Unless you are a vegan fur is no different to nay part of an animal. I eat meat and drink milk, my wife has a fur coat.

This is the ultimate in Middle Class guilt non issue which is why fur sales are on the increase and have been for years

Fair point of the original poster, the fur industry is the opposite of peace. I think there is a good point to highlighting the hypocrisy of saying you want peace in the world, and yet not consider the lives of animals put through untold suffering, torture and death in the most horrific of ways; gassed, electrocuted, skinned alive.

Middle class guilt, what a load of rubbish, it's got nothing to do with class, people of all social backgrounds find the fur industry appalling, because someone from a working class background wears a fur trim doesn't make it any the more acceptable. That's almost like saying don't oppose the EDL because there are working class racists among them.

You are right in saying it’s not any different to the leather or meat industries, but it’s hardly an argument from a proud meat eater to say it’s a non issue, and to use such lazy class analysis really doesn’t wash.

get the same reply from 'Mike' if they were selling human skin.

I love how you refer to this demographic in a derogatory way. Im sure you have your prejudice reasons

>probably get the same reply from 'Mike' if they were selling human skin.

Strawman argument - they arn't selling human skin. Or human skulls. Or dead babies. Or overheated polar bears.

It's kind of tragic that the MOD is seriously considering replacing the queens guards bear skin hats with fake fur, because they have listened to the moral arguments against using fur. Who would have thought the MOD would have a higher morality in this instance than so-called 'peace' groups, tragic really.

I don't really care about the demographic issue, but it is a problem that peace groups clearly have no real understanding of issues of non-violence. The killing of animals for their skin is in no way a part of a peaceful coexistence, total hypocrites. How will there ever be peace in the world when man thinks he has the right to cause suffering to any life?


I suggest these 'peace' groups look to the words of Mahatma Gandhi before they start talking nonsense that peace and animal rights are not connected. I think they may as well be selling guns for peace with such an attitude.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

> I don't really care about the demographic issue
I do. Its lumping a group of people together based on their skin colour and age.
How do you expect world peace to exist with this kind of attitude?


> but it is a problem that peace groups clearly have no real understanding of issues of non-violence. The killing of animals for their skin is in no way a part of a peaceful coexistence, total hypocrites.

I hope you are having this conversation with Lions and all the other carnivores aswell. Otherwise it is pretty pointless just picking on man.


> How will there ever be peace in the world when man thinks he has the right to cause suffering to any life?

Idealist. How can you expect man (mammals) to not behave like man? You could start looking in prisons at all the murders and violent criminals and ascertain this question. Then, magically, ask them to stop. Persuade me that you proof that you have changed these people and i'll start listening.


> I suggest these 'peace' groups look to the words of Mahatma Gandhi before they start talking nonsense that peace and animal rights are not connected. I think they may as well be selling guns for peace with such an attitude.

Why don't you let these "peace" groups get on with what they want to do? They didn't ask for you to interfere. Maybe they look at you and think you are hopelessly ineffectual, after all - you havn't solved world peace have you.

suffering is suffering, causing or allowing unnecessary suffering is particularly despicable.

It could be WORSE.

In the example given, you are bothered because some people who are on the same side as you on one issue are neutrals on another. Notice I say neutrals, because you have no reason to suppose that collectively this group of "peace" people are PRO fur use. They just don't give two hoots about it and so aren't going to purge from their midst thos eamong them who wear fur. And certainly not those among them that eat meat, etc.

Maybe you are very young and inexperienced? Life SHOULD have taught you that sometimes the people who are your allies on one issue might not even be neutrals on some other issue but squarely on the other side. The problem is how do you cope when that happens.

Well let me try to explain something. You aren't going to get very far by trying to doubt the sincerity of the people. Yes of course, IF their reasons for being pro peace were the same as your reasons (concern for ALL living beings) they would be hypocrites. But you have NO good reason to suppose that is the case. It's not their responsibility to elimiante YOUR problem, the discomfort you feel trying to work with people when you do share SOME cause with them but not all causes. This is YOUR problem to decide how to cope with.

> I don't really care about the demographic issue
I do. Its lumping a group of people together based on their skin colour and age.
How do you expect world peace to exist with this kind of attitude?

My point which perhaps I didn’t articulate, is that I don’t care whether someone is white, middle aged and middle class, it’s not an issue as to whether they are a good or bad person. Of course people should get on regardless of skin colour and age, I wasn’t disputing that.


> but it is a problem that peace groups clearly have no real understanding of issues of non-violence. The killing of animals for their skin is in no way a part of a peaceful coexistence, total hypocrites.

I hope you are having this conversation with Lions and all the other carnivores aswell. Otherwise it is pretty pointless just picking on man.

No one is denying animals are cruel to one and other, I am sure people like Mike would tell us we are more highly evolved than animals any way, which somehow legitimises humans behaving like wild animals apparently.

> How will there ever be peace in the world when man thinks he has the right to cause suffering to any life?

Idealist. How can you expect man (mammals) to not behave like man? You could start looking in prisons at all the murders and violent criminals and ascertain this question. Then, magically, ask them to stop. Persuade me that you proof that you have changed these people and i'll start listening.

The original point was that the fur industry is an act of violence, and support for the fur industry is a contradiction at an event promoting peace. I wish there was some magic solution to human violence, nobody said there was for a minute. I actually find your attitude quite confrontational while we are at it, so how you hope to live in peaceful coexistence with all others is maybe a point? Or maybe you don’t want to and you are saying that is the way of the world, just accept it?
As for the idealist, well maybe, but we have the right to wish for a better world, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. I don’t really understand why people have to get annoyed at others for holding beliefs which do not cause harm to other living creatures, quite the opposite in fact, no matter how idealist or naive. I didn’t comment on this thread to suggest I have all the answers to world peace, merely to comment the point that the fur industry is the opposite of peace and I stand by that and think the original poster has every right to highlight this.

> I suggest these 'peace' groups look to the words of Mahatma Gandhi before they start talking nonsense that peace and animal rights are not connected. I think they may as well be selling guns for peace with such an attitude.

Why don't you let these "peace" groups get on with what they want to do? They didn't ask for you to interfere. Maybe they look at you and think you are hopelessly ineffectual, after all - you haven't solved world peace have you.

Well maybe they do, I wouldn’t know I haven’t met them and they haven’t met me, so quite how I am interfering in anything, when all I am in fact doing is posting a few comments on a message board is beyond me. As for being ineffectual, well I am not waging a campaign against these ‘peace’ groups, I am simply stating it is a very sad way of going about furthering the cause of peace by selling the skin of an animal that has been through a violent hell. Human beings have different degrees of choice as to whether they directly or indirectly cause suffering to others. I think it would be fair enough to point out a problem with a stall at a peace event selling sweat shop produced goods, or goods from a company linked to the arms trade, as far as myself and the original poster are concerned this is the same level of hypocrisy. I would just ask have groups like Stop The war Coalition, comprised of thousands solved world peace either? Have politicians? Has anybody? No I haven’t solved world peace, you are right, but people can make small steps towards world peace by choosing not to be a part of practices which inflict suffering on others.

What baffles me is the single issue stance of many activists these days, and their defensiveness. When I first got involved in activism, peace and green events had only flesh-free food, and animal rights activists were very anti-capitalist. All these causes were seen as linked and inter-dependent. Nowadays, it seems perfectly normal for green activists to be neutral about war, animal rights activists to be racist, anarchists to sneer at "middle class greens" and peace activists to eat flesh. I find this very backwards and depressing.

Humans are omnivores and we have a lot of choice in what we eat, wear and use. The comparison with lions makes no sense at all, because they have no choice.

By allowing a fur stall at their event, these "peace" campaigners have accepted the slavery and violent killing of animals as a lifestyle choice that can be promoted at their event. It is fair enough that people who oppose inflicting violence and suffering on others should point this out and criticise it. This argument is completely logical.

> I find this very backwards and depressing.
That may be. But it would be a very boring world if we were all the same.

> Humans are omnivores and we have a lot of choice in what we eat, wear and use. The comparison with lions makes no sense at all, because they have no choice.

Actually, our evolution (over millions of years) points to us being hunter/gathers. That means we eat meat... animals/shellfish etc etc. We only become farmers about 10,000 years ago which means our evolution hasnt adapted to it. For instance, Wheat is a toxin to the human body (look it up). The protein in it binds to the opiate receptors in your brain. We know that people who eat wheat eat on average 400 more calories than people who dont per day. The other great problem is all the gut issues such as irritiable bowl syndrome etc.

Our evolution defines what we are able to eat. Not morals, or what we find acceptable. It is what our bodies need that is important for our health.

>>By allowing a fur stall at their event, these "peace" campaigners have accepted the slavery and violent killing of animals as a lifestyle choice that can be promoted at their event. It is fair enough that people who oppose inflicting violence and suffering on others should point this out and criticise it. This argument is completely logical.

No - it is emotional. Not logical. World peace is things like stopping people in Africa shooting each other with AK47s. It is stopping nuclear bombs, cluster bombs, suicide bombers (read what happened in Iraq today). None of this has ANYTHING to do with wearing fur. AK47s and suicide bombs have nothing to do with wearing fur. Stopping wearing fur will not stop a suicide bomber blowing up a car

"Baffled", I can well understand why you would feel more comfortable if the people who were on the same side of you on one issue where on the same side as you on all your other issues and the people who were on the other dise from you on one of your issues were on the opposite side from you on all your other issues.

But it just ain't so and never was and all I can say about your claimed experience that it was might be self delusion.

You should have NO expectation that your comrades in the capitalism vs socialism fight will be on the same side with regard to "peace" (some believe in violent revolution) or "animal rights" or anything else.

You can intellectualise all you like. But lets get one thing straight – there will be no 'peace' at your fair if you let this stall go ahead.