3 ms·

> Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products. Meat and dairy products feed humans, which is a necessity (that, in our da

> Morally, raising mink for fur is equal to eating meat or consuming dairy products. Meat and dairy products feed humans, which is a necessity (that, in our day and age, may or may not be achieved by other means while still maintaining a healthy diet), while fur is a luxury product - by no means necessary. It isn't even a byproduct, the fur is the sole reasons the minks are killed. I can't even fathom how you can see these two things in the same light, morally.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
Food is a necessity, but red meat is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (calories, protein, etc) Clothing is a necessity, but fur is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (avoiding nudity when it would be considered immoral, staying warm in cold climates, etc) What's the difference? Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Maybe not relevant for mink vs cow farming, but in some situations I think killing animals for their fur is morally and environmentally superior to raising and killing animals for their meat. Louisiana nutria bounty program is a net positive for the native ecology, which I don't think could be said for most meat products.
- jeofken 6y ago
  > Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Yeah, it’s easy to be against it and feel good about yourself without making a sacrifice in your life. Wear fur and eat meat folks, but stop with logical inconsistencies!
jeofken 6y ago
Humans in our age can live without fur and without meat and dairy. They are both nice luxuries. Enjoy it, but let’s put logical inconsistencies to the side

Rebelgecko 6y ago

Food is a necessity, but red meat is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (calories, protein, etc) Clothing is a necessity, but fur is just one way to meet that necessity. There's a number of natural and synthetic substitutes that can accomplish the same goals (avoiding nudity when it would be considered immoral, staying warm in cold climates, etc) What's the difference? Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Maybe not relevant for mink vs cow farming, but in some situations I think killing animals for their fur is morally and environmentally superior to raising and killing animals for their meat. Louisiana nutria bounty program is a net positive for the native ecology, which I don't think could be said for most meat products.

jeofken 6y ago
> Is fur just worse because it serves as a status symbol in addition to the practical purposes? Yeah, it’s easy to be against it and feel good about yourself without making a sacrifice in your life. Wear fur and eat meat folks, but stop with logical inconsistencies!

jeofken 6y ago

Humans in our age can live without fur and without meat and dairy. They are both nice luxuries. Enjoy it, but let’s put logical inconsistencies to the side