CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I dont see why people make such a big deal about Fur but still wear Leather, Leather is still the skin of an animal which has been bred and killed to make your Shoes, Jacket or whatever
I agree with the issue although being a Guy there's not a lot of Fur I can wear I'd look like a cross between a ridiculous 70's Pimp and Kid Rock if I wore a Fur coat although I do own a Russian Fur Hat and my Mum has a few Fur Coats and they are awesomely soft and warm and I think she should be able to wear them without getting abuse for it
The one thing I would say though is that if Fur is used for clothing the farming of the animals should be ethical (i'm against factory farming) and killed Humanely
Mmm, I also wearing different kinds of fur to keep myself warm and etc. But now I'm going to write a discussion essay and see different points of view. But after analyzing all these thing there are some questions such as
why should we kill animals to take away what keeps them warm,just to keep ourselves warm?
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
"Killing animals in order to conquer the coldest regions of our planet" is not a justification for animal slaughter, just as "enslaving ethnic minorities in order to build tall buildings" is not a justification for slavery. If there is a moral difference between killing for fur and slavery (and I'm sure there is) it's not that fur acts as a means toward and ends.
"I suppose you'd say that if you and your family were at risk of dying from the cold."
My family could wear wool or silk (no animal needs to be killed in order to attain these resources).
"Strawman"
No doubt it's through my own short coming that I have no idea what you mean here.
"It does, the end in that you don't die, we kill animals for myriad things, why should fur be so much more immoral?"
It's not a matter of "kill or be killed" as shown by the example of wool. As a vegetarian, I'm opposed to killing animals for meat as well, though I concede that for a few meat is the only food which they can eat for protein. In this instance, I condone meat eating. As for vivisection - this is clearly for medical advancements which could not be achieved through any other means as efficiently.
So to conclude:
There are alternatives to killing for fur, which is why it is more immoral than killing through medical testing or (in some cases) for food.
My family could wear wool or silk (no animal needs to be killed in order to attain these resources).
Not really available to those in the coldest climes.
As a vegetarian, I'm opposed to killing animals for meat as well, though I concede that for a few meat is the only food which they can eat for protein.
"Not really available to those in the coldest climes"
I'll concede that if there are no alternatives (as you rightly pointed out, there might not be for some) then killing for fur is justified. However, I am strongly opposed to the systematic slaughter of animals by corporations for profit - and these corporations do not just operate in the coldest climes.
"Would you ban meat eating as well?"
I have already stated that for some eating meat is the only way in which they can remain healthy, and for this reason I wouldn't ban it. I would encourage those that are healthy to become vegetarians, but I would never implement a ban.
"Not for everyone."
Let me put it this way - if there is an alternative then people should take it. If there is not an alternative (and this is in an extremely small number of cases) then killing for fur is justified.
"Vegetarianism is generally flawed, if it is for the protection of animals and not just a lifestyle choice."
As a vegetarian I'm not under the impression that my refusal to eat meat is saving any animal. However, my decision not to eat meat absolves me of responsibility for the slaughter of animals for food. I am not a consumer - they are not being killed for me. My vegetarianism is therefore for my own peace of mind, rather than a political stance. Of course, if enough people were vegetarians then animals would be saved.
Of course, if enough people were vegetarians then animals would be saved.
I believe the opposite is true, firstly all of the currently alive agricultural animals would die, as nobody would care for them and the species would go extinct, given that through artificial selection they've become completely reliant on their human keepers.
Further to this, the huge amount of land that would have to be given over to the growth and maintenance of fruits and vegetables would destroy habitats the world over, not to mention the knock on effect of all the extra nitrogen, pesticides, herbicides etc, in the atmosphere would have on wild life and plant life.
firstly all of the currently alive agricultural animals would die, as nobody would care for them and the species would go extinct
Animals are farmed not just for their meat, but for their wool, milk, eggs etc... They would still be looked after as they would still be needed - just not slaughtered.
the huge amount of land that would have to be given over to the growth and maintenance of fruits and vegetables would destroy habitats the world over
Not if sustainaible farming methods such as "crop rotations" were used.
not to mention the knock on effect of all the extra nitrogen, pesticides, herbicides etc, in the atmosphere would have on wild life and plant life.
There are plenty of alternatives to pesticides and herbicides - if you're a bit of a hippie like me then you can simply introduce wildlife into the local ecosystem which preys on greenflies, slugs and the like - no chemicals needed. Genetically modified crops are another alternative:
Animals are farmed not just for their meat, but for their wool, milk, eggs etc... They would still be looked after as they would still be needed - just not slaughtered.
And what of the males, except the wool that is?
Not if sustainaible farming methods such as "crop rotations" were used.
Unfortunately such notions are not fitting with economic models and would not be utilised. In the first world, it would be probably mandatory, but would make the produce more expensive, so we'd start to rely more on imported vegetables, the carbon footprint associated with these currently is massive, the fact that they are far more perishable than meat products means that their carbon footprint will not be offset by the reduction in meat shipping and this holds for eggs and dairy, and if we're still keeping cows for milk so we wont be losing their methane output either.
Meanwhile in the third world massive swathes of land will be destroyed to make produce for the insatiable appetite of the first world, (who admittedly need to change their attitude to fruit and veg), to bolster flagging and emerging economies in these lands.
There are plenty of alternatives to pesticides and herbicides - if you're a bit of a hippie like me then you can simply introduce wildlife into the local ecosystem which preys on greenflies, slugs and the like - no chemicals needed.
I agree, but organic methods reduce yields and are unfortunately not something that would make economic sense.
Genetically modified crops are another alternative:
With this I definitely agree, but would be wary of the Monsanto effect.
As for your link, very good, you should love the video I've added, as a Biochemist I find this work fascinating.
I would say there are a couple of different levels to this question.
1) Using the fur from animals you would have killed anyway for some other purpose.
For example, using the leather from cows that were killed for food. This is just being thrifty.
2) Raising animals specifically for their fur.
This is mildly bad because you had to trap a wild animal first to create your breeding stock. However, once you have the breeding stock, these animals wouldn't be alive except for your care, so killing them isn't as bad as killing a wild animal.
The farther you are from the original wild animal that you trapped for your stock, and the more animals you have in stock, the better it is.
For example, cattle have been domesticated for thousands of years, and the number of domestic cattle probably far out number the number of their wild relatives, so it's safe to say that from an evolutionary standpoint, they've benefited from their relationship with man, and our slaughtering them is now just a natural part of their lives.
On the other hand, if you're only a couple of generations from the original wild animal, and you only have a few stock animals, you can't really say that you've benefited the species, that there are more members of the species because of their captivity than there would have been otherwise, so it's a lot less defensible.
3) Killing wild animals for their fur.
Think "clubbing baby seals".
In addition to these three levels, there is the reason for killing for the fur. Is it out of necessity to keep warm, as some have mentioned, or is it for fashion? If it's out of necessity, then I think even the killing of wild animals for their fur is justified, but if it's just for fashion, then I think only using the fur of animals you would have killed anyway is justified.
I think that it is a very controversial issue. If we agree with this point that we can kill animals for fur clothing, here is exist arguments against for it such as "animals shouldn't be killed so that we can look good" or "we can make clothes from cotton and wool (from shearing sheep),so why kill animals to get another material" or one more argument as "too many animals are being killed for almost no reason."
On the other hand we can not agree with it because it is very cruel but at the same time almost all of us wear it every day forgetting that it a fur of animals(
As has already been mentioned, animals don't need to be killed for clothing - shearing a sheep for wool, for instance, does not result in the sheep's untimely demise... It is not a choice of "kill animals or walk around naked" - the only reason businesses kill for fur is to make money out of people's vanity. If we didn't live in such a consumer culture that manipulated our insecurity we wouldn't be slaughtering animals by the thousands for fur or leather.
Killing animals is a natural process that goes on from ancient centuries. It is human nature to use the animal as a product for survival. For example, in biology there is the concept of the food chain which is leading by human.If we stop killing animals, the overall balance will be disturbed. The usage of animal"s fur and meat is a natural selection in animal world. Therefore vegeterians and "protectors of animals" are not defending but putting in danger whole world.