What animals don't have fur?Why is West Hollywood considering a fur ban?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DoggerDan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proposed fur ban in West Hollywood, exploring the implications for animal rights, fashion, and local businesses. Participants express various opinions on the necessity and ethics of wearing fur versus faux fur, as well as the potential economic impact of the ban.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the significance of the fur ban as a stand for animal rights, while others question its necessity given the prevalence of faux fur.
  • Concerns are raised about the economic impact on local businesses that rely on fur sales, with estimates suggesting that fur accounts for a substantial portion of their revenue.
  • Several participants argue that faux furs are now so realistic that they could replace real fur without loss of aesthetic appeal.
  • There are discussions about the ethical implications of using animal pelts for fashion, contrasting it with the use of leather from animals that are also consumed for meat.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the motivations behind fur wearing, suggesting it is more about status than practicality.
  • Humor and sarcasm are used by some participants to critique the fur debate and the actions of animal rights activists.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the ethical implications of wearing fur or the necessity of the proposed ban. There are competing views on the economic impact and the practicality of faux versus real fur.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on assumptions about consumer behavior and the economic viability of businesses selling fur. The discussion also reflects differing views on the ethics of animal use in fashion and the role of status in consumer choices.

What do you think?

  • Fur has been used as a natural clothing many times longer than civilization is old.

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Let the Hollywooders work things out themselves.

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • I do not have an opinion.

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Selling fur is evil and should be banned outright.

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Total voters
    13
DoggerDan
Headline: West Hollywood nears approval of first fur ban in U.S.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/west-hollywood-nears-approval-first-fur-ban-u-141938767.html

Quote 1: "WEST HOLLYWOOD, California (Reuters) - Taking a stand for animal rights over fashion, the tiny, tony municipality of West Hollywood is poised to become the first U.S. city to ban the sale of fur clothing within its boundaries."

Hmmm. How thoughtful of them.

Quote 2: "Opponents say nearly half of the 200 apparel stores in town sell at least some fur items, and that merchandise made with animal pelts is estimated to account for up to $2 million in revenues for those businesses this year."

Oops! Looks like there's more to this story than Bambi's brown eyes! What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Who would really miss the fur anyway. Do you know how hot it gets in west Hollywierd?
I'm guessing the fur is 100% profit because I have seen animals take off their fur and leave it on the bench it's so hot.
 
I'm certainly no activist. I consume all of gods creatures equally in fact. But what can fur do that faux fur cannot? Nobody really wears "fur" anymore right? I mean, it's not 1950. It's just used as interior material I thought.
 
I wear fur just to piss people in hollywood off.
 
Pengwuino said:
I wear fur just to piss people in hollywood off.

late_bloomer_penguin.jpg

Can you spot Pengwuino?
 
Typical hollywood "I'm better than you" hipster-ism.
 
These days its almost a non-issue. Fake furs are so realistic you'd need an expert to tell the difference and I'm sure all those fur selling stores will get by.
 
quarkcharmer said:
late_bloomer_penguin.jpg

can you spot pengwuino?
lol!
 
The problem with fashion fur is that we don't eat the meat of the animals killed for luxury furs. mink, chinchilla, sable, etc... It's not like leather from a cow, or sheepskin, where the animal is eaten and virtually every part of the animal is used.
 
  • #10
I can't help wondering how long it will be before those morons in PETA start spray-painting cats to protest their wearing of fur coats. By the bye, I don't approve of fur harvesting just for the sake of fashion. As Evo said, though, if the thing is going to die anyhow for other purposes there is no reason to waste the outer bits.
 
  • #11
Danger said:
I can't help wondering how long it will be before those morons in PETA start spray-painting cats to protest their wearing of fur coats.

How clever, did you think that up all by yourself?
 
  • #12
SoggyBottoms said:
How clever, did you think that up all by yourself?

No; I formed a committee to work on it. Believe me, it isn't easy to get 15 people to reach a consensus within 3 seconds. I'm proud of them.
 
  • #13
wuliheron said:
These days its almost a non-issue. Fake furs are so realistic you'd need an expert to tell the difference and I'm sure all those fur selling stores will get by.

How will they get by when their net income relies on fur sales which might go bye-bye?

Danger said:
I can't help wondering how long it will be before those morons in PETA start spray-painting cats to protest their wearing of fur coats.

Nice one. Can't wait to see the first news story where "Paint-spraying PETA members fatally attacked by angry chinchillas."

Evo said:
The problem with fashion fur is that we don't eat the meat of the animals killed for luxury furs. mink, chinchilla, sable, etc... It's not like leather from a cow, or sheepskin, where the animal is eaten and virtually every part of the animal is used.

Good point. When will we see the first genetically modified chinchillacow?
 
  • #14
DoggerDan said:
How will they get by when their net income relies on fur sales which might go bye-bye?

Who cares?
 
  • #15
I wouldn't say wearing fur is evil, but it is unnecessary. Synthetic materials can keep a person warmer than natural materials (including fur).

The value of wearing real fur is status - much like wearing this fine, 14K Gold Invisible Blue Diamond Grillz for only $1,983 increases one's status while providing absolutely no functionality.

On the other hand, wearing exotic real fur grillz would be pretty cool! And even use less fur than a fur coat! What a great compromise!
 
  • #16
DoggerDan said:
How will they get by when their net income relies on fur sales which might go bye-bye?


Who says their net income is dependent on real fur sales? All the article says is they sell 2 million bucks worth a year. For all I know they sell another 100 million in fake furs and would make up the difference selling fake furs if they didn't stock real furs. This is Hollywood where some people drop a few hundred thousand dollars on a single piece of jewelry and a couple of thousand on lunch.
 
  • #17
SoggyBottoms said:
Who cares?

They do. Their spouses and children do, as well. Are you saying, "so long as the innocent animal is slaughtered the kids can die of starvation?" Is that your position?

If it is, there are several million years of evolutionary interaction between humans and animals which don't agree with your position. I just got a mixed husky pup. Should I eat him? Skin him alive? Or should he and I, as budding friends, build a relationship over the next decade which benefits us both?

BobG said:
I wouldn't say wearing fur is evil, but it is unnecessary. Synthetic materials can keep a person warmer than natural materials (including fur).

The value of wearing real fur is status - much like wearing this fine, 14K Gold Invisible Blue Diamond Grillz for only $1,983 increases one's status while providing absolutely no functionality.

On the other hand, wearing exotic real fur grillz would be pretty cool! And even use less fur than a fur coat! What a great compromise!

Good points. In actuality, the only real fur anything I've owned is sheepskin seat covers. They died as a product of animal husbandry, which is a nice way of saying they provided food for the table. Anyone eat at MacDonald's? Wendy's? Burger King? No difference. What about Joe's Catfish House? Same thing, except they breath underwater (and lack very little fur).

I'm really not sure what the argument is, here. Is it really against fluffy, or is it against the killing of animals? How about how many times pre-man was killed for food before man rose to the top of our evolutionary food chain?