If animals had rights we would not be able to keep them for pets, use them for medical research, eat them, or wear them. We would need to stop driving as people would go to jail for murder in the case of roadkill. We wouldn’t be allowed to kill cockroaches in our home. Giving animal rights is absurd and ridiculous. And to suggest we are all killing animals for “greed and sport” is ridiculous. I don’t wear a fur coat for greed or sport. I wear it because it keeps me warm, and I would rather wear a sustainably harvested animal skin than something made of petroleum.

That’s a whole other issue, Mark, and has nothing to do with Gucci’s claim of “sustainability”. Let me just take issue with your use of the word “torture”, since this is so often heard from animal rights proponents. People who produce food and clothing from animals never “torture” those animals, and if they did, everyone would condemn them. Torture involves the intentional inflicting of pain – mental or physical – in order to extract information or simply for the sake of causing suffering, whether for revenge or out of a sadistic tendency. So please stop using this word. It’s really misleading.

I understand that. What is wrong with animals having rights? What gives humans the right to abuse and torture other species for own purpose? What is humanity? What does that mean to you? Is it right to torture an animal for some fur trim? And not to at least consume the meat as well? There was a time when humans legitimately hunted animals for survival. Now it is for greed and sport. Poor animals. Where is our humanity?

Hi Mark, what you describe here are conservation goals, unrelated to animal rights goals. The animal rights philosophy is not concerned with conserving species or habitat, but with having society recognise rights for animals.