbidden. Such people suffer a lot when lobster fishing gets forbidden, and some even resort to illegaly doing that secretly, in order to have the money to feed their starving family and all those grand reasons you'd be babbling about, but end up being caught by ecological guards. So, in that case you'd spill all of your humane compassion and say the ecological guard is stupid? nonsense guy. Animal protection is a serioius thing. Now bringing back that to fur (I know you'd just going to say my last example had nothing to do with fur coats, I was making an example of ilegal animal activities vs social problems. a crime is a crime, it doesn't matter what your social problems are): Animal torture is a cruel thing and isn't justifiable even for poorer people, unless they have no other option to survive (people in an isolated cold mountain that have no other ways to have a protection from cold, etc). You'd be quite narrow minded to even think hunting would be the only activity those people in china could do to earn money. They resort to that because obviously, the money of their fur hunting comes easier than if they were to engage in other righteous activities instead. It is the same as what happen to drugs traffic.

I'm closing this thread because you were nice enough to push it to polictical bounds though. It would get polictical sooner or later anyway
__________________

♬♪aijou de nuritsubushite
owaranai Spiral nukedasenai
mazari au mayoi sae irodukete so high
kaeshitakunai
Rise in a spiral yeah
I go insane
Dive to your paradise
(Treat me like a fool)♬♪


Last edited by ImpactBreaker; 10th March 2007 at 05:28 PM.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.