Watch Out for Designer "Faux" Fur
 

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/11093036/det...l?dl=mainclick


:(

I don't have a problem with dogs being used for food or fur but obviously something labeled as fake shouldn't have any.

But I don't understand the fake fur thing than I understand vegans who try to make tofu look, feel, and taste like a steak.

If you think it is cruel to use animals for fur why would you want to wear something that makes it look like you use animals for fur?

VISIBLE ALEX MOJO IN ALL CAPS. I couldn't agree more. Same goes for "animal print".

I think it's pretty terrible. But how many of you eat bacon? Pigs are smarter than dogs and treated atrociously. My horror regarding the treatment of pigs far outweighs that of using dog fur. Yet we still have threads going on about bacon.

I think there is a big difference. Animals are beautiful and using them for inspiration in fashion can be fabulously creative. There isn't a need to kill animals to do it, but I see nothing wrong with imitating nature's beauties.

I don't see any conflict with animal prints. Someone wearing tiger print Buttafuoco pants doesn't look like you killed the tiger to make loose fitting cotton pants.

I also see a difference between "inspired by" and "imitating the slaughter of."

But then I'm, within certain limits of method, I'm all in favor of "the actual slaughter of" whether it be for clothing or food. I just don't understood why someone opposed to the production of fur for clothing would then want to put on clothing essentially indistinguishable for the moral abyss they despise. It isn't like the synthetic fibers have to look like realistic fur to provide the warming properties people presumably want.

But if you get a coat made out of raccoon dog, demand that the monstrous shape-changing testicles still be attached.

You get folks like me who liked to wear fur, but: a)it's very expensive, b)you really don't want some emaciated vegan freak tossing red paint on you, and c)hey, you can have the awesome look of real fur, but nothing died for it, rock on.

Hmm, I'm not sure who you're addressing here. The only post above yours that seems to think that using dog fur is awful would be Disneyphile (with her sad smiley).

No, but it does bring to my mind the concept of dead animals. That goes for any use of animal prints, whether you're talking cotton stretch pants or overly fluffy blue "leopard" purses. I find it a) ugly and ridiculous, b) reminiscent of dead animals, and usually c) all of the above.

I also find it ridiculous to bemoan the death of one animal when you still pay for the death of another to suit your needs for food, clothing, medical testing, etc, etc. This is why, even though I absolutely adore animals, I still eat, wear, and otherwise indirectly use them for my comfort. I really have no problem with using dogs, cats, or other "cute" animals for human needs - because I eat and wear cows and I'm not a hypocrite. Same goes for cute, fuzzy, soft, sweet, lovable rabbits. Why are they any better than the other animals we eat? :confused:

If I thought otherwise I'd be a vegan who wears nothing but cotton and wouldn't use any medications. It's one way or the other.

Morrigoon - true that about freaks tossing paint, regardless of your fashion choices. How come they don't attack leather stores?

I'm sure some do, but leather is a very different battle because cows aren't being killed (or raised in inhumane conditions) for their skin. They're killed for meat, so whether people wear leather or not, the cows will die (and live in inhumane conditions) anyway. Minks, on the other hand...

...deserve to die. Nasty creatures they are.