Watch Out for Designer "Faux" Fur

Alex · 02-23-2007, 01:25 PM

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?

Cadaverous Pallor · 02-23-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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".

tracilicious · 02-23-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

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

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.

Alex · 02-23-2007, 02:50 PM

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.

02-23-2007, 01:25 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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?
	Submit to Quotes

02-23-2007, 02:50 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode