I am not against fur or leather. I am posting my comment regarding your choice to interview someone as rude and arrogant as Anna Wintour. She treats people like they are below her and her attitude has no place in today's society.
Interesting conversations where Mrs Wintour their thoughts. It has a special decision-making power, what fashion is not what fashion. Even shows they are also happy with fur. Not since furs on trees grow, we collect, where they grow, the animal. The need for fur is steadily increasing and we are like dead animals in our clothes, why not
I strongly believe that this woman is totally right. Fur has been used as clothing accessories since the Stone Age, so why are we not able to wear them now, it is true that some of what Wintour acknowledges may be drastic but this woman has her own right to wear fur. I also do not wish to criticize the PETA organization but they should not resolve to drastic options that could obviously hurt people. Their objectives or motives are somewhat useless to people who have kept their mindsets upon something as wearing fur. People we need to be realistic who can survive on plants, and on the subject aren't plants also considered living things, don't they reproduce as well and grow to maturity, I know this may seem as ludicrous, but giving animals rights are as much ludicrous as giving rights to plants. I love animals I truly do, but the food chain is what has been set in stone. Even animals kill each other. This is my own free willed opinion.
Both Winotour and the interviewer miss the significant moral issues regarding the cruel and horrific treatment of animals in the fur trade. the same issues exist regarding intensively confined animals used for food and clothing. 60 Minutes would better serve the public interest by broadcasting the truthful and harsh realities of methods used -- such as anal electrocution and live dismemberment -- in the raising and killing animals for fur and food. If viewers knew how animals suffer in this process, a majority would no longer suppport such practices and would choose not to purchase fur or factory farmed animal food products. Ms. Winotour simply demonstrates her unawareness of the facts and issues; sadly, CBS News does nothing to enlighten anyone regarding the facts surrounding the moral debate. The real issue is not one unaware person such as winotour -- more significant is the fact that we do care about alleviating suffering, once we learn the truth about the mistreatment of animals.
comparing leather from cattle & fur for the fashion industry is not the same thing. How many people do you see in cow fur coats? not many. We use all of the cow, leather, food, bone meal, etc. We (the countries that buy fur for fashion) don't eat the animals that are used for fur. Many if not most are killed only for the fur coat, shinned alive!...alive! then thrown into a pile to die. You might have a pet? how about skinning it alive to make a coat. You cannot compare the cattle leather industry with the fur industry. nothing like a good cow fur coat to make a fashion statement, or a good mink burger. She states that "fur has always been in the fashion industry", well we had slaves for a long time, why not still have slaves? because we know better!
Anyone skinning an animal alive should be put to death - in my opinion. As I mentioned earlier, the species of animal used for the product and the animals' treatment is the issue, not the fur. Whether you eat the animal is of absolutely no relevance. Who cares if it's eaten? It's dead! Therefore skin from cattle and skin for fashion is indeed exactly the same thing - it's skin from an animal. Do with it what you like; why should the animal species be of any relevance? No valid reason exists to cause suffering to animals or eradicate whole species, but also, there's no reason to not wear fur just because the animal looks cute, cuddly and has big eyes. True, you don't see people wearing cow fur coats, but so what? Is it wrong the shave all the hair off? It's still an animal skin only with the hair (fur) removed. If the cow were skinned alive then wearing cow leather would be equally as wrong as is the wearing of any other skinned-alive animal but it's not skinned alive and no animal has to be.
If leather is fine then so must be fur, providing there's no cruelty or threat to species'.
Why not still have slaves? We do. They make our shoes. Obviously though, it's wrong. Many things are wrong but they are of not relevant to the wearing of animal skins. Back on topic - we know animal cruelty is wrong, but fur doesn't require cruelty.
You can walk down the street in a leather jacket and no-one will pay the slightest attention to you, but walk down the street in a fur coat and people will hurl insults at you and pelt you with eggs, even though both jackets are made of hide from the same animal.
the leather you are talking about comes from cows, we use most of the entire cow, food, leather, bone meal, etc. The furs she wears comes from endangered animals or cats & dogs that are skinned alive! skinned alive because it is easier. She defends fur because "fur has always been a part of fashion". The same argument could be made for slavery, we always had it at one time, why not have it now. Pull your head out & look around. The fur industry is not the same thing as the leather industry.
While some aspects of the fur industry are cruel and should be banned, many seem to forget that fur is just leather with the hair still attached. Wearing a fur jacket is the wearing of a leather jacket. The species of animal used for the product and the animals' treatment is the issue. For example, shooting leopards and tigers for their fur is abhorrent to me and to most people, as is the use of leather from dogs and cats, but if wearing any kind of fur is wrong, then so must be the wearing of all leather. Billions of cows are slaughtered annually but you don't see activists screaming and throwing red paint at anyone wearing leather shoes. Most activists are well meaning but there's a certain amount of leftist class jealousy involved.
Given the frightening rate at which animal species are going extinct, not to mention have a more civilized sensitivity to the suffering of animals, the wearing of fur should pass into ancient history.
I've seen videos on youtube of protesters against fur, and they are just shouting right in the faces of these people right on the streets and calling them murderers. That is just being hostile and, when you are being attacked like that, is that any way to get those consumers who are buying fur and supporting that industry to make them reconsider what they are doing to the lives of other animals? I think no. For one thing common sense tells you that when people are attacked like that they are going to be on the offensive, thus creating a barrier and blocking any form of civil conversation to take place; so in the end aren't those individuals efforts negated and they are just back to where they started, having to go back to protesting ,escalating to drastic measures such as public outbursts in the streets of Manhattan?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
If leather is fine then so must be fur, providing there's no cruelty or threat to species'.
Why not still have slaves? We do. They make our shoes. Obviously though, it's wrong. Many things are wrong but they are of not relevant to the wearing of animal skins.
Back on topic - we know animal cruelty is wrong, but fur doesn't require cruelty.
For one thing common sense tells you that when people are attacked like that they are going to be on the offensive, thus creating a barrier and blocking any form of civil conversation to take place; so in the end aren't those individuals efforts negated and they are just back to where they started, having to go back to protesting ,escalating to drastic measures such as public outbursts in the streets of Manhattan?