I hate to admit it, but I kind of feel for JLo on this issue. I'm not a big on wearing real fur (it sure is warm and soft though..he-he) and I do think it's cruel, but its unnecessary to slander or single out any celebrity just so they can make a point. Natalie should of just said she's against people wearing real fur and just left it at that.

Let's face it. If you saw one of the animals that they make fur out of running around in your house, you'd probably stomp on it and throw it in the trash. Bottom line, being against fur is just one more meaningless issue that shallow jackasses can feel superior about. I guess that's because judging other people for wearing fur is fun, easy, and it makes you feel like the most tenderest caringest person in the world.

God I hate righteous celebrities.

At one point there was a horrible link on the right of this page explaining just whats wrong with the fur business these days.
Maybe.. just, maybe... You ought to see a professional for the lack of empathy you show, ok Rainman?
There are medications for the issues you have.

Do you think the stylist who told Jen that fur was in and that she would look great in it is still working for her? Doubt it.

I would never feel sorry for someone who earns over 300 million dollars a year for crappy, no talent, computer generated music and ugly clothes. The only controversary around her is fur. I can appreciate the fact that we are free to do what we want but there are a few moral issues that should be considered before wearing a dead animal. Since none of us have been skinned alive or electrocuted to death who would want to wear something that has been. There may be a reason why so many people are against it...IT IS WRONG!!!!! Wake up! It is an antiquated "fashion" piece. Get over it.

I completely agree with the title.

The solution to all of this is simple. For every animal caught, the fur trapper must plant a new one in its place.

There's nothin' finer than a good pair of dolphin-skin moccasins. Only problem is sometimes they squeak, so you have to grease 'em up with some California condor oil. Takes 15 condors to make one small bottle, but hell, you try being fashionable while your shoes are echolocatin' all over the place.

Who gives a rat's ass. Wow maybe she should wear a coat made of rat's asses. MMM...maybe then we would care!! I think she and Pam Anderson should mud wrestle over the issue. Now that's something to care about!

I've read all sorts of information about the fur business and the history behind and the process of making mink coats. Is it cruel? IMO..yes it is. However, it's still pretty dumb to single out Jennifer Lopez the way NL and even Pam Anderson has done. It accomplishes nothing and it just makes people like NL and Pam look like self righteous celebrities.

For that, I feel for Jennifer on this issue. She clearly she isn't the only one who owns collections of fur coats and isn't the "real" enemy behind the fur business. The only thing she is guilty of (in the eyes of the anti-fur people) is wearing the stuff. If people like NL, PA and all the other PETA folk want to attack somebody or something, then they need to attack someone better than Jennifer.

You all have to remember this is Jenny from the Block, okay. She's just a poor, Puerto Rican girl living out her fantasies from childhood; wearing the pelts of tortured dead animals, wearing conflict diamonds, marrying an extra from "Dawn of the Dead," and making directors of her music videos and movies minimize and shoot around her soon-to-be gigantic ass. It's a fairy tale come true . . .

She and her ass are living the fucking dream, people! Amnesty International be damned!

Poster 9, Ki's, comment was hilarious. Echolocatin'? LmAO!

i kinda feel bad for jlo as well. i mean, yes, she's useless, but who cares what she wears? lots of people wear fur. fur is and has always been fashionable and acceptable.

PETA sucks.

OK, well I'm with Felix on this one. Fur is a repulsive Medieval trade that needs to be outlawed...

But the fur isn't the only reason to hate J Lo! We so many OTHER reasons to hate her!

I was watching E! during L Jo's big rise, and on one program, they were discussing her cute celebrity quirks...

Her assistants aren't allowed to look her in the eye. They have to look at the floor when they speak to her.

She requires red rose petals to be sprinkled on the floor so she may walk on roses. At one event, the assistant apparently forgot the roses for the floor, and J Lo refused to come out. They had to speed-over some rose petals from a nearby florist.

She won't even speak to a non-celebrity unless the press is around. (And in that case, she pulls the "Jenny from the Block" out of her gigantic dinoass to appeal to her simpleton zombie followers.)

Let's not even point out that she's as emotionally developed as a home-schooled child. She falls desperately in love ('HE's the ONE!') with a new lover every few months, as though it's never happened before. I suspect she has ADRD - Attn Deficit Retardo Disorder.

Don't even get me started on her complete lack of talent. She not only lacks talent, but she is a giant hole of negative talent, into which all talent is sucked and disappears forever.

Have you ever seen her on an interview? She sounds like she hasn't graduated from 9th grade English class.

If I were superficial, I'd point out that a family of 16 could eat for a week off her ass tissue alone. OK, well I'm superficial and I'm on "The Superficial," so I've said it. No one likes a bubble ass. Well, no one with taste, anyway.

There are so many varied and fabulous reasons to hate J Lo. Fur is just the chocolate ganache over the molten chocolate cake for me.

PS We need that sterilizing machine to use on her. We need to nip that gene pool in the bud right now.

whatever, every non-celeb would lick her furry ass for just a chance to be in her fur-aholic world, so lets just drop it.

"Top of the food chain, baby."

Damn straight.

When you develop rational thought and opposable thumbs, then we'll talk, Chinchy.

The Heffer, is a brainless, tallentless blubber butt. She has no common sense. I say she deserves the ridicule.

You guys, don't support fur! It's such a pain-filled process. Not just for the animals, but for the people who work on the kill floor, electicuting, breaking necks of these animals. The animal suffers the most, of course, but the workers constantly get injured, work for very cheap.

The process of acquiring the materials for the coats -- it's not even right to call it a "material," that's someone's skin we're talking about -- is so ghastly, it just doesn't justify the final result.

There was an ad here for several weeks that showed dogs crammed into a tiny cage. That's just another example of what's so wrong with the fur business and trade. Dogs end up being used for fur! In China, where the majority of J.Lo's and others' fur comes from, dogs and cats are routently slaughtered for their fur. So next time you admire a mink or fox or chinchilla coat, just try to picture that slaughterhouse: The tired, underpaid, angry butchers and skinners; the terrified animals, whose necks are snapped or who who are anally electricuted (yes, guys, it's not one of those "humane" deaths, because the fur manufacturer wants to make sure that the fur never gets damaged.)

It's scary, scary stuff.

I wouldn't say I'm an animal activist, but I am definitely an animal lover. To see how these animals are killed is just disgusting. To imagine that people can actually do it is appalling. To see people where the product that violence created is disdainful. Jennifer Lopez makes me sick. Anyone who has the knowledge of how those animals are killed and chooses to wear them and help fund the atrocious acts is inhuman. I can't stand Jennifer Lopez anyway b/c of the lack of talent and the ego. This just makes me despise her that much more.

Two More Reasons I'll Never Feel Sorry for Jennifer Lopez:

A friend of mine was an extra on the set of "Jersey Girl." The instructions given to the extras regarding Ms. Lopez were: "Do not LOOK at Jennifer Lopez. Do not SPEAK to Jennifer Lopez. Try not to BREATHE too loud around Jennifer Lopez."

The other reason is completely due to all the hubbub over her ass. I watched "The Cell." I liked "The Cell." UNTIL... In a scene where Lopez's character is getting something out of a fridge, she bends over and then contorts and twists her ass up until it is perfectly framed. Whether it was her or the director's decision, I hated her with a fiery passion from that moment on.

Before you feel sorry for poor JLo, you might want to consider that in her new clothing line, Sweetface, she uses fur extensively. So, not only does she wear it (and a lot of it), she also designs and sells clothing using fur.
So, if you feel bad for JLo...then feel bad for Halston, Badgley Mischka, Donatella Versace, J. Crew, and a long list of others because they are also targeted for their use of fur.
In this day and age, real fur is purely for fashion. I guess some people have a promblem with killing innocent creatures just so JLo can look good and sell some clothes.

Fur is ugly...boooo

Yayyyy Felix, Alissa, and Holly J! No way will I ever feel sorry for poor Jenny From the Block for the flack she gets for wearing fur. If people could wake up out of their TV-induced hypnotic state, stop floating through life with blinders on, and be aware that there is SO MUCH needless suffering for vanity going on (and suffering in general), maybe this planet would be a better place to live.

Look, I dislike JLo and fur as much as the next gal, but yeesh! Unless y'all are strict vegans who would rather go barefoot than wear leather shoes, it's hypocritical to point fingers.

MikeSki - since when does being at the 'top of the food chain' give you a free pass to practice cruelty?

Let me know when you've developed rational thought and opposable thumbs and then we can talk.

I think comment #16 was a joke. Anyway, fact is that fur is only necessary in really, really cold climates. For more temperate areas, synthetic materials perform the function that fur used to - that is, keep us warm. So fur is really unnecessary for most people. End of story.

i like fur. and leather. and burgers.

waaaaaaaaah. i bought jlo's first cd. but now she sucks.

Jenny from the Block? Please, that "Jenny" is long gone and now it's a corrupted beaner who hates animals.

I know some of you are trying to get a rise out of some of us, but, I saw the video's on PETA's website (I must say that they need to have a warning about that) and it was absolutely horrible.

They were killing cats and dogs for trimmings, and contrary to what some people think, they don't always kill the animal before they start skinning it. I saw a ferret or something (I couldn't quite tell as it had no skin left) writhing around on the table after it had been skinned, and was left to bleed to death or die from shock.

Now, can anyone tell me that anything can justify wearing fur? I don't think so.

There are always extremes, but in all perspective, wearing fur is the same as wearing a leather jacket, having a snake skin boot, or even eating a burger. Yes, in China they kill dogs and cats. They also EAT dogs and cats. No one can really point angry fingers at them because that's just how their society works. We're all products of our culture and our need to conform, and China obviously doesn't LIKE dogs and cats, so they can do whatever the hell they want with them, as we do to our cows (despite the Hindu's reverence to them).

If someone wants to wear fur, I say go for it. Synthetic fiber is equally upsetting. Do you know how many muppets they have to kill in order to make a sweater? THINK OF THE MUPPETS.

Do you all notice that most of the members of PETA are the biggest sluts on earth. Maybe somebody should picket them. Carrying signs that read " PETA should be sued a million for every piece of tail each member of PETA has taken over their lifetimes" "Leave the tail alone PETA members" "Sluts love PETA!"

Like tori said, I like fur (especially the fuzz raccoon fur on my coat), leather, and while I admit I don't eat burgers, I eat chicken nuggest, fish, turkey, and even snails if I have enough liquor in my system to permit it. Sue me PETA.

*Oh yea, for those who didn't know, PETA has killed over 12,000 cats and dogs since 1998. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Oh Bella, Bella, Bella- you silly fool. Let me ask, where do you get your facts about PETA? From anti-PETA propaganda sites?... Who's funneling this bullshit down your throat?

This issue is far bigger than PETA. It is about humanity, respect for life, respect for the animal species and respect for yourself.

Yes, they *eat* cats and dogs in China. But we don't here, do we? Yet, we wear the coats of these animals, which are considered pets in our homes. It's all so crazy and twisted.

If you think fur is glamorous, you are living in a world of delusionment. Tell me what's so glamorous about crowded metal crates, where animals shit on themselves; screams of agony ; horrific animal corpses; blood-splattered workers; an animal full of terror and mind-shattering pain; filthy work areas and corrupt managers?

Mmmm, so glamorous! So luxurious! Face it, the illusion of fur has been crafted by money-hungry fur traders, so they could stuff money in their pockets. Don't fall for the lie. Don't be another sucker. The fur business is one of the most corrupt, if not THE most corrupt, in the world. And the craziest thing is, we don't even need fur. So, all it is, is an illusion of glamour- and at what cost! The oil industry is totally corrupt, but at least we rely on oil to get around in the world. There is some level of justification (for the record- I believe in hybrid cars.) But there is no justification for fur- absolutely none.

Oh Bella, Bella, Bella- you silly fool. Let me ask, where do you get your facts about PETA? From anti-PETA propaganda sites?... Who's funneling this bullshit down your throat?

This issue is far bigger than PETA. It is about humanity, respect for life, respect for the animal species and respect for yourself.

Yes, they *eat* cats and dogs in China. But we don't here, do we? Yet, we wear the coats of these animals, which are considered pets in our homes. It's all so crazy and twisted.

If you think fur is glamorous, you are living in a world of delusionment. Tell me what's so glamorous about crowded metal crates, where animals shit on themselves; screams of agony ; horrific animal corpses; blood-splattered workers; an animal full of terror and mind-shattering pain; filthy work areas and corrupt managers?

Mmmm, so glamorous! So luxurious! Face it, the illusion of fur has been crafted by money-hungry fur traders, so they could stuff money in their pockets. Don't fall for the lie. Don't be another sucker. The fur business is one of the most corrupt, if not THE most corrupt, in the world. And the craziest thing is, we don't even need fur. So, all it is, is an illusion of glamour- and at what cost! The oil industry is totally corrupt, but at least we rely on oil to get around in the world. There is some level of justification (for the record- I believe in hybrid cars.) But there is no justification for fur- absolutely none.

Oh Katie

"This issue is far bigger than PETA. It is about humanity, respect for life, respect for the animal species and respect for yourself."

Bullshit: PeTA IS killing 80% of its received animals, they ARE condoning killing animals, that are not taken. What does that tell us? That animal rights and Respect for animals goes only so far when it hits the reality.

Whats the problem with fur?

Someone said you don't wear dead animals. Oops I have leather shoes as everyone else.

Another one said that they are mistreated in China. So don't buy chinese fur. JLo has 100% certainly no chinese cat-fur but expensive Chinchilla etc. These are not skinned alive, but treated well, so their fur isn't lacklustre or broken. I get my meat from a butcher, who is buying quality meat, because these animals had a "good" life, what is the difference with fur?`

3) You are a vegan and eat no meat, drink no milk and want everyone else to do the same.

Fine, try to tell yourself you are not responsible for countless animal deaths for your Soy, wheat etc. but leave us alone.

But for everyone who is eating meat but tries to take the moral highground about wearing fur. THATS RIDICULOUS.

My husband and I breed and raise chinchillas as pets. If you have ever held a chinchilla, you would criticize anyone you knew that had a coat made out of their fur. JLo is not the only person who owns a fur coat, but by being a celebrity, she becomes the scapegoat for all fur wearers. She put herself out there, and makes no apoligies, so why should we feel sorry for her? Feel sorry for the animals! She is in a position to influence the decissions people make for fasion, she could try to be responsible and make better choices. She knows she is criticized for this, and doesn't care!

Lets be honest here, JLo:

1)was never the ethical type

2)is no spring chicken (been around the block)

3)and DOES look like a posh hooker

She therefore has nothing to lose by wearing fur coats. Question is, wat does Natalie have to gain by jumping the bandwagon and insulting JLo?

" If you have ever held a chinchilla, you would criticize anyone you knew that had a coat made out of their fur. "

Did you ever see a small piglet or calf. They are sooo cute and especially piglets should be more responsive or cute than every chinchilla with a brain, the size of a raisin. Do you eat meat? Than you are killing these sweet animals for a good taste. That's nature. I don't see the problems with chinchillas sorry. Or cats or dogs or whatever. Pigs are more intelligent. Killing them painfully is wrong, the movie from china was disgusting. But if done painless I have no problem with it.

" She put herself out there, and makes no apoligies, so why should we feel sorry for her?"

Why should she apologise for wearing fur? Millions of people wear fur. Almost everyone wears leather and eats meat. That's nothing bad.

"she could try to be responsible and make better choices. "

Why should that be better? Is a leather jacket better than a fur-coat?

"She knows she is criticized for this, and doesn't care!"

Yeah and she is correct in not caring. At least the annoying anti-fur people have piped down in the last couple of years. They were disgusting. Especially those eating meat. The others are just stupid.

Oh Jenni-fur what are you doing wearing that you silly woman?

If I kill her for her fur coat and sell it... That should be ok. I don't think so.

Kyros- sit down and shut up. You don't belong in this discussion. Come back when you have something sensible and rational to say. Otherwise, you just end up looking nuts. And we don't tolerate that around here.

But for the record, PETA doesn't kill 80% of the "animals it takes in." Get your facts straight, or get out.

Let see what else? Oh yeah- you're an idiot for bringing meat into this discussion. Do you eat animal products? Then shut the hell up. Your argument is typical anti-animal rhetoric. I've heard it all a million times before. And it's always from the same type of moron as yourself.

Just so you know, most kind humans who are against fur, also don't consume animal products of any kind. But if you happen to eat meat, but are against fur- that is not hypocricy in any sense!! Get it straight! The bottom line is, they are participating in ONE LESS evil.

And going back to just how evil fur is. Your whole argument about "jenny doesn't use fur from China." I just had to laugh when I saw that. I knew right then and there what a misinformed imbicile I was dealing with. Let me break the big news to you- fur manufacturers are not required to label the origins of their fur. Fur goes through many stages and LOCATIONS from pre-production. So a fur with a "made in italy" sticker actually started it's journey in China. And how's this for a statistic- about 85% of the world's fur comes from China. Your beloved J-Lo uses fur from China- make peace with that and stop living in denial.

But even if it's not made in China, fur is not produced in humane ways anywhere else in the world. It just so happens that China is the absolute worst. But do you think they coddle their chinchillas in Germany or France? Think again.

It's time for anyone pro-fur to seriously wake up and realize that behind their "pretty and soft" fur coats and collars is a legacy of unimaginable horror, suffering and corruption. These people are pawns in the fur trade game, and they are wearing a lie.

"You don't belong in this discussion. "

Now you have a problem, because I invited myself. :-)

"But for the record, PETA doesn't kill 80% of the "animals it takes in." Get your facts straight, or get out."

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Received: 15661
Killed : 12,473 (79,2 %)
Adopted : 2,901 (19,2 %)

Any questions, and by the way before you say anything ridiculous: Try to find a rebuttal at peta.com. The only thing you will find is something along the : "Sometimes death is the more compassionate option"- line. In other words they don't dispute the facts. So try it again. :-)

"Do you eat animal products?"

Of course, exactly like 95% of the population and 90% of the imbeciles who are anti-fur. Meat-eating anti-fur activists are even more stupid than the vegetarian ones.

" I've heard it all a million times before."

That doesn't make the arguments less valid. Perhaps you have heard it a million times, because they are good arguments?

"Just so you know, most kind humans who are against fur, also don't consume animal products of any kind."

Don't think so, there are a few hundred thousand vegans and millions of anti-fur protesters. The numbers just do not add up. ;-)

"The bottom line is, they are participating in ONE LESS evil."

So try to tell your meat-eating anti-fur compatriots, that they are evil and look where that leaves you.

"So a fur with a "made in italy" sticker actually started it's journey in China. "

Who the hell cares? These are details. Arguments against the fur-trade not against fur-use. If enough people think, that fur out of china is bad, than try to lobby for a law, that requires transparent Origin-labelling. This is easy, important and I would totally approve. Trying to get fur-use cancelled completely is stupid, won't get any results and has made this situation, because anti-fur protesters did harrass the fur-farms in your country so they had to buy chinese fur. (just one aspect of course)

"But even if it's not made in China, fur is not produced in humane ways anywhere else in the world. "

Again, 95% of the population eats meat. It is easily possible to raise cattle in a humane way, you might have to buy your meat at a good butcher and not at Walmart. Why this shouldn't be possible for fur, is beyond me. :-)

"These people are pawns in the fur trade game, and they are wearing a lie. "

Looooool the only people who are living a lie are vegans who think they are morally superior and don't harm animals, but eat whole truckloads of exotic fruit etc. which is the possibly worst way to eat, regarding animal lifes. Vegans are so stupid, they should try to talk to a farmer how he would grow something without manure or pesticides.

Kyros, I just want to say:
I was anti-fur and still eating meat for many years. Now I don't eat meat. I don't think it's hypocritical for meat-eaters to criticize fur-wearers. That's because we all know that, while the meat industry is still extremely bloody, corrupt, often unsanitary and keeps animals in horrible conditions (especially on factory farms) -- meat at least provides nutrition, and that is its only virtue.

When it comes to fur, there are no virtues. The animals are killed for one thing only: vanity. If I had a choice: kill for vanity or kill for food, of course I would choose food.

But the cool thing abour our world is we very rarely have to make that kind of choice. Having educated myself on the ugliness of BOTH meat production and animal skin produciton (which includes leather, of course), I realized that I don't have to choice EITHER. I don't have to eat meat, because there are so many alternatives. And of course, I don't ever have to wear fur or leather, because there are alternatives.

I'm glad that I at least took myself out of one ugly industry first, when I stopped wearing or in any way supporting fur. No one should support the fur business, whether you eat meat or not. But the great thing is, once you become anti-fur, vegetarianism will often follow.

But to keep arguing in defense of fur, you will only keep running in circles. Because there is no rational defense for fur. Instead of defending it, take the time to read about it, watch some undercover footage, read about a typical day on a kill floor in China. And then ask yourself, is all this worth a fancy coat or a jacket or ear muffs, or whatever? I think if you give it a chance, you will see just how unnecessary that whole business is.

I'm a huge animal lover & I love fashion. I will never support wearing real fur because its just disgusting. I really don't see why people can't just go with fake fur. It feels different but it looks the same.

For all of you who are in favor of wearing real fur, take the time to watch the videos showing how the animals are skinned and try to imagine the pain they are going through just so someone can use their skin as a fashion accessory. Its obvious the people don't own pets of their own, or else you can imagine if it was your own pet being treated that way.

"If I had a choice: kill for vanity or kill for food, of course I would choose food."

would be true for an inuit and for countries in Africa, where protein is very important. In the modern world, meat is mainly a taste thing, as is fur.

" I don't have to eat meat, because there are so many alternatives."

This is also true, as long as you do not think you save animals by eating soy, you can eat whatever you want. Since manure and pesticides is needed to get a good yield of your field you would be responsible for more landuse and therefore more animal deaths than me if you would have a vegan agriculture. Luckily something like that does not exist in big.

"But the great thing is, once you become anti-fur, vegetarianism will often follow."

great for whom? For the people selling overpriced tasteless stuff to gullible people who think they save animals by being vegan? Go to a good butcher and buy locally produced goods and you do more for the animals.

"But to keep arguing in defense of fur, you will only keep running in circles."

What circles? The only circles are run by people who argue against fur and try to argue why it is generally inhumane. I even could be won over to the argument, that fur-farms should be forbidden. But carefully supervised hunted furs would be of no problem whatsoever.

"watch some undercover footage, read about a typical day on a kill floor in China. "

Again, what's the point? It is disgusting, it should be banned as many other things and if it doesn't get better you should ban chinese fur and open fur farms in your own country where they can be supervised. Exactly the thing, the anti-fur-movement has sabotaged. You are responsible for the situation.

"I think if you give it a chance, you will see just how unnecessary that whole business is."

It is often not "neccessary". This is not true for Canadians or Norwegians where Fur is the best material to keep warm. It is also not true in Countrys where predators like foxes are hunted because of rabies or to control their numbers. So being generally against fur is stupid.

But even if it was not strictly neccessary, what is next? Does someone tell me, I can't eat meat, because it is not neccessary? Is it neccessary to ride? Are honey-bees neccessary? Medical Research? Guiding-Dogs for the blind? I do not wear fur, but I hate PeTA and their associates. Talking about the wellfare of animals, taking the moral highground, feeling superiour but when they are in a bind, then they kill animals, "because it is more compassionate". Or the ALF-member who managed a campaign against HLS. Now she has breast cancer and uses the very same medicament, which she was trying to fight. Fur is just the first line. You can do everything against inhumane fur-farming, but we are men, we use animals, so why not their fur?

"watch the videos showing how the animals are skinned "

or buy your fur by someone who can tell you, that they are not from China, that should be more easy.

it's just sad cause I remember reading a chinchilla saved her from a man eating bear this one time. I forget where I read it, maybe in a hunting magazine. The way people change...

guess what. animals get fucked around with whether or not humans are involved. they eat each other. they shit on themselves anyway. we're just part of the circle of like. were native americans evil because they had to wear leather? i don't think so. PETA people are psychotic. tell me how throwing red paint on people is justified by their "love of animals?" it's not. that's fucking human cruelty.

ps: my leather jacket is sexy. my fur coat is even sexier. sometimes i turn on "jenny from the block" and dance around in my fur coat with nothing underneath.

I agree with Felix, HollyJ, and the rest. Fur is murder, no way around it.

Kyros,
Did you really just ask if "guiding-Dogs for the blind" are necessary? I really do hope you were joking. Guiding dogs for the blind help handicapped people. That is a positive thing. I really hope you can distinguish between positive necessities and needless negatives.
Fur is, in the vast majority of cases, a needless negative.

It seems to me that you can't quite make up your own mind about fur. You do mention that fur farms should be banned, which I think is a great start towards becoming anti-fur.

Of course, as with anything in life, there can be exceptions. Yes, eskimos -- for example -- need fur, because they are self-sufficient hunters who live in sub-zero climates. That's the only exception I will make for fur wearing. But to say that we should just turn our backs and say, "oh well" to fur farms and other manufacturers killing and skinning wild animals so that they can sell their pelts to fur salons and department stores for big bucks -- that would be tragic. There's no excuse for that kind of vanity, there just is not.

What puts man at the top of the food chain is also his ability to think rationally, to feel empathy. We no longer just say, caveman-style, "me hungry, me want meat," but we now have the capacity to understand how eating meat, or wearing fur, hurts the animal and that there can be compassionate alternatives that will benefit us and the animal.

So, to me, just saying it's ok to use animals because we are men and we are almighty, is just an excuse. It's not our right, it's just an excuse for selfish behavior.

"I agree with Felix, HollyJ, and the rest. Fur is murder, no way around it."

As is eating meat, drinking milk, driving the bus (all the poor Insects on your windshield), eating bread (all the poor mice etc. that died on the field) etc. pp. life IS murder. Think about it;-)

"Guiding dogs for the blind help handicapped people. "

Of course, but if you didn't realize it, I made a climax going from fur (not neccessary) to meat (not strictly neccessary, but food) to Medical animal research (life safing) and guiding dogs (also not neccessary but helpful). There are million ways we use and compete with animals. Fur is just the first step for Idiots like PeTA who want to abolish all animal use (stupid and irrealistic). We live in a free country and we use animals. We have to. So I will always endorse people wearing fur, even if I would fight the cruel ways animals are held in China. Therefore we need local fur-farms. Something anti-fur people can't understand.

"There's no excuse for that kind of vanity, there just is not."

Again, this is your position and I acknowledge it. As long as you don't question my right to have a different opinion. I mean I wouldn't wear fur. But if someone wants to wear fur, there is nothing wrong with it. Again we could converge on fur-farms. They are not neccessary, but hunted fur in controlled environments. No problems there.

"hurts the animal and that there can be compassionate alternatives that will benefit us and the animal."

again, if you say compassionate I always have to think about PeTA saying killing animals may be the compassionate option. :-) The laughable point is, that these options do not help ONE animal. The cattle we raise and eat wouldn't exist in a vegan world. You would extinguish all species not save them. Also you are so delusioned. You HAVE to kill animals to live. They compete with us for food and place. Every bread you eat means the death of a little animal baby wo could have eaten it, but was either killed or chased away by the farmer. Compassionate people feed doves, so there are more doves and greater problems next year. Or they free minks in Britain who are either killed or threaten the environment. It is all so ridiculous. But every rational argument gets beaten by Lion King or Bambi.

" It's not our right, it's just an excuse for selfish behavior."

again, you have no alternative. You have to use or kill animals to live. Also these are animals. They feel pain, so you should give them a painless live, but they don't know about the future, so you can't take a future away from them.

You animal rights wackos are just that. Why don't you focus on all of the poor, not just in the world, but in this country too. Typical elitest attitude,"I'll be a champion of this cause, but to hell with anything else" You want to shove your agenda down everyone elses throats. What makes you the moral authority over what people should wear? I will continue to wear fur and I wish one of you would come up to me and try to object.

People on this planet have been using animal skins for thousands of years. Why change now? God gave man dominion over the animals...Until he says otherwise, I will continue to do what's been done long before you whining, self righteous idiots came along. And yes, PETA does kill animals. Do your own unbiased research on this quasi terrorist organization.

You animal rights wackos are just that. Why don't you focus on all of the poor, not just in the world, but in this country too.

Because helping actual people would mean not spending all day hugging ickle wickle fluffy animals that are so pwecious and adowable and know their mummies, yes they do!
I'd have more respect for animal rights campaigners if they didn't appear to hate humans, what with their violent tactics against people and all.

Kyros,

I'm starting to think you're a little, how shall we say?.."the lights are on, but no one's home" type of fella (or lady.)

Seriously, you are starting to contradict yourself and are going in circles. If you are here to argue, because you have nothing better to do, then you should get out of this discussion and stop wasting people's time. If you indeed are concerned about "insects being killed on windshields" then you should look into getting yourself checked into a good asylum. That was your arguments against cars?!?! Man, you are mental, there's no doubt about it. Cars pollute the atmosphere and feed into the corrupt oil industry- that's their main problem! Do not put insects in the same category as animals. If you do that you will brand yourself as totally insane and all your friends ( if you have any) will laugh at you.

Lastly, your argument against PETA- total BS. Just as I thought, you got your facts from a "reliable" source- a website constructed by misinformed time-wasters such as yourself. Bravo, dedective! You really got down to the "real truth" there.

And in departure, I am not reading your comments any more- I will be skipping them. So if you're about to formulate a rebuttle to me (something along the lines of " seeing eye dogs are not neccesssary" or "fur is not bad if it doesn't come from China" or "if you eat meat, you can't be against fur" or "i don't drive to save the insects")- you can stop right now.

And for the others claiming that animal-rights activists hate people- we've heard that before. It's typical of half-wits who generally hate themselves and have no causes they believe in. So, truthfully, I won't waste my time addressing that, except to say that-by the way- I volunteer with...drumroll... people!! Now, what can you say for yourself, you sad self-hating sacks? Get a life...

I tried posting comments twice and they were not allowed. I guess the site admin doesn''t like videos showing the live skinning of animals fur the fur J-Lo uses in her "fashion". (kyros, your attempt at rationalizing is funny, but holds no water).

And, since the board police will undoubtedly ban me for question his choice to not allow my posts, then I'll just close by saying that at the "top of the foodchain" are viruses and bacteria -- not humans , baby. Good luck.

"Seriously, you are starting to contradict yourself and are going in circles."

You have an affinity to circles right? Man I can't wait to hear that.

"Do not put insects in the same category as animals. "

What the hell? Insects are no animals? Loooool Your biology is even worse than your logic.

"Just as I thought, you got your facts from a "reliable" source- a website constructed by misinformed time-wasters such as yourself."

Looool again. You have to read slowly, you don't seem to understand what I say. Again, if the numbers on the site are not correct, you should have no problem finding a rebuttal by peta. Logical? Show me, then we talk again.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/072005/07022005/111781

" State documents in Virginia showed that PETA euthanized about 6,100 domestic animals from 2001 to 2003, according to the AP."

Now you should be really, REALLY quiet and you should tell me I was right and you were wrong. Would be appropriate.

Thanks.

kyros, hon, give it up. The ignorance you show about animals, animal welfare, and animasl rights groups rivals that of teh Bush adminstration's ignorance of environmental science.

The facts are that millions of animals -- cats and dogs, mostly -- are euthanized each year, because they have no homes.
This is horrible and tragic, but the process is done humanely -- and is nothing like the skinning alive of an animl hung by its ankles, or the electrocution of an animal so a vain twit can enjoy the "feel" of fur on her back.

There is an ongoing debate about "no-Kill" shelters. PETA happens to oppose them, as do many aniaml rights people, because the animals often end up caged for life.
I'm in the middle ground, because of soem reputable no-kill shelters, but I know of many well-intended, but inhumane no-kill shelters and see PETA, et al's, point.

This is NOT comparable to the fur trade.

Some Stats:
While there are no exact statistics, experts estimate that the number of animals euthanized in the U.S. each year could be in excess of twelve million, based on a number of facts:

For every human born, seven puppies and kittens are born.
One female cat and her unsterilized offspring can produce as many as 420,000 kittens in seven years.
In just six years, one female dog and her unsterilized offspring can produce as many as 67,000 puppies
http://www.warl.org/programs/spay_neuter.php
PETA's stance:
http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-Fall2005/nokill.asp
One day last June, a Pennsylvania man tried to turn his dog over to a “no-kill” shelter—one that chooses not to euthanize animals. He was told to come back two weeks later when the shelter might have room. The man grabbed his dog, got in his pick-up truck, and left. At the first intersection, he threw the dog out of the truck and ran over him, crushing the dog beneath the tires. Shelter workers, who wouldn’t help the dog before he died, collected his remains.

‘No-Kill’ or ‘No-Clue’?

“No-kill” animal shelters should really be called “leave-the-killing-to-someone-else” shelters. Even though the people who run these places are usually well meaning, they can never build enough cages and kennels to house the 6 to 8 million dogs and cats who need homes each year. When “no-kill” shelters turn animals away because their facilities are already bursting at the seams—what happens to these animals? If they aren’t abandoned or killed by their owners, they go to the shelters that never turn away an animal in need, shelters that have made the difficult choice to take in every single animal brought to them, including those who are diseased, badly injured, aggressive, elderly, or unsocialized after spending their lives at the end of a chain—animals who have little chance of being adopted. They take them all in, even if all they can offer the animals are a meal, kind words, a loving touch, and a painless release from an uncaring world.

OOo the big oil companies are evil and bush did it crowd. The only thing that is evil are stupid leftists like katie. free markets = good. Communist/socialism/fascism=bad. The oil companies have mediocre profit margins in the best times. Microsoft and other companies make a hell of a lot more than the oil companies ever thought of making and their profit margins are huge. Big government is the only evil i can see in society. Look at all the freedoms we have lost as the government gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

As a parting note i would advise the animal rights wackos to avoid eating JELLO because gelatin is made from cow intestines. Just thought you'd like to know that.

Funny, Once in a while I have a discussion with "animal rights" people and it is always the same. When I have refuted their "arguments", even if i prove them 100% to be wrong, they always tell me that I'm not informed. Funny isn't it.

Let's look at the facts: PeTA says: animals have rights and meat eating is comparable to Nazi crimes, then they kill 80% of all animals they take "care of". This is so ridiculous I'd have to laugh if it wasn't so sad. People actually do believe the bullshit. BTW I have no problem with catching and killing animals to help the wildlife. BUT I DON'T COMPARE LIVESTOCK WITH CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Because they are animals. You can't tell me on the one hand it is wrong to use animals because it is comparable with slavery and on the other hand kill animals you don't want to take care of. (And don't tell me they couldn't Peta has 30 Million a year)

This is so symptomatic of the animal rights people. Taking the moral highground and telling people what to do. And the moment they have problems with their very own ideology, they "forget" it and talk about what is sensible.

So you can reason all you want about the use of Kill-Shelters. I won't say anything against it. That they are completely incompatible with the whole PeTA ideology should be cristal clear.

Oh and by the way, when you and PeTA are so sensible regarding Kill-Shelters, why are they against fur-farming in the USA where no animal is skinned alive and everything can be controlled? This would be so much better for the animals than importing them from china with their history of animal cruelty.

"sexydarin": you were just on the Charlize Theron board to gay bash. And the Jessica/Nick board to defend Jessica Simpson's "virtue". You might want to go to the yahoo message boards -- there are more right wing religious freaks there.

kyros, but I'm sorry: I'd like to discuss the matter with you, but you make no cogent or logical arguments. It's all ad hominem attack and you simply seem to be chasing your own tail with that (let's hope noone wants to make a fur hat out of it).
Yu can go in circles about PETA or whatever organization, but that's not the point. There are many, many people who have no group affiliation who are clued in to humane treatment of animals and find the fur trade indefensible in the country and elsewhere.

Amorena- thank you! Finally an intelligent, knowledgeable statement. It is reaffirming to realize that there are in fact many people out there who truly do understand animal rights, and more importantly love animals. It helps overshadow people like this Krynos, who generally have no rational thought process behind their empty arguments.

Kyros- I've stopped reading your comments. In about T-minus 2 seconds everyone else will tune you out also.

why does everyone who has no valid arguments talk about circles or tailchasing? If that is all you want to say, then fine. Although it would seem, that I am the one who is attacked ad-homine not the other way round, since 50% of the postings by Katie or yourself are about me not knowing what I say, which is a convenient way for you to dodge a discussion. :-)

I LOVE PeTA because they are so symptomatic about animal lovers and their hypocrisy. But other groups are not better. If you look above I have talked a lot about why it is generally important not to forget, that we use and fight animals in many ways and have to use and fight them for our survival.

If that is acknowledged we can talk about ways to make fur in ways that are less painful for animals, like banning chinese furs etc. But people who want to ban fur generally have to be told where their train of thought has derailed and was replaced by a Disney-Bambi-movie.

LOL Katie, you wanted to tell me, that I was right regarding PeTA killing animals. I would LOVE to have a statement from you regarding that situation.

J-Lo is a mediocre talent who's making assloads of money and who likes to dehumanize her assistants. I don't feel sorry for her.
It's not surprising that she wouldn't care about the torture "fur bearing" animals go through... after all, it isn't convenient for her!her!her!
Ther are lots of celebs like that. J-Lo and her "it came from teh Crypt" husband are just two of the more obnoxious ones.

kyros, gotta say, man... you're all "black or white" thinking. I hope you aren't as unhappy and irrational as you seem in your posts.

Katie-- likewise 'thank you'! Your posts make a lot of sense and it's good to see there's someone out there both informed and compassionate. I don't blame you for tuning out the ignorance coming from kyrnos... it's pointless to try to get throught to someone that thick.
He/she/it said "we can talk about ways to make fur in ways that are less painful for animals"... un-frigging-beleivable the ignorance about the fur industry. They have to use 'painful' methods of killing to preserve the pelts -- it's the very nature of getting fur from animals. They won't use anethetic -- ever-- because it's too expensive. And this goes on the good ol' U.S. of A.
"less painful" yeah right -- kyros, you are a dolt.

Amorena you are a far left commie freak and we don't want you here either. Communism=slavery.

If you have a problem of animals living in poverty out in the wild then take it up with the creator. If you have a problem with animals "murdering" other animals "inhumanely" , take it up with the creator. I you have a problem with humans "murdering" animals, take it up with the creator. He created this game as is and killing is part of the game here on earth. Like it or not.

And since you like reading my other posts. Yes i equate homos and pedophiles and other freaks of nature as the bottom of the totem pole. You bash christians and conservatives. I bash freaks of nature.

High Guys,

why are fur enemies and vegans ... so stereotypical? It's always the same. At first they have their standard sentences about the poor animals. If that doesn't catch on, because the audience isn't 14 years old, the next phase is a feeble try to argue. When their arguments are refuted, they get personal (you are not informed... lol).
After that, they don't want to talk to you and then they start congratulating each other on their posts. (This part is especially sad)

It would be more fun, if you would at least try to substantiate your position. But this isn't easy you know that you are "correct" but the bad reality doesn't fit. Bad reality. :-)

PS: "They have to use 'painful' methods of killing to preserve the pelts"

??? You can stun fur animals in the same way you can stun livestock animals (I give you a tip, either electricity which is used most often, or CO2 or ... not painful at all and no marks). Why do you always try to make the reality so it fits your world? For a change you could try to live in the real world.

pssst kyros get a quarter and buy a clue. Meat eater here. But there is nothing to excuse putting fur bearing animals through what it takes to stay afloat in teh industry.

Used to own a fur farm in Missouri... 9 years along and the lies I told myself to justify it quit working.

Either you are completely out of touch or you are just arguing to havethe last word because ther is no humane way to get fur from an animal economically and if you think furriers are in it to be nice you're just plain stupid.
It's the least expensive, most expeditious way to sell the most pelts and that means a lousy life for the animals until they are butchered.

Put that pipe down and Get Real.

Vanja,

this may be correct or have been just the way in your farm. I don't know, I don't care. There is no excuse for animal cruelty and we all should for example stop buying our meat at cheap discounters and start buying it somewhere we know the animals have been treated well even if it is more expensive. I try to do that most of the time. This is no big problem, if the demand is there, the market will satisfy it.

So if at this moment the situation is as you say and fur farms are cruel, we have to change that. You can have stronger controls. You can restrict the import to sources that have been checked, etc. This is a worthy cause.

But anti-fur people are completely against every fur-farm, well-run or not. This will make the situation worse because the big, well-run fur-farms will be shut, because of protests and dodgy small ones will live on or the furs will be bought from China.

The same for meat, medical animal research etc. "Animal lovers" make the situation worse by not trying to better the situation of the animals but by trying to completely eradicate the Use of animals.

Do you understand that?

"sexydarin" ROTFLMAO!! :-D Oh my God that name sounds like a greasy lounge lizard trolling the Holiday lobby trying to pick up Tammy Fayes wannabes, vulnerable because their good Xtian husbands are in prison for molesting their daughters.
Isn't about time for Rush Limbaugh to be on the local yokel radio, "sexydarin"? LOL!

On topic:
I like some of J-Lo's music when it's played in a large room with lots of people and you can't here the tinny/nasal tone in her voice. I also like dthe concept of a movie with her and Jane Fonda doing battle. Coulda been funny but what a freaking flop.

I'll feel sorry for her the day they rip out her fingernails with plyers for being such a bad actress. Until then: no way.

kyros, I'll try to get this through, but I have little hope it will seep in:
my fur farm was above code standards and that was my simple ethic.
There is NO, I repeat NO humane way to kill animals for their pelts and still make any profit. In any case, killing an animal so some bitch who's too good for a good synthetic can feel superior because she can afford fur and thinks she "looks good" in it, is exceptionally ludicrous.

I don't know about "animal rights activists". I just know about plain common sense and kindness. Those concepts are clearly not something you comprehend, at this time.

Good night.

Forget the animals - save a fetus! Now, before I get flamed, remember it's about *choice*, right? Or are the only acceptable *choices* ones you vegan, animal "activists", pro-"choice", people deem correct?
I think this whole thing is ridiculous.

I don't think kyros is any more 'black and white' than all the animal lovers saying that it's their way or nothing.

Also, not everyone on the left is an animal rights activist, and vice versa. Personally I'm a lefty, and I'd rather not be mixed up with them.

Animal Rights Activists are hilarious.

I mean, in America (I'm American, and this is what I can actually dance with fact-wise).

1 in 5 people live in poverty.

45 Million are without health insurance.

The air is dirtier than ever.

And we're averaging 12 dead Americans and a billion spent a week in Iraq. Oooh.

And Tax cuts helped so much too.

Yet, because some "rich bitches" are still wearing fur, they're still more of a problem.

J-Lo's a deluded bitch. Gasp.

Animal Rights Activists are the idiots that are going to be running the world in thirty years.

And they're going to be just as psychotic.

Hi vanja,

sorry but you are talking rubbish.

"There is NO, I repeat NO humane way to kill animals for their pelts and still make any profit. "

The painless killing of animals is not in the least expensive. Because of the bird-flu, they have examined possibilities to kill thousands of birds completely painlessly and cheaply with Co2 or Electricity. Please tell me, why this shouldn't be possible with the much more expensive fur-animals. Until you can do THAT I will assume you haven't seen a fur-farm except on PeTA.org.

And again you can talk about the neccessity of fur all you want. but you should always correlate it with the question where you can stop. Are leather-shoes neccessary or not. Meat? Animal Research? Fur is an easy entry because rich people aren't loved and can be easily put in a bad light. This is much more difficult with the leather-shoe wearing single mom. :-)

this is getting old...

she just needs a line of human skin coats - then that would take care of it imo.

kyros I'll answer your post one more time, then that's it, because you're not rational on the subject and are amazingly uninformed and it's like arguing with a religious zealot.

1. Killing a chicken whose who'll body will be disposed of due to disease is functionally, vastly different than killing an animal whose pelt must show not marks at all, or it becomes basically worthless. If this needs to be elucidated for you, I suggest you try your local library or visit a fur farm.
2. Killing by electrocution is not, nor could it be, painless.
Electrocution is often used to kill furbearing animals since it is inexpensive and does not damage the pelt. However, electrocution is not an approved euthanasia method according to the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
3. Co2 is not a humane way to kill animals, either:
Humaneness of Killing Birds with Carbon Dioxide is Disputed by Science
The egg producers claim that, in addition to being cheap and efficient, CO2 is “a very humane way to handle the birds.” However, this claim conflicts with scientific evidence showing that CO2 causes extreme suffering.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qQNbNOsCkdQJ:www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-humaneness.html+killing+animals+by+co2&hl=en
4. Expenditures cannot and will not be made by furriers to house animals that need runs and some vegetation to remain sane and physically healthy.
3. At all levels, killing to eat/survive is different than killing for a fashion trend.
I used to rationalize that if there weren't a market for it, then I wouldn't be in business, and that as long as there was a market then I had a kind of stamp of approval for rasining animals for their fur. The rationalization when a friend's litter of puppies was stolen from his outbuilding and the theft was finally traced to a dog fighting ring -- the puppies had been sliced and then thrown live in the ring when they "needed" to get the dgs in a bloodthirsty mood for fighting.
There is a market for dog fighting, too, and the fans of it rationalize and defend it, but there is no defense for it, as there is no defense for wearing fur.

So I'm irrational, lool

"2. Killing by electrocution is not, nor could it be, painless."

Sigh, the animals get stunned by the electrocution. This is completely painless. It is the normal way of killing animals by stunning them with electricity then killing them. This is used Billions of times with almost every livestock-animal in existence. If your brain gets exposed to a high electric current it works like an epileptic attack and your brain will shut down. Which is absolutely instantaneous and therefore completely painless.

http://www.grandin.com/humane/elec.stun.html

"Electrical stunning methods used commercially on pigs and sheep are effective and induce instantaneous insensibility. "

So after it has become clear, that you have no clue whatsoever regarding the subject and are just talking bullshit. I won't read the rest of your statement.

It would be nice, if at least you could acknowledge, that I was correct and you were wrong. Even if Kate wasn't able to do that.

Thanks.

Oh and varnia, normally I have a courteous style of discussion. But you would strain the patience of a saint. At first you claim to have worked on a fur farm. (Looooool) Then you make a few ridiculous statements, that it is impossible to kill an fur-animal painlessly and cheaply without damaging its coat. (such absolute statements are almost ALWAYS bullshit).

And before you start a discussion about the essence of painlessness. Lets agree on the fact, that the standard killing method for killing pigs, poultry, sheep etc. pp. can also be used for fur-animals without damaging their coat. Therefore you can kill a fur-animal with the same ease you kill a chicken. This is painless enough for every livestock law on this world and certainly good enough for me.

;-) Next time google a bit. It helps.

I Think is not bad use fur or eat meat ok all the people need its but if the poor animal gonna die minimal try to not do it with cruelty they dont need that!!!

vanya_k,

I really appreciate your post. The information you presented is educated, informed and completely accurate. If even just one person reads it and takes something away from it, then your time has been well spent. You couldnt've had a better analogy for the uselessness of fur than dog fighting. Just like the demand for fur, there is demand for the horrific practice of dog fighting. But existence of demand doesn't justify creating the supply- just like you said, especially for something not neccessary for human's survival.

Killing animals for food is different than killing animals for fur. And although both are cruel, killing for fur is infinitely worse because it's sole purpose is vanity and fashion.

Arguing with people/things like Kyros has proven useless, because he/she/it represent a segment of the population that is defined by stubborness, lack of education and lack of compassion.

But maybe some day some part of this discussion will sink in and they will finally realize that keeping wild animals like foxes and chinchillas stuffed in crates, where all their natural instincts are suppressed- only to be horrendously and painfully killed later, so that someone could feel "glamorous"- is plain wrong. They will stop believing the lies being fed to them by the profit-hungry fur industry and start paying closer attention to the information shared by not-for-profit animal lovers and animal activists. Because the fur industry will tell you whatever you need to hear in order not to feel bad about buying that fur coat. But the truth is out there and soon more people will become aware of it.

guess what? this is pointless. PETA and other animal rights groups aren't going to change anything. hooray!

Guess what clueless, PETA, other "animal rights" groups, and people who aren't affiliated with any group but who simply are against the cruel treatment of animals -- and that includes humans -- have ALREADY changed things. hooray!

"“There slowly grew up in me an unshakable conviction that we have no right to inflict suffering and death on another living creature unless there is some unavoidable necessity for it, and that we ought all of us to feel what a horrible thing it is to cause suffering and death out of mere thoughtlessness. And this conviction has influenced me only more and more strongly with time. I have grown more and more certain that at the bottom of our heart we all think this, and that we fail to acknowledge it because we are afraid of being laughed at by other people as sentimentalists, though partly also because we allow our best feelings to get blunted. But I vowed that I would never let my feelings get blunted, and that I would never be afraid of the reproach of sentimentalism.”" - Dr. Albert Schweitzer (Nobel Peace Prize winner)

Fact:
When animals are electrocuted through their anus or genitals, which is typical on fur farms, the electricity does not go through and stun the brain; the animals must remain awake and feel the full excruciating force of a massive heart attack. According to the AVMA, "Use of a nose-to-tail or nose-to-foot method alone may kill the animal by inducing cardiac fibrillation, but the animal may be conscious for a period of time before death. Therefore, these techniques are not acceptable."

Neither Co2 nor electrocution are humans. That's why the American Veterinary Medical Association (AMVA) does nor approve of it.

You have been proven wrong about this kyros, and yet you fail to admit it gracefuly. It's amusing.

That's "humane" not "humans"

the american veterinary medical association (AMVA) is the animal equivalent of the AMA: medically trained experts who know the intricacies of animal physiology.

they are not a radical "animal rights group". they don't intervene, they objectively assess. Their refusal to "okay" electrocution is based in their knowledge of what cardiac arrest entails.

watch kyros act like he knows more than these experts. what a loser.

Can everyone just agree that cruelty cannot be avoided? Fur factories may or may not treat animals humanely, as the sweat factories in a random country employing small chidren to make synthetic clothing.

YOU CAN'T AVOID IT.

Wow.. um.. this J Lo thing has snowballed into "those with souls" vs "those without souls" ...

As a side note, getting "facts" off of sites like www.petakillsanimals.com may NOT be the most legitimate source for true statistics. That's like trying to get true statistical information on human right abuses from Hilter.com.

Obviously, a site called www.petakillsanimals.com is written by people that have an agenda and hate PETA (probably because they, themselves, are people who make furs or do other horrible things that PETA fights against. PETA is probably a threat to them on some level).

I'm sure that PETA ends up having to humanely anesthetize many of the animals they save from horrid conditions, but that's certainly better than the former owners of these animals making money from them.

If 100% of all the chinchillas taken from fur farms were destroyed painlessly by PETA and did NOT enter the market, it would be a positive act, even though the animals still died, because it causes a financial strain on that vile institution. In the long run, if PETA can cause enough of a problem for the fur companies to put them out of business, then the animals put down TODAY could be indirectly saving thousands of animals in the future.

Obviously, slanted sites like that have their own agenda and don't get into these kinds of details. I would bet that if you dug deep, you'd find interesting "sponsors" of that website...

Kinda like the "Partnership for a Drug Free America"... who has every major pharmaceuptical company in the free world as its sponsor. They'd rather you rely on THEIR drugs at premium prices than "self-medicate" with a doobie.

And let's just be real... What motivates a person who fights the ideology of treating living things with kindness?

Killing an animal painlessly, with dignity, for food or medicine is one issue. Fur and Chinese medicine are other issues entirely.

I find it interesting that there's a segment of people that support the brutality of it. I wonder what they do in their private lives, and if they have a conscience about other issues.

Wow.. um.. this J Lo thing has snowballed into "those with souls" vs "those without souls" ...

Yeah, way to contribute to that with the assumption that the only reason people could possibly dislike PETA and their terrorist tactics is because they hate animals and have no conscience.
Personally speaking, I like animals (though I'm allergic, so I'd rather they kept away from me) well enough, and I'm not opposed to kinder ways of killing them but it's the whole issue of denying choice.
So you don't want to wear fur? Then don't.
If someone else wants to?
Mind your own fucking business and let them; and if you can't, perhaps realise that your choice to be one of the 'souled' ones is as much about you stroking your own ego and demonising the rest of the world so you have a lovely image of yourself as defender of fluffy bunnies than of actually and reasonably stating fair guidelines for kinder, safer treatment of animals being farmed for food/medicine/clothes.
I'd have much more sympathy for the animal rights activists if they didn't constantly force every topic into emotive rants and 'You're either us or a meanie!'

"You have been proven wrong about this kyros, and yet you fail to admit it gracefuly. It's amusing."

??? Ok now it gets surreal. Every time you eat a sandwich, a burger, a steak or meat in one of its many gastronomical forms, the animal has been electrocuted(exception cattle, there a bolt-thrower is used most often)
And you have the audacity to tell us it is too cruel to kill fur-animals in the exact same way? Go play by yourself you are ridiculous. :-)

This is the problem with animal lovers they have no connection with reality and live in their own little world.

guys, get over it. kyros doesn't make much sense and he is obviously not getting the difference between how a food animal and a "fur animal" is killed and he thinks he knows more than the AMVA, so just let him have it, okay? damn!
leave him to his wierd little reality.

the flake obviously just has to have the last word, even when he's just making more of a fool of himself.

slinkhard, you wrote:
"So you don't want to wear fur? Then don't.
If someone else wants to?
Mind your own fucking business and let them"

On many other issues -- abortion, sexual orientation, marraige, religion -- I would wholeheartedly agree with that principle you express, because it is personal choice for onesself and, in some cases, another consenting adult.

But it is way different when you are talking about another born living being. Those animals did not give their consent to have their skin ripped off so some person can look trendy. To apply that relativity principle in the case of putting animals thruogh suffering for fur garments, you have to totally disconnect from the reality of that animal and the fact that it is every bit alive as you and I are.

pssst Drew: caring about animals and caring about humans is not mutually exclusive Duh.
In fact, it has been shown that people who are compassionate toward non-human animals are also compassionate toward, and more likely to have caring relationships with, fellow humans. Research also shows that people who have been cruel toward animals carry that in some form, to some degree, into treatment of humans.
I care about the war in Iraq, and humans treatment of animals, and health care for humans, etc. etc.

Lol Cheyenne you are cute. Let's try logic once more (I know it's hard). The Amva says (according to varnia) that Electrocution is no approved way of killing all animals.

Then I pointed out, that the government seems to have a different position, since Electrocution is the default (and in many countries only lawful way to kill chicken, sheep, pigs ....) Therefore you could tell me what the difference between killing a pig and killing a chinchilla is, so that it is no problem to eat meat but absolute cruel to wear fur. The approved way of killing the animals seems to be the same.

Well... ?

(I know I know, the bad reality. It is far easier to imagine the world how you like it to be ;-))

Oh and even the AMVA statement seems to be bullshit. Google is great.

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf

"Euthanasia of animals raised
for fur production"

"Carbon monoxide—For smaller species, CO
appears to be an adequate method for euthanasia."

"Carbon dioxide—Administration of CO2 is also a good euthanasia method for smaller species"

"Barbiturates—Barbiturate overdose is an acceptable procedure for euthanasia of many species of animals raised for fur."

"Electrocution—Electrocution has been used for killing foxes and mink.135 The electric current mustpass through the brain to induce loss of consciousness
before electricity is passed through the rest of the body. Electrical stunning should be followed by euthanasia, using some other technique. Cervical dislocation has been used in mink and other small animals and should
be done within 20 seconds of electrical stunning.213"

So to all animal lovers, Cheyenne and Kate and varnia, lets talk again about me being correct and you being wrong. :-)

Wow, we just shoot our cows. Who has time to get electricity involved. But then we do use the electric fence for the bulls, and barbed wire for all the others so we can't sell their hides for leather, they are marked up & scarred badly from the fences...
I like meat, and leather, and think baby cows are suuuper cute, but I am pretty sure a domestic cow wouldn't even exist in this state if we didn't take care of it and coddle it along. They are remarkably stupid and need humans to even survive so i will continue to take care of them, and they will continue to provide food, and we will keep skinning them for the leather. God forbid anyone release the chinchillas into the wild where Paris Hilton might get a hold of one. Her pet would probably much rather be electrocuted in the anus than have to belong to Paris, now theres the real abuse!

Can people honestly say if they had JLO's money, they wouldn't be buying extravagant clothes and furs? Please... Natalie Imbruglia needs to shut up.

I can't stand Jennifer Lopez or anything she stands for, what does she stand for? I mean, besides pushing her weight around and marrying men she can control. If there is a Heaven, if there is justice - Jennifer and "INSERT the name of her husband at that time" will NOT be able to reproduce (or adopt, or babysit, or look a child straight in the eye, causing him/her to turn into stone).

She is a sad, controlling excuse for a woman/human being. She is 'currently' married to a very sad excuse for a man/human being - so you see, they make a good couple. Mark Anthony cheated on his last wife more than once and has had a number of children out of wedlock. Yes, they are only human, ... they are human, right?

HEY! I just looked up Shallow in the dictionary and Jennifer's picture was front and center on the page. Just right there for all to enjoy. Check it out!

'But it is way different when you are talking about another born living being.'

Some people would say the same about abortion, and would take away the choice for that.
I don't wear fur, personally, it's expensive, I don't want a nutcase to ruin it; and I'd probably feel a bit bad wearing it. (Although I do wear leather and eat meat.) But if someone else wants to, hey. The price of living in a free society.

For the record, this much in-fighting is ridiculous!

Katie and Kyros:
Both of you have valid points and idiotic points:
Katie:"Do not put insects in the same category as animals. If you do that you will brand yourself as totally insane and all your friends ( if you have any) will laugh at you."
- How stupid do you want to look??? Instead of getting emotionally involved in this stupid aguement and making such irrational statements, stick to your "facts." You sound like a crazy bitch who wants to force feed your own beliefs and ideologies to those who couldn't care less. Back off.

Kyros:" State documents in Virginia showed that PETA euthanized about 6,100 domestic animals from 2001 to 2003, according to the AP."
- Using those stats makes you look like an idiot. Clearly euthanizing animals is different to skinning them while alive, agreed? Perhaps a little less barbaric?

I am only using 1 example from each of you because if I picked through everything you've both said, this would turn into some kind of pointless essay (that I couldn't be bothered writing tonight.)

My 2 cents: I think organisations like PETA are all bullshit profit obsessed companies who just want to make money, hiding behind their half assed campaigns against animal cruelty. I do not AT ALL condone animal cruelty - I am an animal lover and always have been.
Why more people can't form their own opinions on what they will or will not accept as humane is beyond me - they always need to use whatever company/organisation SEEMS to take the strongest, most extreme stance against whatever was the problem in the first place. I can't understand why so many people feel that they need to stick to an organisation that (lets face it) can't be perfect just because using a name (for instance, PETA) makes their opinions seem more valid.

I don't think that people should be labelled as idiots for eating meat and opposing animal cruelty - they are not the same thing.
You've got the issue of eating meat and how your meat comes to you (how the cows and pigs etc are killed, how it should be humane blah blah blah), and then you've got the issue of boiling kittens alive and throwing dogs out windows - not the same thing. Two seperate issues, people.
I also don't think that animal rights activists should all be labelled as wackos because they choose a vegan lifestyle and do not support eating animal products, etc - it is a lifestyle choice - last time I checked, obesity doesn't result in being called wacko, and yet it is a lifestyle choice. Don't give me any bullshit about genetic issues and shit, that is extremely rare - most people are fat because they sit on their asses all day and eat shitty food - where's the public outcry????

Having said ALL of that, in regard to Jennifer Lopez.

I think a large number of you have established that she's talentless. I can't recall a magazine article I've read where she was actually depicted as a nice person. She sounds like a bit of a dragon.
But, keeping all that in mind, I don't think that it is fair that so many people are jumping on the "Jennifer Lopez supports animal cruelty because she wears and uses fur in her collections."
Here's a big hint for everyone out there who has something to say against the fur trade:
DON'T BUY INTO IT.

Everyone should stop forcing their opinions on others - Peta activists and critics alike.
Jennifer Lopez is a moron, but I don't hear her running around demanding that everyone buy her freaking clothing, or her cds, or tickets to her movies.
If you have a personal problem with the fur trade and those who support it, DON'T BUY FUR.
If you have a problem with Jennifer Lopez - STOP BUYING INTO HER MERCHANDISE/CDS/MOVIES/CLOTHING LINE/PERFUME!

"Using those stats makes you look like an idiot. Clearly euthanizing animals is different to skinning them while alive, agreed? Perhaps a little less barbaric?"

Who cares, that was not the point. Skinning animals alive is disgusting and has to be stopped. But if animal rightist wouldn't fight fur-farming in the US, we could control it better, agreed? This is the difference between fighting animal use (Peta, Kate ..) and fighting animal cruelty, which is important.

Peta killing animals was a completely different matter. We talk about an organisation who compares meat-eating with the Holocaust. And then they kill 80% of all animals they take care of? There was no comparism with fur-farming.

The old both sides are wrong approach. Let's go to the middle is not applicable in this case. Because I'm already in the middle ground. And Kate & Co. are far out.:-)

Xiangzi,

It was a challenge getting through your post soon after you decided to call me a "bitch."
For the future, if you want people to pay attention to you, you should start by not using deragoratory words against them.

Next, you go on to say that you couldn't be bothered with writing an "essay," yet your entry was literally the longest on this whole discussion. Belittling your own post like that makes you look insecure and makes people not take your opinion seriously.

But whatever. I do disagree with you on many points. At the same time, I will say that it's great to hear you acknowledge that animal cruelty is wrong, which is at the heart of this discussion. Jennifer Lopez does indeed "enforce" her product on us- through incessant promotion and agressive marketing. (although recently less public) for many years she was in our faces CONSTANTLY- on our televisions, magazines, radio. She was a far more public image than PETA or any of its activists. And believe you me, she was selling something. She is her own product.

But why is she being singled out? Because her use of fur has been defiant, unapologetic and VERY PUBLIC. Every events she turned up at last fall and winter, she was rocking huge fur coats or fur trim. A celebrity like her- with a gazillion young fans- makes a strong impression on these little girls, who start thinking that "fur is cute; fur is hot; fur is pretty", etc. It is a dangerous direction. That's why she was singled out- she brought it on herself with her own irresponsibility. She became the most public and proud wearer of fur we had ever seen. To add fuel to the fire, she launched her fashion collection with damn near every piece having fur in it; and the grand finale featured an enormous wide-brimmed hat made entirely of fur. It feels to me that she played an instrumental role in bringing fur back in style.

So I hope that helps you understand why it's Jennifer Lopez and not, say, Betsy Furlover from Staten Island. Other than that, I agree with you that we should absolutely NOT BUY FUR, or support Jennifer Lopez in any way.

Sigh.
Where to start? I'll do one post for each of you.
Kyros: PETA killing 80% of the animals in their care. What do you expect them to do? These animals come to shelters because they are unwanted - people either bought them and then decided not to keep them/dump them, they were never anyone's pet because of pet owners allowing their animals to reproduce freely even though they do not want the responsibility of looking after puppies/kittens, or the animals had to be removed or were found as victims of abuse and animal cruelty.
Instead of blaming PETA for putting down unwanted animals who will otherwise spend their miserable lives in an animal shelter (and lets face it, as they get older, their chances of being chosen for adoption grow slimmer), they put them down humanely. I really can't find fault in that. If pet owners weren't so stupid and irresponsible, there wouldn't be such an overpopulation of dogs and cats in the first place.
It's a nice fantasy - all the poor little dumped puppies and kittens get to go to loving homes.
It's never going to happen, unless something is done to curb the excessive number of cats and dogs that are able to reproduce freely.
Why supply a demand that isn't there.

Comparing eating meat to the holocaust - these people have no idea, do they?
On one hand you have them doing something that they HAVE to do (ie putting down animals), and on the other, they just keep talking crap.

And as for you being the middle ground, you can have one half and I'll have the other:P
Pst, I think that you and I are already labelled as the crazies anyway - how can we not love PETA???!!!

Now for you, Katie.
I find your post interesting. No, really, I do. I love how you threaten that people won't pay attention to my posts because I used derogatory language, and yet, you did.
You are so hypocritical. Here's a selection of your posts in reply to Kyros: (in random order)
1."Arguing with people/things like Kyros has proven useless, because he/she/it represent a segment of the population that is defined by stubbornness, lack of education and lack of compassion."
- I love this because you're so completely arrogant. Perhaps you're confusing Kyros as stubborn, uneducated and not compassionate because his/her opinion doesn't coincide with yours? You seem to think that because you couldn't force feed Kyros your opinion/beliefs/ideologies, he/she is a lesser person because of it.
2."In about T-minus 2 seconds everyone else will tune you out also."
Again - says you? You seem to think that everyone is going to follow exactly what you say, and yet, I read so many comments directed towards Kyros later in the discussion, that, geee...no one must have paid much attention to your "recommendation."
3."It helps overshadow people like this Krynos, who generally have no rational thought process behind their empty argumen"
Overshadow? I didn't know this was a popularity contest? Quick, I'd better go and congratulate someone else who shares my opinion in the hope that I can gain support.
4."I'm starting to think you're a little, how shall we say?.."the lights are on, but no one's home" type of fella (or lady.)"
And you're accusing me of talking in a derogatory way...
5."Man, you are mental, there's no doubt about it."
So, as well as a self appointed academic, you're a psychologist too??? What the hell relevance does that have, anyway??? Who are you to judge!
6."Do not put insects in the same category as animals. If you do that you will brand yourself as totally insane and all your friends ( if you have any) will laugh at you."
Not even going to comment on that one. Speaks for itself.
7."Lastly, your argument against PETA- total BS."
And you couldn't even handle me calling you a female dog. Sounds like you have more of a mouth on you than I do.
8."It's typical of half-wits who generally hate themselves and have no causes they believe in. So, truthfully, I won't waste my time addressing that, except to say that-by the way- I volunteer with...drumroll... people!! Now, what can you say for yourself, you sad self-hating sacks? Get a life..."
A life like yours? No thanks, I like my meat.
There you go again, Miss Psychology. Seeing as it's coming from a self appointed academic, I'm surprised Kyros hasn't “offed” him/her self by now.

These next few are my personal favourites:
9."Kyros- sit down and shut up. You don't belong in this discussion. Come back when you have something sensible and rational to say. Otherwise, you just end up looking nuts. And we don't tolerate that around here."
Something rational....like.....maybe....Oh Katie, I am so sorry that my opinions differ from yours, I am so ashamed, I think that I will change my views to accommodate yours, so that we can run in fields of daisy’s, chasing pretty-ful butterflies. Sorry, that was a bit condescending, wasn't it.
10."Oh yeah- you're an idiot for bringing meat into this discussion. Do you eat animal products? Then shut the hell up. Your argument is typical anti-animal rhetoric. I've heard it all a million times before. And it's always from the same type of moron as yourself."
I think there's a bit more of that derogatory language in there. tsk tsk, Katie. Practise what you preach.
And last, but by no means least:
11."Oh Bella, Bella, Bella- you silly fool. Let me ask, where do you get your facts about PETA? From anti-PETA propaganda sites?... Who's funneling this bullshit down your throat?"
There's that dang word again.....
URRRGGH!
I'll admit, that took me a little while, but it was worth it.
Anyway, I decided you needed a little essay of your own.
Did I ever say that my post wasn't the longest on the board? Uhhh, so what if it was? Is this some kind of crazy jealous thing - are you mad because I wrote more than you???
I wasn't belittling my own post, you idiot. Thanks for the concern, but I'm not insecure. I don't need you to coddle me or tell me that no one's going to care about my post - I don't care if no one cares about my post, Katie. But you clearly did, or you wouldn't have devoted such a lengthy reply to it. But perhaps I could have said something different - Sorry for the length?? Maybe you should count how many words you've written collectively in this discussion and then complain about my essay comment?
At the same time, I will say that it's great to hear you acknowledge that animal cruelty is wrong, which is at the heart of this discussion.
- I am soooo glad you approve Katie, because, you know, I just don't know what I would have done with myself if you hadn't. I don't know, maybe I might have gone and jumped off a cliff, seeing as I am CLEARLY soooo insecure.
A celebrity like her- with a gazillion young fans- makes a strong impression on these little girls, who start thinking that "fur is cute; fur is hot; fur is pretty", etc.
Reality check: I'd like to remind you where fur comes from. That's right Katie, furry little critters who are extremely cute and cuddly and pretty when they are running around, all free and not skinned. You can't go around and try to tell people that fur isn't cute - people won't pay attention to that. I personally don't think it's attractive at all, but there's this big thing out there called marketing, and alot of people devote alot of their time to it to make SALES.
If you don't want kids to buy/like fur clothing - show them some of PETA's vids (when they're old enough). I'm pretty sure it would be an effective deterrent. You can't go walking around, saying that fur isn’t cute and cuddly - why do you think kids like teddy bears? This translates across to warm, cuddly fur coats - kids are kids, they don't have the mental maturity that we "adults" do. If you're so concerned that kids are going to get sucked into the fur trade, why don't you explain to them where fur comes from, why it's a bad thing and what alternatives there are so that kids can choose for themselves.
While I think it says alot about Jennifer Lopez's conscience, you can't hold her soley responsible for kiddies wanting a fur coat. Jennifer Lopez just wants to make money. I'm pretty sure that she probably likes fur, and that she didn't start wearing it or using it in her product line just to make people hate her. So she likes fur - she's an idiot. Ignore her. Don't buy her. Like I said in my last post, you don't like it, don't support it, it's not hard.
Anyway, I am soooo done for today. Love to see what you come up with next.

Hi XiangCi,

About killing care-animals you are of course right. It is a sensible option. As I have pointed out above. No questions there. Completely agreed. :-)

BUT not for an organisation like PeTA who compares meat eating to the Holocaust. They say animals have rights and apparently want to give them a right to live similar to humans. Then they go ahead and kill 80% of the animals they get? They always try to compare the treatment of animals with the treatment of humans and the next moment they euthanase animals because they would otherwise live in their care for too long? The ridiculous inconsistence should be apparent. :-)

And just to say that in Britain and Germany(know that) and Sweden(think so) animals in shelters ARE NOT killed if they are not kritically ill. So ordinary animal friends in these countries are less bloodthirsty than animal rightists like PeTA?

"how can we not love PETA???!!!"

I LOVE IT. I really love PeTA. They epitomise the Hypocrisy and contradiction of these animal rights people who want to tell others it is wrong to use animals.

"Because her use of fur has been defiant, unapologetic and VERY PUBLIC. "

LOL she isn't doing anything wrong and is doing it in public. How shocking. :-) It is great that we have PeTA who are giving our country new laws and enforce them for themselves. Lynch justice is great. What's next? Fruitarier who throw paint at people who eat bread and therefore killed a plant? Tree-Lovers who free parquet flooring? Or religious people attacking atheists. Or the other way round?

**but exactly, xiang.**
you have a mouth full of truths. (and i'm not saying this in that.. mutually masturbatory way k