Yes, but did you not read what faux fur is made of and what happens when you wash your faux fur which is made from plastic like petroleum based chemicals? Fibers will come off the coats, go into water and pollute drinking water for humans AND animals in the wild. Oh, have it set cleaned and expose the environment with more chemicals? Really? Eye roll.

I only wear fur in winter, like it was this week in Chicago well below zero which we get pretty much every winter. I have to stand at the bus stop waiting for a bus to get to work because our buses are quite environmentally ethical using electric and I’m trying to use my car less due to gas usage/prices. Faux fur and down “substitutes” do not work keeping you warm as I can attest, and these falsies wear out within a few years adding more petroleum based materials to our already full landfills. A fur lined coat(mine has lasted 20 years with proper care thus no need to keep buying FAUX PLASTIC COATS often), cashmere gloves and a big old fur trapper hat keeps me as well as many people who USE fur in this very useful necessary way and not to be a glamour puss like Paris Hilton, who wears fur in California. CALIFORNIA!! When is it 30 below zero with wind chill in California? She’s an idiot, anyway.

And FYI you can thank an autistic woman, Temple Grandin who made it her mission to see that animals used for consumption, fur, etc. are ethically treated when they’re slaughtered for food and clothing.

Do your research and stop being such judgemental bullies, especially to us who need warm clothing due to bone disease, arthritis, etc.. who also try their best to be amazing human beings by picking up trash in their neighborhoods, recycling as much as they can and help those in need especially homeless with blankets, socks, food and femine products during winter months…..wearing their fur ethically and necessarily.

Savva, I assume you follow a Plant-Based Diet, notwithstanding that industrial Scale monoculture will be necessary to sustain 7 Billion + people. To achieve that we need to start at an Iron Mine to build Pharm Tractors, with lots of Carbon Inputs and other Industrial Processes in-between the final product. Then to be fair and compare Full Cycle Costs of Oil Wells, pipelines and Petro-Chemical Refineries, Vs Self Propelled Ruminants nourished by the Sunshine > Rainfall > Grassland Cycle. Evicted Apex Predators compete for Domesticated Ruminants Vs a Total Plant-Based Diet that ignores the Reality of Field Critter Kill in monoculture. Field critters mangled by tillage equipment and poisoned by pestitutes and artificial fertilizers. On the American Deer Hunt where 8 Million deer were harvested by hunters and 1.5 Million Killed in Vehicle Collisions. STOP the deer hunt and how many more Vehicle-Deer Collisions will occur. How will your Protect your Fields of Salad Greens and Squash? My option is deer sausage and brain-tanned deer hide for clothing. With Feral Deer numbers, Wolves & coyotes will rise to high levels. Then there is the Feral Hog problem, well the By-Products of bacon and suede leather make for Good Stewardship. Deer & feral hogs will destroy your Plant-Based Crops! Critical Thinking and Full Cycle Costs always have to be considered when Jumping on the Ideological Bandwagon of animal sentience and blind narcissistic kindness in dietary choices. Those Self-Propelled Ruminants trump The Full Cycle Costs of the Visionary Plant-Based Diet heavily Reliant on Industrial Processes and Outrageous Food Miles. The leather footwear, clothing and furniture are Renewable Resources. Provide Full Cycle Costs of Pleather Please?

I’m not sure that I feel sorry that I hurt your feelings pal as if you truly stood behind your words it would not be significant to you. That being said I genuinely love you

I do hope that one day we can all find a good balance of co-existence and not feel superior to each other or other species but if not I can deal with that also. We are definitely more able than others but my opinion is that we have no more right to life than another especially when it’s under unecessery circumstances. Necessity and luxury are worlds apart.

I’m not continuing this thread here any more.
Anyone with real compassion care others’ better life will know killing them ourselves is to ensure their possible best life. And appreciate what farmers are doing.
(What u’re promoting is evil,in my opinion.)

I seriously feel attacked by people like u. I didn’t have a good sleep reading ur hate words out of void. Sorry I may sound a little bit rude. This is the end of discussion.

Bud,are u just suggesting I’m doing some evil business and being stupid for debating ur ethics without explaining anything to justify ur response?

If u don’t understand what I talk about I can explain it till u can understand what sense I wanna make. And don’t just attack me for no reasons, probably u don’t have any,stupid and ridiculous.

Say it in this way, normally when people wanna avoid unnecessary killing or suffering bcs we have compassion for a result someone else to live a longer and better life.

But situation in vegan cases is a little bit special. If u don’t eat meat or use animal products,the animal doesn’t get killed today will be killed tomorrow. At most,we’ll breed less. That’s very factual. U don’t save any living life. Since when eliminate something from existence is an act of giving them rights to life?How irony.

The result is, no one gets a better life or benefits from it. Someone even gets a worse impact like us.

Avoiding unnecessary suffering on something doesn’t even exist,is totally MEANINGLESS. Well,as long as it only makes u feel better about how “good”how “clean”u are,not “someone else”,it contradicts the meaning of compassion.

My life is pretty sucking. Are u suggesting just bcs I’ll encounter cruelty in my life I’d better not even live? Do u understand the preciousness of life?

Bcs I need to inflict cruelty on them I offer them a better chance oand people can be benefited from it,that’s real compassion,on immoral beings like them.

Well,usually vegans have a huge problem of discrimination and incapable of ethics,
I don’t expect some good answers from someone accusing others “evil”,”stupid” for no reason.Hello,discrimination.

That makes 0 sense and is massively non-factual as well as redivulous and but you are entitled to your opinion no matter how amazingly stupid it may be I guess. You are overcome by the darkness which plagues humanity but as more of us begin to live more kind and understanding lives it becomes easier to not hate your opinion and see it for what it is. Humanity is ill and no I can’t change the world and everyone but I can myself, so I will keep out of your evil business from now on I apologise.

When u say u wanna avoid “unnecessary death” bcs of compassion. U’re not saving any individual life here. What u want is to eliminate them from existence.

While I think that compassion is selfish. No matter how suck ur life is,living is living,prosperity is prosperity. U’re eliminating a better chance of living for them. Far better than in natural habitat,especially like in some good animal welfare farms. Unnecessary a good thing rather than just satisfying ur feeling of being a hero.

Hi Savva, your argument is perfectly valid and logical, but it is too simplistic to suggest that people support fur because it’s eco-friendly. The fur trade plus consumers of fur are an enormously diverse group of people who have their own reasons for choosing fur, and it would be impossible to try to sum up all of their motivations in a few words. However, it can be said that the trade does NOT exist simply as a means of providing eco-friendly clothing.

As you know, the fur trade has been under attack for decades, with every argument animal rights groups can dream up. Some have had merit and have been addressed, e.g., not targeting endangered wild animals, improving the humaneness of traps and the welfare of farmed animals, etc. But other arguments have been demonstrably false, and one of these is that fur is harmful to the environment. By saying fur is eco-friendly we are simply responding to critics who say otherwise, and pointing out that it is certainly more eco-friendly than petrochemical products. In doing so, we don’t believe we are hypocrites. We are simply trying to correct false information. In fact, the trade has never campaigned to put makers of fake fur out of business. Rather, it is others who want to put us out of business. As a defensive strategy, putting out correct information is only sensible and logical.

I feel like you are pushing my opinion to the absolute extremities In order to make it seem like fantasy and not thought about. What I am saying is that surely If we truly value animal welfare as well as the environment we would reduce our use of unnecessary materials as this would line up with our moral standpoint and opinion more accurately. Im not suggesting we stop using certain materials completely as yes that would be unrealistic:

If by not using plastic bottles or petrolium derived synthetics for 1 week we have saved double the amount of materials as it would cost to make one synthetic jacket, then we have not only reduced our footprint for that week as opposed to if we was wearing fur and using the normal amount of plastic bottles or petrolium derived synthetics for that week. But also not had “needed” to kill the animal who we care so much about its welfare. This would mean our impact is less and we haven’t “had” to kill/support the unnecessary killing of something simply because it is more convenient and less effort to do so.

So my point is that we can make more of a positive impact at a much higher rate by choosing not to buy as many perishables/food/drink packaged in plastic bottles or petrolium derived synthetics where possible which we use at a much higher rate than we buy a jacket, Or by not supporting non organic fruits and veg, Or by reducing the consumption/use of any damaging products which are used at a high rate in comparison to the jackets materials, then why wouldn’t we prioritise that first?

Yes it is up to you which you choose to use less or more but given the fact that your impact is much less by my example, then making that choice supported by the fact that its “more eco friendly” than a synthetic jacket is pretty much a straight line to hypocrisy and turns it into a luxury as opposed to necessity as you have chosen to increase/not reduce your footprint in one much more significant area out of convenience/tradition.