Oh man. this is your argument. Fur is not functionally necessary. Therefore banning them is not a problem. With this logic, you would not have a problem with anything being banned that is not functionally necessary. Get a better argument.
People that think animals are even remotely close to the importance of a human being obviously has no friends or family. To be that detached from society; your own species... that's just sad.
I'd be interested in seeing how people making arguments for and against the ban would respond if the word "fur" was replaced with "niqab". For the statements that provide logical, coherent arguments after transliteration, I think that most of the people saying things about the one would have issues with the the exact same words being applied to the other, with respect to people both for and against this fur ban. Just a thought.
hey, it's the amazing read into someone's post and then tell them what they're thinking guy! They are comments... in response to a thread. I didn't have an argument until someone started arguing, which is why I provided more response and color. Thanks for reading so thoroughly though. I don't follow? My position is pretty clear on one side. What is your expectation on my response with regard to the niqab?
Well... lets walk through this. Do your arguments make sense if you translate "fur" to "niqab"? If the answer is no, then I'm not speaking to you, and that should be pretty apparent from what I wrote.
LOL. That was my initial thought with respect to you. Good luck with that combative rage. Hopefully no small animals cross your path while you are in such a tizzy.
Which is why you're a douchebag. You brought up a completely non-comparable comparison - fur is about as simar to a niqab as small animals are to plants - and proceeded to explain how others would think about said comparison. When I politely asked for more detail, you responded aggressively and rudely. That males you a douchebag.
Yes, my views on niqabs, which you don't know, completely invalidates my views on fur coats, which you misrepresent. Brilliant!
No one here is discounting your opinions! Only your arguments that support them. Seriously, chill the ***** out, no one is attacking you!
Step back, take a breathe and read his post again. He is making an observation that you have totally missed. I promise.
Whether its the religious right wing nuts or the liberal hippie nutjobs either one of them become very fascist and love to use government to implement their own ideals. Baptists don't want you to drink, Liberals don't want you to smoke or wear fur. They both can just let me be.
I agree, but the what extent? Whose freedom should be protected? Should we protect the freedom of a fur buyer to purchase fur or the freedom of an animal rights activist to not be offended by the purchase? A person's freedom to eat foods with trans-fats or another person's freedom to purchase cheap health insurance? That's the problem.
But they aren't regulating trade. If anything, they are making trade irregular by arbitrarily banning the exchange of particular goods based on the fickle opinions of the wealthy elite rather than any harm or infringement upon other people's freedoms. Of course, markets tend to find an equilibrium. If so many people feel that the fur trade infringes on their freedom to avoid being offended by it, one might assume that there would be less demand and furs would become more expensive, all else equal, meaning there would be a smaller market for furs. And vice-versa, of course.
As someone who remembers when furs were "the thing," and often saw women wearing them on an evening out, I have to say that today the overwhelming majority of those that I know are still owning them (who haven't donated them to charity) keep the things safely stowed away, awaiting some change in fashion that I just don't see making a serious comeback. Really, I could care less about furs, but you'd have to pry my leather shoes and jackets off my cold, dead appendages with a crowbar.
