Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

'H & S' ban cub scounts from Harrods

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Vodka is made from potato.
    It can be. However, it is more usually made from grain.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It can be, however producers in the Eastern European "vodka belt" are demanding that only Vodka made from potato is called Vodka. Vodka made from other ingredients should be called "vodka product" much like Champagne or Stilton cheese e.t.c.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm With Stupid wrote: »
    I've never got the distinction. Morally, at least. Both are animals being killed to make clothing. I suppose with leather, it's a bi-product of animals that have been killed for other products anyway, so it's not quite as bad. If you drink milk, then it would be weird to have an issue with buying leather, for example, whereas your fur animal might've been killed just for the fur. I'm not sure though, but it just seems weird that fur specifically is very emotive, when in principle it's the same as leather.
    Cattle used for leather are not always the cattle used for dairy farming. A great deal of it comes from Pakistan and neighbouring countries.

    Fur farms have been banned from the UK for low animal welfare and because of campaigning from people like CAFT (Coalition to Abilish the Fur Trade). Not to say that other farming methods of animals are OK. The fur industry is brutal, these fur coats are made of several dead animals, which will have been trapped in the wild, or kept in tiny cages, anally electrocuted or gassed and then often, skinned alive.

    But you are right in a way... That there's no moral distinction between fur and leather in that animals are killed for vanity. I guess you could extend that to fur and meat, if the means is to kill and the end is a commodity or pleasure (but then I don't see a moral difference between killing a human and killing an animal).

    It still makes me sick that Harrods still sells fur though, as the visibility of the fur trade is much higher than other industries and fur seems to be a social status issue, associated with wealth. I wouldn't mind so much if people had to wear fur and caught and killed it themselves, but the fact that it seems like such a "fuck you, I have lots of money" air about it makes it all the more repulsive.

    But then Harrods is hardly Primark is it... It fur were cheaper, maybe more people would wear it. Maybe a lot of people's disgust in the fur industry is rooted in class envy, or maybe if minks were less cute, fewer would care... I still think it's repulsive though. If reincarnation does exist, I wonder what these fur-lovers will come back as. :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm With Stupid wrote: »
    Yeah I remember that one. I think it was Shakhtar.

    It was indeed Shakhtar Donetsk, the Ukrainian champions. Then Fulham thumped them two days later. That's what I call tactics.
Sign In or Register to comment.