# Boycott Canada Goose clothes. The fur flogging scumbags



## editor (Jun 8, 2018)

Simple but effective protest outside their flagship West End store.


Boycott Canada Goose clothing – a powerful protest in London’s West End, June 2018


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jun 8, 2018)

Their goose is cooked


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2018)

Dr. Furface said:


> Their goose is cooked


I hope you took a gander at the article.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

So many fur-collared coats around last winter.  I'd just assumed they were all fake fur (been so long since the "I'd rather go naked" campaigns etc.).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> So many fur-collared coats around last winter.  I'd just assumed they were all fake fur (been so long since the "I'd rather go naked" campaigns etc.).


There were a load of articles about how a lot of fake fur wasn't. More 'fur free' retailers found selling rabbit and fox fur, Sky News finds


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> There were a load of articles about how a lot of fake fur wasn't.



You mean in the media recently?  I'm not a big consumer of fashion news.

Though that's really bad.  I'd have thought fake fur would be a lot cheaper to produce in any case.
I've just seen the prices of this Canada Goose gear.  I think it shouldn't be too hard to boycott - I'll add it to the list along with Bugatti, Rolex and Feretti.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> You mean in the media recently?  I'm not a big consumer of fashion news.
> 
> Though that's really bad.  I'd have thought fake fur would be a lot cheaper to produce in any case.
> I've just seen the prices of this Canada Goose gear.  I think it shouldn't be too hard to boycott - I'll add it to the list along with Bugatti, Rolex and Feretti.


Look at the date on the article. More than a year ago sky were reporting fake fur could be real.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> Look at the date on the article. More than a year ago sky were reporting fake fur could be real.



Ah, right.  Did you add the link in an edit?  I hadn't seen that when I replied.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Ah, right.  Did you add the link in an edit?  I hadn't seen that when I replied.


Soz thought had been speedy.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 8, 2018)

There are people protesting there pretty consistently on Saturdays - I saw some while I was doing some street photography in the evening in January, and I’ve seen them since then too. Glad to hear they’re keeping it up.

 

I also saw protests outside MAC on Carnaby Street recently (for animal testing) though I don’t know if those are also consistent ones or whether it was a one off.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 8, 2018)

I'm not sure I have a problem with some fur. If a rabbit is killed for food using the fur seems reasonable.

But raising and killing an animal just for the fur seems unacceptably bad.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I'm not sure I have a problem with some fur. If a rabbit is killed for food using the fur seems reasonable.
> 
> But raising and killing an animal just for the fur seems unacceptably bad.



I think the cows raised for leather are different ones to the ones raised for meat.  Or dairy.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> I think the cows raised for leather are different ones to the ones raised for meat.  Or dairy.


Yes, that's probably right. That is, I think, wrong. But if the animals killed for meat are then also used for leather, I think that's a lesser evil.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Yes, that's probably right. That is, I think, wrong.



Make your mind up!


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> So many fur-collared coats around last winter.  I'd just assumed they were all fake fur (been so long since the "I'd rather go naked" campaigns etc.).


This particular brand was everywhere last winter - I saw so many people wearing them and it bugged me that I didn't know what the logo was, until I found out. I didn't much like the look of them but I just assumed it must be fake fur.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 8, 2018)

8ball said:


> Make your mind up!


Badly written on my part.

I think that it is correct that dairy, beef, and leather cattle are different. And I think that producing any animal for only the pelt is wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2018)

Dr. Furface said:


> This particular brand was everywhere last winter - I saw so many people wearing them and it bugged me that I didn't know what the logo was, until I found out. I didn't much like the look of them but I just assumed it must be fake fur.



Must be some money about..


----------



## TopCat (Jun 12, 2018)

Dont see the problem with fur myself.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 12, 2018)

many of the CG bits you see is fake from china anyway- and there is zero control of the use of fur out there. the fakes were less than $100 retail in Shanghai markets last winter season- with holo tags and all the labelling.

I am ambivalent about fur if its used in places where people have used fur for eons. Its just a bit shit if you are wearing a full on CG parka on Oxford street in November when its like 5c


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 12, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Dont see the problem with fur myself.


I see no reason why anyone who eats meat should have a problem with wearing fur. If we’re happy to exploit animals for food then why not for clothing? As with food animals though, those farmed for their skins should be reared and dispatched with the least amount of suffering as possible.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 12, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I see no reason why anyone who eats meat should have a problem with wearing fur. If we’re happy to exploit animals for food then why not for clothing? As with food animals though, those farmed for their skins should be reared and dispatched with the least amount of suffering as possible.


Good animal husbandry yes. Respect to the veggies who oppose fur but meat eating leather wearing types should have a think.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 12, 2018)

The other thing about this is that it’s coming from PETA, who are massive lying arseholes.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jun 16, 2018)

Canada Goose shares up after better-than-expects results, plans three new stores


----------



## 8ball (Jun 16, 2018)

spring-peeper said:


> Canada Goose shares up after better-than-expects results, plans three new stores



Good news for vegans, then.

More places for them to protest outside.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 16, 2018)

8ball said:


> Good news for vegans, then.
> 
> More places for them to protest outside.


Yeh, because all anti fur protesters are vegan .


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

8ball said:


> Good news for vegans, then.
> 
> More places for them to protest outside.



I don't think you can eat these coats....


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

I've no problem boycotting Canada Goose ...they're way out of my price range. 
I think they're designed for bitterly cold Canadian winters....but have been hijacked by the fashionista who will wear them even in 12 degree heat.


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The other thing about this is that it’s coming from PETA, who are massive lying arseholes.


Yeah - its quite ridiculous that they have got their brand to such a state that when I see their name attached to something I instantly think that its full of lies and half truths.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2018)

Have you seen how expensive their coats are?!!!! My eldest was nagging me for one all winter.

_Boycott them?_  I couldn’t afford one if I wanted one. You lot must have been living down London too long.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2018)

The coats start from about £676


----------



## Humirax (Jun 16, 2018)

I really don't see the need for fur these days, I get along without it easily.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 16, 2018)

Who gives a fuck, seriously? What does it matter?

Yes, Canada Goose uses coyote fur for their collars. Who cares? 

It's kind of sad that coyotes are being shot and trapped, but this would happen anyway whether or not Canada Goose is using their fur for collars.

What's really killing off a lot of coyotes and countless animals is that human activity is wiping out their habitat, and the habitat of a lot of other animals, but that stuff isn't easy to boycott, because we're all part of it. 

So a more appropriate slogan would be "Boycott everything. The planet-fucking scumbags" - because the world's on fire and nobody cares.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

I think the coats were designed for bitter winters in Canada.
The company is up front about the fur on the hoods.

 "fur in Canada Goose products is never obtained from endangered species, but rather exclusively from certified trappers at NAFA fur auctions."


My point being... 
Anyone buying one of their coats with a fur hood knows exactly what they are getting....


----------



## Athos (Jun 16, 2018)

I fish and shoot (rabbits and wiodpigeons mainly) to eat, but fur trapping in this way seems especially cruel. And its product is completely unnecessary for UK conditions.  Of course, I recognise the bigger threat to wildlife caused by the destruction of habitat, by man.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> But raising and killing an animal just for the fur seems unacceptably bad.


Why is it worse than raising and killing them for food?


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

Anyone who has ever spent time outdoors in Canada..or Russia...or near the arctic circle knows that in winter fur is worn for warmth. In many instances the fur is the lining a heavy coat. Its not even visible...point being it's not a fashion statement. And yes..  it is warmer than manmade stuff.

People In the UK and Ireland never experience the extreme cold that they do in parts of Canada. So there is no need for fur...fur would be too warm. So anyone wearing real fur in the UK is doing so for fashion...not warmth.

Having said all that...I hold my hand up and say that I have a 60 yr old fur coat which belonged to my aunt. And I am not throwing it out. It kept me very warm this winter on top of my bed. And if there was a mini ice age and temperatures dropped to -20 I would wear it to stay warm.


Eta. I would never buy a fur jacket or coat though...


----------



## LDC (Jun 16, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> Who gives a fuck, seriously? What does it matter?
> 
> Yes, Canada Goose uses coyote fur for their collars. Who cares?
> 
> ...



I admire your nihilistic style. Rant that is, not fashion.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> I would never buy a fur jacket or coat though...


The only reasons I wouldn't buy it are that I don't particularly like the look of it and it's wearer is likely to be assaulted. Anyone who's happy to consume intensively farmed meat but has a problem with farmed fur is a hypocrite.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

Yossarian said:


> So a more appropriate slogan would be "Boycott everything. The planet-fucking scumbags" - because the world's on fire and nobody cares.



I have to say....you've got one hell of a point.
How many of us have smart phones? Made in factories where working conditions are very poor...filled with materials mined by poverty stricken people in areas that are being destroyed by mining. What is the real cost to the planet...to third world countries......to nature and the environment....of *everything* we have and use every single day?


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Why is it worse than raising and killing them for food?


Because we need to eat (yes, I know there's vegetarian/vegan options)


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The only reasons I wouldn't buy it are that I don't particularly like the look of it and it's wearer is likely to be assaulted. Anyone who's happy to consume intensively farmed meat but has a problem with farmed fur is a hypocrite.



I should have added that I would not buy *new* fur...
I did buy a jacket with a fur collar in a second hand shop about 18 years ago. Turned out the fur was rabbit fur. 

My parents grew up hunting and cooking rabbits. But I have only the cutesy image of a rabbit so I tend to not wear that collar.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because we need to eat (yes, I know there's vegetarian/vegan options)


Pah, we need to wear clothes too.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Pah, we need to wear clothes too.



That's debatable.....


Lol..


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Pah, we need to wear clothes too.


They don't have to be skins. There's lots of very viable alternatives that don't involve any cruelty. If we are to eat meat there's the option to use the skins for clothing, we don't need to raise animals purely for skins.


----------



## keybored (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> There's lots of very viable alternatives that don't involve any cruelty.


The same argument is made for meat.

I can see no difference. We need to eat and need clothes to keep warm. We can use animals for either, neither or both.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

keybored said:


> The same argument is made for meat.
> 
> I can see no difference. We need to eat and need clothes to keep warm. We can use animals for either, neither or both.


My original argument was, and remains, that raising animals for food, is relatively acceptable when compared to raising them solely for the pelt. I am not debating, here, the rights or wrongs of meat eating.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> My original argument was, and remains, that raising animals for food, is relatively acceptable when compared to raising them solely for the pelt.


Why?


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Why?


Because the pelt is a by-product of meat production. If we are going to eat meat, then I think we should use as much of the animal as possible.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because the pelt is a by-product of meat production. If we are going to eat meat, then I think we should use as much of the animal as possible.


But why is it more morally justifiable to farm animals for meat than it is for fur? 

“Because we eat them” doesn’t cut it. We don’t need to do either.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> But why is it more morally justifiable to farm animals for meat than it is for fur?
> 
> “Because we eat them” doesn’t cut it. We don’t need to do either.


As I have said, I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of eating meat. I'm simply saying that if we are going to raise animals for food it's less bad to use all the animal, including the pelt, than to raise an animal only for the pelt.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> As I have said, I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of eating meat. I'm simply saying that if we are going to raise animals for food it's less bad to use all the animal, including the pelt, than to raise an animal only for the pelt.


Yeah. But WHY?


----------



## bimble (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah. But WHY?


Can i have that as my new tagline? 
I overheard this dad with his toddler on the tube other day and the little boy was constantly going 'why', as they do at age 3 or whatever. The dad was great, conversation started with why do we have to have tickets and ended up including such things as why the government doesn't just pay for all the rolling stock and line maintenance in the first place.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah. But WHY?


Because, as I keep saying, if you are going to breed and eat an animal...etc


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because, as I keep saying, if you are going to breed and eat an animal...etc


 But WHY is it worse to breed an animal purely for its fur than it is to breed an animal for its meat?


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> But WHY is it worse to breed an animal purely for its fur than it is to breed an animal for its meat?


Because we need to eat. If that means, rightly or wrongly, raising animals to kill and eat then that is acceptable. Raising an animal for just the pelt and discarding the rest is, in my opinion, wrong. We don't need to dress in fur in this day and age, but we do need to eat. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong to eat meat, just that we do need to eat, but don't have to wear animal skins. If we are going to raise animals for food then let's use all the animal, don't just throw away some of it.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2018)

This entire exchange is making me laugh


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because we need to eat. If that means, rightly or wrongly, raising animals to kill and eat then that is acceptable. Raising an animal for just the pelt and discarding the rest is, in my opinion, wrong. We don't need to dress in fur in this day and age, but we do need to eat. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong to eat meat, just that we do need to eat, but don't have to wear animal skins. If we are going to raise animals for food then let's use all the animal, don't just throw away some of it.



Fuck me, Des 

We don’t need to eat MEAT. We choose to.

We need to wear clothes. Why is it worse to farm mink for their pelts than to farm chicken for nuggets?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck me, Des
> 
> We don’t need to eat MEAT. We choose to.
> 
> We need to wear clothes. Why is it worse to farm mink for their pelts than to farm chicken for nuggets?


it isn't they're both equally bad

next


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2018)

Farm chicken for nuggets


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2018)

Edie said:


> Farm chicken for nuggets


spymaster's never had chicken any other way


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck me, Des
> 
> We don’t need to eat MEAT. We choose to.
> 
> We need to wear clothes. Why is it worse to farm mink for their pelts than to farm chicken for nuggets?


I've not said we need to eat meat, just that some people do eat meat. We do need to eat to stay alive, some people choose to eat meat to help them stay alive. We don't need to wear fur to stay alive, there are lots of alternatives, including cotton, wool, and skins from animals bred for meat. There is no need to breed animals just for the pelts, and wasting the meat and other by products of raising the animal.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

I might try again later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I might try again later.


yeh, that's the spirit - if at first you don't succeed...


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Because we need to eat! We don't need to wear fur. So, I can accept producing food, because without it we die. We don't need to wear fur. I'm not saying eating meat is right or wrong, just that it is more acceptable to produce food than to produce a vanity product. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that, if we must breed and raise animals for slaughter it's better that we use the whole carcass.


----------



## Edie (Jun 16, 2018)

I’m not clear here dess, are you saying eating meat is right or wrong?


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

Edie said:


> I’m not clear here dess, are you saying eating meat is right or wrong?


Don't you start!


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Jun 16, 2018)

There are parts of the world where fur is not worn for vanity....where fur is worn  for warmth.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 16, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> There are parts of the world where fur is not worn for vanity....where fur is worn  for warmth.


Yes. The Inuits, for example, kill seals for the meat, fat, blood etc. They also use that animal fur. They don't kill it just for the fur. In the past hunters did kill just for the fur. This, in my opinion, is wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because we need to eat!


But we don't need to eat MEAT. Therefore, producing meat to eat is just as unnecessary as producing fur to wear. 

Do you agree with that?


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 16, 2018)

I only eat leather and fur. I refuse to eat meat, its immoral.


----------



## ginger_syn (Jun 16, 2018)

I thought i didn't need to eat meat gave it up, then someone walked past me carrying a plate of gammon with parsley sauce and I really really needed meat.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 17, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> But we don't need to eat MEAT. Therefore, producing meat to eat is just as unnecessary as producing fur to wear.
> 
> Do you agree with that?


I've not said we need to eat meat, just that people do eat meat.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 17, 2018)

.


Spymaster said:


> But we don't need to eat MEAT.


Don't then. We also don't need to trap and cage animals purely for their fur. It's as fucking simple as that. I'd rather go for a pint with a coyote. Not singling you out spy


----------



## A380 (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Pah, we need to wear clothes too.





Spymaster said:


> Why?



Have you seen most people naked. That’s why...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2018)

Calamity1971 said:


> .
> 
> Don't then. We also don't need to trap and cage animals purely for their fur.



This isn't the point though. Dess was suggesting that killing animals for their fur is morally worse than killing them for their meat. 

I just want to know why.


----------



## Athos (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> This isn't the point though. Dess was suggesting that killing animals for their fur is morally worse than killing them for their meat.
> 
> I just want to know why.



Because it's morally worse to fail to do the right thing when it's relatively easier.  For the vast majority of people in the UK, it takes no real sacrifice to forego fur, whereas it does in respect of meat.  Going vegetarian is a profound change, requiring significant effort and compromise; choosing to buy a coat without a fur hood is not.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> Because it's morally worse to fail to do the right thing when it's relatively easier.  For the vast majority of people in the UK, it takes no real sacrifice to forego fur, whereas it does in respect of meat.  Going vegetarian is a profound change, requiring significant effort and compromise; choosing to buy a coat without a fur hood is not.


Ta da! At last an answer of sorts. 

When you say "the right thing" do you mean it's wrong to eat meat?


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 18, 2018)

Athos said:


> Because it's morally worse to fail to do the right thing when it's relatively easier.  For the vast majority of people in the UK, it takes no real sacrifice to forego fur, whereas it does in respect of meat.  Going vegetarian is a profound change, requiring significant effort and compromise; choosing to buy a coat without a fur hood is not.


nonsense


----------



## Athos (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Ta da! At last an answer of sorts.
> 
> When you say "the right thing" do you mean it's wrong to eat meat?



I think it's hard to argue that causing pain and suffering to sentient beings and the attendant damage to the environment isn't less morally good than not doing so.  As a meat eater I accept that I do what I want, rather than the right thing.


----------



## Athos (Jun 18, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> nonsense


Oh... ok.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> This isn't the point though. Dess was suggesting that killing animals for their fur is morally worse than killing them for their meat.
> 
> I just want to know why.


Dess's argument as I see it, is that it's wrong to kill just for the fur. Whereas leather is a by product of meat so all the animal is used.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2018)

Calamity1971 said:


> Dess's argument as I see it, is that it's wrong to kill just for the fur.


Indeed. My question to him was; why, if he's happy to kill them for meat, is he unhappy about killing them for fur? Athos has chucked him a lifebelt though!

I'll try to puncture it a bit later.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I'll try to puncture it a bit later.


Oh you are awful


----------



## dessiato (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. My question to him was; why, if he's happy to kill them for meat, is he unhappy about killing them for fur? Athos has chucked him a lifebelt though!
> 
> I'll try to puncture it a bit later.


I didn't say I was happy to kill animals for meat or fur.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2018)

Are you not then?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Are you not then?



Kills them with sadness in his eyes.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 18, 2018)

I think if your going to kill animals you should use as much of them as possible raising a mink just for its fur in a tiny cage seems a bit cruel


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2018)

likesfish said:


> I think if your going to kill animals you should use as much of them as possible raising a mink just for its fur in a tiny cage seems a bit cruel


Is it more cruel than battery farming chickens for nuggets?


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 18, 2018)

likesfish said:


> I think if your going to kill animals you should use as much of them as possible raising a mink just for its fur in a tiny cage seems a bit cruel


how much of its meat do I need to eat before its not cruel?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> how much of its meat do I need to eat before its not cruel?



35%


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 18, 2018)

8ball said:


> 35%


Does the 100% include offal and anus?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 18, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> Does the 100% include offal and anus?



Yep.

And the bones.


----------



## A380 (Jun 19, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> Does the 100% include offal and anus?


I love cheap burgers me.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Is it crueler than battery farming chickens for nuggets?



I think its crueler because mink is a luxury product and most of the mink is wasted, unlike a chicken where the majority of the chicken goes into the food pipeline.
I could go vegan I just can't be arsed frankly the moral problem doesnt bother me .


----------



## Athos (Jun 19, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. My question to him was; why, if he's happy to kill them for meat, is he unhappy about killing them for fur? Athos has chucked him a lifebelt though!
> 
> I'll try to puncture it a bit later.



Bring it on!


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 19, 2018)

likesfish said:


> I think its crueler because mink is a luxury product and most of the mink is wasted, unlike a chicken where the majority of the chicken goes into the food pipeline.
> I could go vegan I just can't be arsed frankly the moral problem doesnt bother me .


So that comes back to the question earlier on the thread - If the mink meat was used to make sausages, would it be less cruel/as cruel as leather and beef?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 19, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> So that comes back to the question earlier on the thread - If the mink meat was used to make sausages, would it be less cruel/as cruel as leather and beef?



_cruelty_ is in how the animal lives and dies - so keeping an animal in a cage, or having a prolonged and ineffective method of killing is cruel whether you use the fur, 10% of the meat, 95% of the meat, or just the toenails - if an animal is kept in much more humane conditions living a 'good life' (however you might want to define that..), and, for example, killed by some very quick process of which the animal is unaware, or unware up until the last moment, then its not cruel - regardless of whether you use the fur, or meat, or toenails.

its certainly _unedifying_ to see an animal stripped of its skin and nothing done with the meat, but that by itself doesn't make the thing cruel - its how the thing lived and died, not what happened to it afterwards that determine cruelty.


----------



## TopCat (Jun 20, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Because the pelt is a by-product of meat production. If we are going to eat meat, then I think we should use as much of the animal as possible.


Meat is a byproduct of cows compared to the leather which is worth more


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 20, 2018)

TopCat said:


> Meat is a byproduct of cows compared to the leather which is worth more


exactly. 
they are both products of cows. if people stop eating beef, cows are going to still be farmed for leather.


----------

