Karl Lagerfeld’s Fur Defense: Animals Would Kill Us if They Could

LagerfeldKarl Lagerfeld has defended the use of fur in his garments in an interview on UK Radio 4:

“German-born Lagerfeld, 75, a contemporary of the late Yves Saint Laurent, said that he did not himself wear fur. But he defended the practice, saying there was ‘an industry who lives from that’. Hunters in the north ‘make a living having learnt nothing else than hunting’, he said, ‘killing those beasts who would kill us if they could.’ Animals should be killed ‘nicely’ if at all possible, said Lagerfeld, who admitted to being queasy about eating meat. ‘I can hardly eat meat because it has to look like something what it was not when it was alive,’ he said. He concluded: ‘In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and clothes and even handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.'”

Comments

  1. stevielee says

    I say…let’s skin monsieur Lagerfeld and make him into something far more useful and attractive..like a Lagerfeld belt, purse or something to match his leathery, pretentious skin.

  2. stevielee says

    I say…let’s skin monsieur Lagerfeld and make him into something far more useful and attractive..like a Lagerfeld belt, purse or something to match his leathery, pretentious skin.

  3. get the facts karl says

    What a sad old man. Read up on the facts about where fur comes from for most all of the ugly lines.

    Certainly not from hunters.

    Try fur farms. Animals skinned alive and anally electrocuted. All so you can make some ugly coat. Disgusting.

  4. Jay says

    Um, yeah – someone who makes money off of fur is sure to havr a fair and objective opinion on the matter…

  5. Sargon Bighorn says

    In fact the peoples of the North (Yupiak, Inuit, Inupiat, Eskimo, Aleutian, Athabaskans, and others) do use furs as part of their clothing. Is that okay? They also use the veins to sew their garments. Is that okay? They also use the intestines to make waterproof outer garments. Is that okay? You get my point.

    None of the uses stated above are intended to make a “fashion statement” but are intended to allow the wearer one more day of life on the planet. The natural fur garments are better than synthetic garments. I think we’d all agree that such use of fur is acceptable.

    Is it the USE of the fur that is the problem, or the social environment where the fur is used? I tend to think the later. When I head to the Arctic regions, you can be DAM sure I’ll wear fur.

  6. Drew says

    You know something, when you previous posters donate all your money to the Red Cross and go move to Africa to help other human beings, THEN I’ll take seriously your deep concerns about the animals people raise for a strict purpose.

    Oh, if my statement gave you a headache, don’t drive your leather-appointed vehicles to Walgreen’s for Tylenol because both the pills and your car use animals in their testing/production. Don’t use shampoo either, lol…

  7. james says

    I don’t know if Karl Lagerfeld is gay but, if he is, he’s an embarrassment to the gay community.

    He’s just a silly old man who made a mint off the appearance insecurities of idiotic women.

  8. echovic says

    Exactly, Drew. This fur argument is lame, and the thugs at PETA have hijacked ordinarily rational minds and made them into rabid anti-fur tyrants: why stop at fur? Leather – Chicken – Shampoo? What about dogs or single cats at home: what do you think they do when you are out on your 9-5 (they whimper, fyi). Hence the need for animal prozac. Let them out into nature, loves! Then talk about banning fur.

    We live in a world where animals are used for the physical and emotional comfort of human beings in all areas of our lives. Why single out fur?

    And – on top of that, the nastiness of comments towards someone who is against PETA-brand ‘holier-than-thou animal love’ makes me want to throw up. If they love animals so much – can’t they transfer some of the ‘love’ to people? People are animals too…

    I love animals, but I hate these Heather-Mills style thugs.

    Karl Largerfeld is 100% logical and should be given a medal, or a medallion.

  9. Rowan says

    @ James

    He IS gay. No biggie, his partner died a while ago…

    But I do agree with Drew or Sargon, although I’m anti using animal furs at all.

    Lagerfield is really bright. He’s really talented but very harsh-german…pragmatic..

    Jus sayin..

  10. TANK says

    A medal or a medallion? Oh my god! What an irrelevant queeny thing to say. A medallion…lol!

    There is simply no excuse for factory farming and, also, the suffering that the fur industry causes animals. None whatsoever. It is as evil and despicable as any other needless suffering and torture. NO pomo cultural relativity (everything but the squeal) ploy can change that.

  11. Aron says

    I have to say, I’ve been anti-fur for as long as I can remember but he makes a good point. Unless you live your life completely free of animal products, it is unfair to single out fur. I would never wear fur but I really can’t judge someone who does while I enjoy leather (ahem, harnesses), chicken (ahem, twinks) and beef (ahem…)

  12. TANK says

    Ya know, unless you live your life completely sex free, you have no right to call out a pedophile on their sexual practices. You’re just a hypocrite. That makes about as much sense as completely free of all animal products or no dice when opposed to fur.

    Fortunately, it’s a bit more nuanced than that as there are meat eaters who go out of their way to support farms that practice ethical treatment of their livestock, don’t torture them, and slaughter them as painlessly as possible.

    Better yet, if a person does something that’s wrong, they can’t possibly tell another what the right thing to do is…I mean…that’s absurd! (literally…absurd…reasoning).

  13. Jay says

    The majority of fur production is for people who have no need for it, but wear it for vanity’s sake. I have no problem with the tribes of people who hunt and need the fur. It’s the cruel way that the industrial fur industry treats the animals and the basic fact that it is unneccesary that I have a problem with.

    I have no problem with meat-eating, because the health benefits can be shown to exist when practiced in moderation. And expecially with responsible farming practices, it can be beneficial the surround communities.

  14. GregV says

    Brian,
    I didn`t realize that either, until a friend of mine went to a pork plant. She never ate meat again.

  15. jason says

    Lagerfeld is an embarrassment. He’s from the fashion industry, an industry which preys on and promotes the insecurities of women for the purpose of making money. Fur is yet another angle to this vile industry called fashion.

  16. simon says

    Let’s not forget that Germany, the country in which Lagerfeld was born, once believed it was OK to gas mothers and their babies. Go away, Karl, and take your ugly-looking bratwurst face with you.

  17. Frozen North says

    Hm. If they were free range animals and they were killed humanely? Would that make you feel better?

    I’m against cruel “farming” but I don’t have a problem with wearing or fur production per se. If anal electrecution (if it’s true) were painless and humane, then I don’t see it being any different than a shot to the head like they do live stock.

    I wonder if they use the fur-animals’ bodies for anything…or is it wasted? I’d have a problem with that too then.

  18. says

    I love animals but I prefer to eat and wear them. Well except dogs because I hate them. They should be treated like old people and put in homes.

  19. DFarver says

    If you’re eating a mink or sable steak, then by all means, wear the matching stole. I wear shoes made of leather, but I also eat beef.

    If the skin of a chicken wasn’t so delicious, I’d have no problem using it for a wallet or something similar.

    If we’re not cruel to the animal, and use as much of the meat, skin, bones as possible – I see no problem with being an omnivore.

    When I move along this mortal coil, make me into a jacket and leather pants (50″ chest – 38″ waist) or how about some chaps!

  20. JT says

    Tank is my new Best Friend.

    And for those not familiar with anal electrocution, do some research with your computer. You might even come across some video of animals skinned alive. You might even sleep afterwards, but I couldn’t. And for those who chide others for caring about animals as if it means that caring for fellow humans get short shrift, I would suggest that the two are not only not mutually exclusive but that the heart that loves is capable of loving and caring for much.

    Fur for vanity’s sake is different than eating meat for sustenance. Yes, we can (and I do) eat other substances for our need of protein. But we are omnivores by design. We are clothes horses by choice. Those who brave the wild forces of nature and have no other choice for protection are excused for wearing fur. Those who do so for vanity’s sake are not. Circumstances make the difference. I am told of native cultures that give thanks and respect (connected to nature as they are) to the beasts they hunted and killed; somehow, I doubt Lagerfeld has ever understood the same appreciation.

    We call the killing of a fellow human being justifiable homicide when it is done in self-defense. Otherwise, we have other definitions, from manslaughter to murder. While I understand that others may not accord animals the same significance as humans, I think the distinctions remain. While I understand that many in the gay community live for “Fashion,” it is not the Holy Grail for all. While I appreciate the artistry, the “Industry” of fashion is about praying upon vanity, no matter the cost. And while I am not a zealot and can’t attest to the pristine origins of every item of clothing I wear, it seems a no-brainer to at least draw a line at wearing fur when it is clearly and merely for vanity’s sake.

  21. americanlegend says

    After fur pelts are harvested, carcasses are processed to become protein meal, a basic ingredient in pet and animal feeds. In mink, the layer of fat between the pelt and the carcass produces mink oil, an important ingredient in hypoallergenic soaps, cosmetics and hair care products. Mink oil is also used as a lubricant for fine leathers to keep them soft and supple. Nutrient rich manure from fur farms, an environmentally preferable alternative to chemicals, is in heavy demand as a natural fertilizer for crop fields.

  22. americanlegend says

    Furbearers are fed mixtures of fresh meats and meat byproducts, fish, eggs, poultry and pork byproduct, and grains. Over a billion pounds of these byproducts are consumed each year on fur farms. In coastal regions with access to fish processing plants, diets are likely to be based more extensively on fish. In other areas, there is more reliance on byproducts from meat and poultry processing facilities. Mink and fox also consume prepared rations produced by commercial animal feed companies. The feed byproducts described here are inappropriate for human consumption. If they weren’t consumed by furbearers, they would require disposal, probably in scarce landfill space, as solid waste. By purchasing offal which would otherwise be discarded, fur farmers provide a source of revenue for other agriculture producers, effectively subsidizing lower food costs for consumers.

  23. americanlegend says

    Humane euthanasia techniques practiced of fur farms are those recognized by the American Veterinary Medical Association in the United States and by the Guelph University Research Facility in Canada.
    The only method of euthanasia for mink certified by the FCUSA Animal Welfare Committee is pure carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide bottled gas. The animals are placed in a special airtight container which has been prefilled with gas. The unit is mobile and is brought to the cages to minimize any stress form handling. The animals are immediately rendered unconscious and die without stress or pain.

  24. Martin says

    Other than leather, which is a meat byproduct, fur – for the most part – is an unnecessary luxury item (exceptions apply, e.g. Siberia). However, there is ONE good reason to wear fur. To p*ss in the face of animal fascists like the PeTArds. To quote their Führer, Ingrid Newkirk:

    “Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

    A self-respecting gay man that has any respect for HIV-positive members of the community can NEVER be an animal rightist.

  25. echovic says

    Thank god for so many comments pointing out peta insanity. I thought I was the only one. The reason they get celebs to ‘endorse’ peta is because they intimidate them with their ugly insults. Fashion ‘dinosaur’ indeed! He’s only one of the few geniuses in fashion who has remained relevant for the last 25 years.

    And the argument against ‘vanity': hello!

    I don’t even care so much for fur (but if there was a butch way to wear it, i probably would – since I just moved to NYC from LA and its fucking COLD!!!) But the idea that it should be banned because its ‘vain’ to kill animals for their fur: bollocks.

  26. MikeThe says

    I went to the PETA website and watched some of the videos, pretty horrific – and where was it filmed…. “CHINA”. Not a big surprise since they notorious for everything from painting toys with lead paint to harvesting of human organs. Unimaginable cruelty to animals is just another normal day for them. I wouldn’t ban the fur trade, but I would want the animals be treated humanely.

  27. echovic says

    Amen MIKETHE – or even have the fur from humanely farmed animals be marked as such, like grass fed cow milk or whatever. That way, the people who do look after their animals get rewarded with higher prices.

  28. TANK says

    Are you joking? This isn’t about PETA. PETA can go away as far as I and Peter Singer are concerned. This is about animal rights and animal suffering.

    ECHO apparently is okay with some of the horrendous animal suffering and abuse that occurs in the fur industry worldwide because he’s unethical. It’s a simple as that if he’s got a coherent position at all (which I doubt). Peter Singer (who is not a friend of PETA and is, basically, the father of the current animal rights movement) laid the argument out pretty well in animal liberation. Though it’s dated, he’s the best mind the animal rights activists have. Of course, that’s likely a name you haven’t heard of, you thoughtless, vapid superifical idiot.

    American legend has offered cut and paste jobs from the fur commission, it seems, which just deals with a percentage of the global fur industry, where the majority of fur originates and which is not regulated. And honestly, would I find out about the cruelties of meat production from the FDA? No… The AVMA’s a rubber stamp, as the organization has approved of factory farming–one of the most cruel forms of animal torture ever conceived and implemented. Additionally, it supports greyhound racing…and if you know nothing of the kind of treatment those dogs receive, inform yourself. So no knowledge of practice, and the documented cases of animal cruelty on fur farms in the united states. I suggest that anyone interested in the reality of animal cruelty in factory farms (fur, meat, etc) do a little research on that. For example, live pigs drowned in vats of boiling water. Live and conscious. Their skin is used. Fur related abuse consists not only of gassing (which often doesn’t work, and requires an attendant to go in and kill the animals), electrocution, kneck breaking, strangulation–literally hanging– and mutilation.

  29. JT says

    Check out the La Fayette website flashing at the top of the page. Beautiful furs. I just think that they’d look much better on the animals than the models.

  30. stevielee says

    We “homo” sapiens are a royal lot. Everything, and I mean everything is subject to our exploitation for whatever reason: Survival, greed, vanity, boredom etc…

    There is nothing ethical or moral about humans. We are no better (probably much worse) than baboons.

    Anyone pretending that the word ” humane” means anything more than a feeble verbal attempt at rationalizing and vindicating our species for whatever carnage and destruction we choose to perpetrate on every other species that has the misfortune to “share” this tiny ball in space with.

    It’s not just the stupid fur that’s the problem here, it’s everything that we humans stand for – which is nothing but our non stop gluttony and excess. Mr. Lagerfeld is the poster child of human depravity in all it’s glory.

    I just hope that some “higher” or more powerful life form comes along and does to us what we have done since our insufferable dominance began. If something doesn’t intervene and quickly, there will not only be zero animals to skin for fun, or anorexic “models”, and their ego-centric, Aryan blow-hard “designers, but there will no air to breath, or water to drink..etc

    A changing of the species guard is what il’ Gaia needs badly right about now!

  31. says

    http://www.furisdead.com

    For those who like to say that some people care about animals more than they care about people, I’d like to tell you that the people who phone banked with myself and friends for No on Prop 8, they were our animal rights friends…you can devote your time to more than one cause…

    Do you devote your time to ANY cause?

  32. KARL says

    I love wearing fur, proudly. Who gives a fuck?

    I’m rich and I like wearing designer fur. You all will never know what it’s like to be rich, good-looking and glamorous like me, so naturally, everything that comes out the lips of Karl Lagerfeld probably blows over your head.

    Don’t we wear leather shoes? Don’t we all carry leather bags?

    You, with your leather shoes, are being as cruel to animals as I am with my designer furs.

  33. enveg says

    It’s unfortunate that Ingrid’s statement is so polarizing but she is against animal testing on principle. She’s not only against it for AIDS research but also for cancer, heart disease and everything else. Gay men are not the only ones affected by AIDS and it’s hardly a statement to the gay community. World wide more heterosexuals have AIDS than homosexuals. People will look for every excuse under the sun to point their fingers at animal rights activists or vegans/vegetarians and say that they’re crazy instead of really doing some soul-searching. Should thousands of monkeys be captured, tortured and killed to cure a human disease?

    It’s really sad to read all the comments on here from gay people who have no compassion for animals and their suffering. Homosexuals are the probably the most persecuted group on the planet but animals have to endure much worse at the toll of billions a year. Gay men and women can speak for themselves but animals have no voice. It’s disheartening that more of us don’t speak up for the oppressed and stand against animal exploitation in all it’s forms.

  34. MIKKO says

    How embarrassing it is to read the ignorant and hateful rhetoric here. Whenever anti-animal rights people make the predictable “what about people,” whine, they’re usually individuals who’ve never lifted a finger in their lives to do anything for anyone else. People like Drew and Karl are embarrassments to our community, parading their ignorance and vanity like they’re some kind of virtues.

    I’m a gay vegan animal rights activist and I love PETA. Love them. They do more to reduce suffering in the world every day than members of our community put together. While fighting against Prop 8 in California, I saw bars packed with gay men every night who couldn’t be bothered to step outside and join our demo. Of my gay friends, *none* came to demos or phone banks except those who were also animal rights activists. So those here who disparage animal rights peeps — get to know a few before opening your big ignorant mouths.

  35. echovic says

    you last few posters are a yawn and a half. you love animals! you are so good! you volunteer! oh the poor suffering animals! nobody to care for them but you! and your horrible friends – they don’t care about anything either – they’re vain and silly.

    yawn. move on. get outraged or eat a broccoli or save a pigeon or do what you self righteous blowhards do to make you feel better. its tired. and duller than dishwater.

  36. MIKKO says

    Echovic– You just proved my point. What a waste of oxygen. Grow a set and get out there and do something for the world.

  37. TANK says

    you better be attractive, echo, because if you’re ugly and say stuff like that, it’s never funny…

  38. misquoti says

    “While fighting against Prop 8 in California, I saw bars packed with gay men every night who couldn’t be bothered to step outside and join our demo. Of my gay friends, *none* came to demos or phone banks except those who were also animal rights activists.”

    Nighttime demonstrations in front of gay bars? Did you manage to convince any homos to vote No on Prop 8?

    Maybe black and Asian voters should dress up as cows and chickens to get the “No on 8″ peeps to finally acknowledge them.

  39. says

    I think Mr. Lagerfield is a prime example of the problem in our society (also the gay community’s): excess at the expense of any morality. I’m a self-righteous vegan. Yes, I admit it: I’m self-righteous. I am anti-fur, anti-leather, anti-cashmere, anti-wool, anti-products tested on animals (including beauty products, hygiene products, and medicine). Am I going to judge him? Well, I won’t judge him to be cruel; I’m simply deem him ignorant–only slightly more ignorant than people who are bothered by fur but are okay with leather (which is not a byproduct of our food, but utilizes the same cruel methods as the fur industry) and with eating animal products, which also speak to the cruelty of our (human) kind (including the dairy and egg industries). Of course, ignorance is bliss.

    Oh, and for the queens that think they can’t look “fierce” without their leather bags and shoes and fancy products from Sephora: I get comments on how “fierce” I look all the time, and I REFUSE to touch products of any kind that have exploited animals in any way, shape, or form.

    Am I self-righteous? Yes. If you have a problem with it, bite me. I like animals better anyway. They find joy in the simple things in life, don’t start wars, don’t exploit others for sport, and are far more intelligent and conscientious than we give them credit for.

  40. Philip says

    I find it so surprising that many of these pro-animal rights activists were not protesting partial-birth abortion when it was entirely legal and widely available. After all human beings are animals, right? Where were all the pro-animal rights activists while near ready to be born infants were having their brains sucked out?

  41. says

    It is quite possible to chose not to contribute to the mass suffering of animals in the meat/fashion industry as well as work towards a better life for other human animals and the natural environment. I have this fascinating thing called a brain which allows me the ability to do and be interested in many things and causes, including doing the best I can to live a life that causes the least suffering to my fellow earth mates. Wouldn’t it be nice if the fair and just treatment we as humans, gay humans, strive for were also extended to all other sentient beings on our planet? I think so.

  42. db says

    Drew et al, I don’t see how someone not donating all their money to the red cross or not moving to Africa diminishes their concern for the cruel treatment of animals. I don’t see the connection. They’re not mutually exclusive and it’s ridiculous to say someone should do so.

  43. MIKKO says

    Philip — please don’t try to confuse the debate with irrelevant asides. Abortion is not the issue here, people’s mindless exploitation of animals is. Over 10 billion land animals are killed for food in the United States alone every year, 40 billion worldwide.

  44. MIKKO says

    Misquoti — aren’t you so clever and witty. You obviously know precious little about how hard it was to mobilize the gay community to fight Prop 8. The purpose of the gay-area demos was to get people involved, or at the very least, to remind them to register to vote AND vote. And a lot of people, I’m sad to say, couldn’t be bothered to do either.

    Here’s two sobering facts for you:

    1) Significant numbers of gays and lesbians failed to vote in the election. Some estimates even put that number above the margin of victory for Prop 8.

    2) On election day, our opponents had 100,000 volunteers at polling places. We had 7,500.

    It’s always easy to snark from the sidelines while doing nothing.

  45. says

    Mikko abortion is far from irrelevant. I’m sorry but a fetus is much more important than a fucking chicken egg. Shit yall bitches got me all hungry, I’m about to eat me a meat lovers omelet.

  46. TANK says

    In terms of mental causation and self awareness, a mature pig–even a piglet–is far more valuable than a non-conscious fetus even in the third trimester. The richness of their mental lives and ability to have experiences outweighs a non-consious fetus. Anything less is just baseless speciesism.

    And the ability to feel pain does not, in any way, distinguish a third trimester fetus from a veal calf or a snake–both of which can feel pain. Does this ability to feel pain give them purchase on a right to life that outweighs a mother’s desire that its life be terminated? Of course not, for the ability to feel pain does not imply that it is even remotely conscious of itself as a discrete biological organism that is feeling such pain. That is, the feeling of pain alone, however briefly, does not imply that the fetus is suffering. And suffering is more than feeling pain.

  47. nic says

    after reading this post about that pathetic geriatric queen, i feel the need to pen a pre-death directive to all my kith and kin: if i ever become as frivolous as she, please, please put a bullet through my head. i would hate to be pissing on myself and sharting here and there, while vaingloriously proclaiming my “fabulousness”. ‘jota’, please!

    and for those of you who try to equate the wearing of fur to the wearing of leather, you are as demented as she. leather is only one of the byproducts of eating meat. whereas, the wearing of fur is purely a product of vanity.

    and for the space cadets who wish to tie this discussion to (omg!) partial-birth abortions: fuck you and that lame, blind horse you rode in on.

  48. KARL says

    OMG, get over it! Vanity and consumption are an important facet of life.

    Ugh, sometimes I look at my new puppy and I always think to myself of what a beautiful fur coat he would make.

    Animals are gorgeous and I deserve to wear gorgeous things on my perfect body.

  49. enveg says

    Karl – Animals are not “things”, they’re sentient beings. But someone as vapid as yourself probably has no idea what that means anyway.

  50. says

    I am a gay animal rights activist also, and I think that any guy who believes he’s “fierce” or “fabulous” in fur is brainless and heartless. And no, Karl, not all of us wear the skin of cows. There are ways to be both compassionate and handsome, and frankly, there’s nothing I find more revolting than callousness.

  51. Philip says

    So Tank, if animals were harvested for food and clothing in a minimally harmless manner in a limited time span, would you agree with it?

    Just because a fetus cannot take notice of itself doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be trusted its own life…if anything, that means it should be protected more. Fetuses are capable of surviving, growing, and living after being born in the second trimester.

  52. TANK says

    It depends on what is meant by minimally harmless manner and limited time span. One of my objections to the industry is in the needless suffering it causes beings so capable. If the suffering were eliminated, that doesn’t defacto mean that I wouldn’t be against it–as that would sanction murder, too. I think that animals are capable of having preferences and having those preferences satisfied. In that regard, many of them, too, have a stake in their future selves and preferences as do we. They would not prefer to be eliminated for another’s supper. Fetuses simply do not have such a stake, and aren’t persons (aren’t even capable of recognizing themselves as things or “thinking”).

    The “capability” suggestion doesn’t deal with what they are, but what they “might” be. It is completely divorced from the fact and random chances that could beset a developing fetus like, say, bill richardson (vagueness). Given that it’s dealing only with what might be, what might be isn’t what is. Fetuses aren’t persons, and thus this tangent into a parallel is false.

  53. nic says

    wait just a fucking minute. this argument is not original to you, is it? i am not talking about the thought, for many of us think that way, but i am questioning the verbiage. did you cut and paste this shit?

    i’m sorry, but it just seems too cut and dried for my sensibilities. blog musings are never so precise, never so well formulated. be that as it may, i concur.

    a zygote does not equate to a human being. the unfortunate meeting of two gametes should not determine the life or death of a realized woman capable of reproduction. let us get ourselves out of wombs and concern ourselves with the living.

    the problem with x’tianists, as i see it, is their perverse, compulsive desire to bring a pre-ordained malignaty to life while ignoring the needs of the mother, the parents, the family, and society. that is absurd.

  54. TANK says

    Nic, the argument itself? Of course not. I borrowed from Michael Tooley, Mary Ann Warren and, of course, Peter Singer. They from many others, so I don’t feel completely plagiaristic. The phrasing is poor, and is obviously mine. Unfortunately, when I drink I tend to get a little bit more definitive than usual. I will not be compared to a blastocsyst! Any system of ethics that equates a fully developed human being integrated into a social setting with a blastocyst–that is, any ethical system that has no regard for science and, it would seem, ethics–is ripe for the dustbin.

  55. misquowoti says

    “The phrasing is poor, and is obviously mine”

    But your post on Jan 4, 2009 5:56:16 PM seems more “precise” than your other posts.

  56. Freddie says

    I don’t wear fur at all and I don’t condone it, but I also think that there are far more important issues in this world worth protesting over than anti-fur campaigns. Just saying.

  57. says

    Some things really are more important than trends, and that is compassion and respect for living creatures. As members of the LGBT community, we should EVEN MORESO fight for equality on all planes. You can really look gorgeous, and dress cruelty free. As a former fur-wearer who has seen what really goes on, I can not allow this horrendous holocaust of animals continue when faux fur can come off as just as luxe. The truth about fur is — these animals are horrendously anally electrocuted. They look like your Yorkie or Pug and they DO FEEL PAIN and FEAR. Watch the film “The Witness” before you continue to promote fur – I think it will make quite a difference. It’s truly the most heartless, barbaric, and hideous of trends. I urge you to see furisdead.com. Green fashion is all the rage right now — and no glamazon worth her weight in La Mer would be caught DEAD in fur. It’s bad for the environment, the animals, and your karma.

  58. americanlegend says

    From an environmental point of view, vintage fur is superior to fake fur… Environmentalists follow three main principals to guide their consumption decisions; reduce, reuse and recycle.
    The alternative to real fur is usually a non-biodegradable synthetic. Fake fur synthetics cause pollution in both their production and their disposal.

    http://www.torontostreetfashion.com/news/furifyoudare05.html

  59. says

    Mikko and Enveg, you guys totally get it. Thank you. I’d so have you over for dinner next time I cook up a huge vegan feast (usuallly Southern style cookin’).