6 ms·

I dont know why you are being downvoted but yes minks are caged just so celebrity/rich people can show off their shiny fur based cloths. And later they blame mi

I dont know why you are being downvoted but yes minks are caged just so celebrity/rich people can show off their shiny fur based cloths. And later they blame minks is a threat lol. Human spread-ed them virus, tortured for whole life, killed them mercillesly and now minks are thread? Common just wear faux based clothing and problem solved.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
At least a fur coat lasts longer than the 10 minutes of pleasure that eating meat gives you.
- tharne 6y ago
  Meat provides a lot of nutrition.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    So does other food. A fur coat provides a lot of warmth. So does other clothing. Let's not go down the motte-and-bailey rabbit hole of suggesting our vices are simply utilitarian.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      At what cost? Fast fashion and cheap and disposable clothes is many times worse than an animal coat that can easily last 80 years. Reuse is an important part of sustainability.
      - ornornor 6y ago
        It’s not either/or. If we wanted, we could make durable cloth clothing. No need to farm and kill animals for that. Ask your grandparents how long did their clothing last when they were young compared to the junk we get now. It’s not like we don’t know how to weave durable textiles, we just choose not to.
        notreallytrue 6y ago
        > If we wanted Who's we though? I want, you want, everybody say they want them, but then fashion industry makes billions. And not for the lack of durable clothing My real leather shoes are 20 years old My sneaker are less than a year old and already not good enough to walk The problem is I can't wear leather shoes all the time and even if I buy expensive clothing,they are not durable enough to be on par with the ones my grandfather (he was a tailor) made 50-60 years ago. The offer is simply not there (except luxury goods, which are usually made with old school materials, that's why they cost so much) and the bulk of the demand is simply made of cheap and affordable sh*t. On the other hand my girlfriends owns a fur that belonged to here grand-grandmother, it's 60 years old, it still looks brand new. 1 human of the past = 1 fur for life 1 modern human = at least 2 or 3 jackets every season. You want durable stuff and not pollute the environment with dangerous chemicals? The old way it's still the best. > No need to farm and kill animals for that The pollution already kills a lot lot more of them than the fur industry. Simply owning a cat is already a threat to ecosystem that compared to it the number of minks killed for their fur is an insignificant number.
        ornornor 6y ago
        I guess you have to start somewhere though. Anyone could always be doing more but doing anything beats doing nothing at all. Even if pollution kills animals (and humans), it doesn’t mean it’s ok to just throw our arms in the air and say fuck it I’ll keep doing everything the same. There are things you can do to pollute less. There are things you can do so your cat doesn’t kill wildlife. I think it’s a matter of inertia. Look at oil for instance. For decades, oil companies have made money hand over fist even though people wanted something better it just wasn’t there and it didn’t make a dent in their profits. But now, solar is the cheapest energy we can buy apparently and fully electric car company is a viable business model. I think it’s a similar situation here. If I wanted to buy durable clothing made out of vegetal materials, I wouldn’t even know where to go. And paying obscene amounts of money for the more expensive stuff just guarantees that I’ll make a statement. The durability of the item will be marginally better than h&m etc but nowhere near the increase in price. And so then, why should anyone not buy the 5$ t-shirt you have to rebuy every year since the 200$ t-shirt doesn’t last 40 times as long? Same as for energy I believe, when we’ll get credible alternatives then disposable fashion companies won’t make as much money anymore. But the fast that they’re making money now doesn’t necessarily mean people give them their money because it’s what they want... more because it’s all we have.
    - tharne 6y ago
      meat isn't a vice. It's a traditional part of the diet of the majority of human civilizations. Stop creating vices just to be against them.
      - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        Indeed, not only the majority of human civilizations but no evidence of a single paleolithic pre-"civilized" group that didn't consume meat or seafood. Choosing a vegetarian diet is something we can do now, and is always an ideological or religious choice. It was not a choice for our ancestors, even if they often ate way less of it.
        ornornor 6y ago
        The way these groups did it and the way we do it aren’t even comparable. They didn’t keep animals in piss poor conditions where they can’t even turn around in their cages or are so deformed they can’t stand up (battery chickens are engineered that way so their breasts are more meaty for instance) Seafood eating didn’t involve dragging dozens of kilometers of net across the sea floor destroying everything in its passage to throw most of it away (dead) because we can’t eat it anyway/it sells too cheap.
        cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        I don't have an argument with you there but that is an entirely different topic from claiming meat eating itself as an aberation or vice. The problem is agricultural meat eating doesn't scale to industrial levels without abject cruelty. To be frank, industrialism itself requires abject cruelty towards humans, too. I feel worse about humans labouring in brutal factory conditions in China making trinkets than I do about chickens in cages.. FWIW I like chickens. We have two pet chickens who stopped laying a long time ago and just live a life of leisure hanging out under a couple very large mullberry trees. I like humans more.
      - ornornor 6y ago
        Considering how much environmental damage and how much suffering our modern day meat eating generates, it’s not that much of a leap to see it as a vice: it’s unnecessary and does a lot of collateral harm; mostly benefiting the individual who indulges in it at the expense of everyone and everything else. Isn’t that what a vice is?
  - ornornor 6y ago
    You don’t need meat to get nutrition. It was fine to eat meat when it meant hunting it and eating it once in a while. Not so much anymore when the environmental cost is so high and we eat meat every single day.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  At least it provides pleasure Don't get me wrong, I love vegetables, but meat it's not worse, abuse is. Like the abuse of avocadoes
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tasty_freeze 6y ago
My mother and father were born in 1930. Being from that era, my mother always wanted a mink coat because it would mean she had "made it", but it wasn't until they were about 60 and all the kids were grown and out of college that my dad bought one for her birthday. She wore it once and was so self-conscious that people would think her callous that it stayed in the closet until she died 20 years later.
- ornornor 6y ago
  > She wore it once and was so self-conscious that people would think her callous that it stayed in the closet Good.
sam_goody 6y ago
Well, that problem is solved, but there are new ones. Once no one needs minks for coats, they just wipe them out as nuisances, making them endangered or extinct. As it is, I believe the mink has been eradicated from many parts of the world. Now, we may not need mink. But at least making coats from them mean they will be around.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- foogazi 6y ago
  > But at least making coats from them mean they will be around. Being around means nothing to the individual minks being caged and slaughtered
  - jfk13 6y ago
    "Being around" as a farmed animal may bear little relation to being around as a free, wild creature. Given a few generations, we tend to turn the animals we farm into a parody of the original creature. How well would the average battery chicken survive if it were set free?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - rapnie 6y ago
      > How well would the average battery chicken survive if it were set free? This was tested in a Dutch TV program some years ago ("Keuringsdienst van waarde") where they got some newborn battery chickens and placed them on a regular farm, amongst healthy free-roaming chickens. They got the same food, but still 'exploded' in size until they couldn't walk. Their feathers look awful. On the whole they looked sick and miserable. Just like battery chickens, actually
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago

hombre_fatal 6y ago

At least a fur coat lasts longer than the 10 minutes of pleasure that eating meat gives you.

tharne 6y ago
Meat provides a lot of nutrition.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  So does other food. A fur coat provides a lot of warmth. So does other clothing. Let's not go down the motte-and-bailey rabbit hole of suggesting our vices are simply utilitarian.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    At what cost? Fast fashion and cheap and disposable clothes is many times worse than an animal coat that can easily last 80 years. Reuse is an important part of sustainability.
    - ornornor 6y ago
      It’s not either/or. If we wanted, we could make durable cloth clothing. No need to farm and kill animals for that. Ask your grandparents how long did their clothing last when they were young compared to the junk we get now. It’s not like we don’t know how to weave durable textiles, we just choose not to.
      - notreallytrue 6y ago
        > If we wanted Who's we though? I want, you want, everybody say they want them, but then fashion industry makes billions. And not for the lack of durable clothing My real leather shoes are 20 years old My sneaker are less than a year old and already not good enough to walk The problem is I can't wear leather shoes all the time and even if I buy expensive clothing,they are not durable enough to be on par with the ones my grandfather (he was a tailor) made 50-60 years ago. The offer is simply not there (except luxury goods, which are usually made with old school materials, that's why they cost so much) and the bulk of the demand is simply made of cheap and affordable sh*t. On the other hand my girlfriends owns a fur that belonged to here grand-grandmother, it's 60 years old, it still looks brand new. 1 human of the past = 1 fur for life 1 modern human = at least 2 or 3 jackets every season. You want durable stuff and not pollute the environment with dangerous chemicals? The old way it's still the best. > No need to farm and kill animals for that The pollution already kills a lot lot more of them than the fur industry. Simply owning a cat is already a threat to ecosystem that compared to it the number of minks killed for their fur is an insignificant number.
        ornornor 6y ago
        I guess you have to start somewhere though. Anyone could always be doing more but doing anything beats doing nothing at all. Even if pollution kills animals (and humans), it doesn’t mean it’s ok to just throw our arms in the air and say fuck it I’ll keep doing everything the same. There are things you can do to pollute less. There are things you can do so your cat doesn’t kill wildlife. I think it’s a matter of inertia. Look at oil for instance. For decades, oil companies have made money hand over fist even though people wanted something better it just wasn’t there and it didn’t make a dent in their profits. But now, solar is the cheapest energy we can buy apparently and fully electric car company is a viable business model. I think it’s a similar situation here. If I wanted to buy durable clothing made out of vegetal materials, I wouldn’t even know where to go. And paying obscene amounts of money for the more expensive stuff just guarantees that I’ll make a statement. The durability of the item will be marginally better than h&m etc but nowhere near the increase in price. And so then, why should anyone not buy the 5$ t-shirt you have to rebuy every year since the 200$ t-shirt doesn’t last 40 times as long? Same as for energy I believe, when we’ll get credible alternatives then disposable fashion companies won’t make as much money anymore. But the fast that they’re making money now doesn’t necessarily mean people give them their money because it’s what they want... more because it’s all we have.
  - tharne 6y ago
    meat isn't a vice. It's a traditional part of the diet of the majority of human civilizations. Stop creating vices just to be against them.
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      Indeed, not only the majority of human civilizations but no evidence of a single paleolithic pre-"civilized" group that didn't consume meat or seafood. Choosing a vegetarian diet is something we can do now, and is always an ideological or religious choice. It was not a choice for our ancestors, even if they often ate way less of it.
      - ornornor 6y ago
        The way these groups did it and the way we do it aren’t even comparable. They didn’t keep animals in piss poor conditions where they can’t even turn around in their cages or are so deformed they can’t stand up (battery chickens are engineered that way so their breasts are more meaty for instance) Seafood eating didn’t involve dragging dozens of kilometers of net across the sea floor destroying everything in its passage to throw most of it away (dead) because we can’t eat it anyway/it sells too cheap.
        cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        I don't have an argument with you there but that is an entirely different topic from claiming meat eating itself as an aberation or vice. The problem is agricultural meat eating doesn't scale to industrial levels without abject cruelty. To be frank, industrialism itself requires abject cruelty towards humans, too. I feel worse about humans labouring in brutal factory conditions in China making trinkets than I do about chickens in cages.. FWIW I like chickens. We have two pet chickens who stopped laying a long time ago and just live a life of leisure hanging out under a couple very large mullberry trees. I like humans more.
    - ornornor 6y ago
      Considering how much environmental damage and how much suffering our modern day meat eating generates, it’s not that much of a leap to see it as a vice: it’s unnecessary and does a lot of collateral harm; mostly benefiting the individual who indulges in it at the expense of everyone and everything else. Isn’t that what a vice is?
- ornornor 6y ago
  You don’t need meat to get nutrition. It was fine to eat meat when it meant hunting it and eating it once in a while. Not so much anymore when the environmental cost is so high and we eat meat every single day.
romanoderoma 6y ago
At least it provides pleasure Don't get me wrong, I love vegetables, but meat it's not worse, abuse is. Like the abuse of avocadoes
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

tasty_freeze 6y ago

My mother and father were born in 1930. Being from that era, my mother always wanted a mink coat because it would mean she had "made it", but it wasn't until they were about 60 and all the kids were grown and out of college that my dad bought one for her birthday. She wore it once and was so self-conscious that people would think her callous that it stayed in the closet until she died 20 years later.

ornornor 6y ago
> She wore it once and was so self-conscious that people would think her callous that it stayed in the closet Good.

sam_goody 6y ago

Well, that problem is solved, but there are new ones. Once no one needs minks for coats, they just wipe them out as nuisances, making them endangered or extinct. As it is, I believe the mink has been eradicated from many parts of the world. Now, we may not need mink. But at least making coats from them mean they will be around.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foogazi 6y ago
> But at least making coats from them mean they will be around. Being around means nothing to the individual minks being caged and slaughtered
- jfk13 6y ago
  "Being around" as a farmed animal may bear little relation to being around as a free, wild creature. Given a few generations, we tend to turn the animals we farm into a parody of the original creature. How well would the average battery chicken survive if it were set free?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - rapnie 6y ago
    > How well would the average battery chicken survive if it were set free? This was tested in a Dutch TV program some years ago ("Keuringsdienst van waarde") where they got some newborn battery chickens and placed them on a regular farm, amongst healthy free-roaming chickens. They got the same food, but still 'exploded' in size until they couldn't walk. Their feathers look awful. On the whole they looked sick and miserable. Just like battery chickens, actually
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago