Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
LillyLush
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female, 35
United States
Forum
Active Ink Slinger
Especially for those who quoted me above 
First I apologize for not responding promptly to some of the upright comments which indicate a deserving effort:) I was away... so I just got myself apprised a little more about the issue and thought to add some more logic, aim is to eliminate misconception, misinterpretation or misapprehension :)
Ok notwithstanding the distinction between fur for fashion and fur for survival as already pointed out, I should point out the fact that humans have a much greater degree of rights.... it is a fallacy that animals can be compared to humans in this regard... it is the quality of independent consciousness and thinking that gives us humans rights. Animals cannot think on their own; they are instinctual. People can choose by their own independent decision; animals, on the other hand, cannot. Can animals vote?
So it is perfectly sensible and intelligent to wear fur, all you are doing is utilizing the whole animal. When an animal is killed, it has to be skinned anyways, if the fur is not used, this is simply more waste. The native Americans, who respected nature more than any other culture, wore fur coats, it is not unethical because all you are doing is using the animal fully.. there are only a few species that are hunted directly for their fur, and even if they are hunted for their fur, their meat is still sold... I don't mind hunting and killing animals in general, as long as the whole animal is used and it's not simply for sport.
Petroleum-based faux fur that doesn't break down in landfills is actually not right for us. Besides, all of that PETA skinning alive junk is not true... PETA has used videos from third world countries, which are unregulated, and applied this practice here... moreover, we don't have the right to judge someone as a heartless animal killer just because of what they wear... it's certainly not heartless to wear a renewable resource that would have the raise gone to waste.
What do we, as human, have to gain by applying the concept of rights to something that is not human? Nothing. It does makes out lives more uncomfortable. This is especially true for individuals whose livelihood would be negatively impacted... whether the fur is used for survival or vanity, not killing animals for fur will not make people more righteous with regards to how they treat other people. So some of the above arguments are totally baseless, which promote a misbelief... frankly I'd say that people such as PETA are those whose ideas of moral worth, compassion, or innocence are broad to the point of meaningless. Perhaps when we live in a world with no famine, starvation, war, etc. we can come back to this issue.
And I love my fur coat :)
First I apologize for not responding promptly to some of the upright comments which indicate a deserving effort:) I was away... so I just got myself apprised a little more about the issue and thought to add some more logic, aim is to eliminate misconception, misinterpretation or misapprehension :)
Ok notwithstanding the distinction between fur for fashion and fur for survival as already pointed out, I should point out the fact that humans have a much greater degree of rights.... it is a fallacy that animals can be compared to humans in this regard... it is the quality of independent consciousness and thinking that gives us humans rights. Animals cannot think on their own; they are instinctual. People can choose by their own independent decision; animals, on the other hand, cannot. Can animals vote?
So it is perfectly sensible and intelligent to wear fur, all you are doing is utilizing the whole animal. When an animal is killed, it has to be skinned anyways, if the fur is not used, this is simply more waste. The native Americans, who respected nature more than any other culture, wore fur coats, it is not unethical because all you are doing is using the animal fully.. there are only a few species that are hunted directly for their fur, and even if they are hunted for their fur, their meat is still sold... I don't mind hunting and killing animals in general, as long as the whole animal is used and it's not simply for sport.
Petroleum-based faux fur that doesn't break down in landfills is actually not right for us. Besides, all of that PETA skinning alive junk is not true... PETA has used videos from third world countries, which are unregulated, and applied this practice here... moreover, we don't have the right to judge someone as a heartless animal killer just because of what they wear... it's certainly not heartless to wear a renewable resource that would have the raise gone to waste.
What do we, as human, have to gain by applying the concept of rights to something that is not human? Nothing. It does makes out lives more uncomfortable. This is especially true for individuals whose livelihood would be negatively impacted... whether the fur is used for survival or vanity, not killing animals for fur will not make people more righteous with regards to how they treat other people. So some of the above arguments are totally baseless, which promote a misbelief... frankly I'd say that people such as PETA are those whose ideas of moral worth, compassion, or innocence are broad to the point of meaningless. Perhaps when we live in a world with no famine, starvation, war, etc. we can come back to this issue.
And I love my fur coat :)
Active Ink Slinger
While posting at a forum topic "What is your favorite item of clothing to wear; I said, "My fur coat" ( https://forum.lushstories.com//yaf_postsm2918927_What-is-your-favourite-item-of-clothing-to-wear-Any-type-of-attire-but-only-one-thing.aspx#2918927 ) No one responded or objected to this ordinary post but two of my friends called and recorded their protest which I could not ignore... so this new forum topic
As I could gather, main points from friends were:
1. It is unethical to wear fur and if you wear fur, you clearly have no moral thought about how it was made.
2. It's just suffering of animals for a fashion choice.
Since both are PETA members and probably donors also, I was disappointed with their generalized arguments, which is waste of time as I believe that ethics is in the eye of the beholder... it's like debating someone's favorite color. I also believe that most anti-fur arguments are emotion-based; therefore, appeal to emotion-based theorists. So some of my counter arguments are :)
1. On a purely rational level, there are some pretty darn good reasons for using fur for dress... hunters and trappers help control wild animal population, which is ultimately good for animal species... disease, starvation and deaths on highways for animals would be even greater if there were no hunting or trapping. PETA fanatics refuse to acknowledge this reality, and become vicious if you even try to raise the point.
2. The argument that we should not wear fur if we do not eat the corresponding animal is ridiculous for many reasons. People wear leather from countless animals that they do not eat, such as sheepskin, kidskin, alligator, snake, etc... yet, there is hardly the inflammatory response generated from someone holding an alligator bag as there is from someone wearing a fur coat.. why is that?
3. In many instances, animals raised and trapped for fur are also used for food for other animals! That's right, fur ranchers and trappers sell meat from their stock to pet food companies... so, is it still wrong to wear fur even if the meat is sued to feed other animals?
4. And if eating an animal's flesh makes it okay to wear it's skin, then why don't we just encourage everyone to eat mink burgers? it makes no difference to the animal whether it is killed for food or for its skin... do you really think the steer that died to make your handbags and Gucci loafers cares that it was also turned into steaks and burgers?
So I think we better wake up and stop buying into emotional arguments with little real-world application. And I love my fur coat :)
As I could gather, main points from friends were:
1. It is unethical to wear fur and if you wear fur, you clearly have no moral thought about how it was made.
2. It's just suffering of animals for a fashion choice.
Since both are PETA members and probably donors also, I was disappointed with their generalized arguments, which is waste of time as I believe that ethics is in the eye of the beholder... it's like debating someone's favorite color. I also believe that most anti-fur arguments are emotion-based; therefore, appeal to emotion-based theorists. So some of my counter arguments are :)
1. On a purely rational level, there are some pretty darn good reasons for using fur for dress... hunters and trappers help control wild animal population, which is ultimately good for animal species... disease, starvation and deaths on highways for animals would be even greater if there were no hunting or trapping. PETA fanatics refuse to acknowledge this reality, and become vicious if you even try to raise the point.
2. The argument that we should not wear fur if we do not eat the corresponding animal is ridiculous for many reasons. People wear leather from countless animals that they do not eat, such as sheepskin, kidskin, alligator, snake, etc... yet, there is hardly the inflammatory response generated from someone holding an alligator bag as there is from someone wearing a fur coat.. why is that?
3. In many instances, animals raised and trapped for fur are also used for food for other animals! That's right, fur ranchers and trappers sell meat from their stock to pet food companies... so, is it still wrong to wear fur even if the meat is sued to feed other animals?
4. And if eating an animal's flesh makes it okay to wear it's skin, then why don't we just encourage everyone to eat mink burgers? it makes no difference to the animal whether it is killed for food or for its skin... do you really think the steer that died to make your handbags and Gucci loafers cares that it was also turned into steaks and burgers?
So I think we better wake up and stop buying into emotional arguments with little real-world application. And I love my fur coat :)
Active Ink Slinger
It's about story scoring... presently most of the stories here get unreasonably high scores because of many reasons but most importantly because readers have no mechanism available to evaluate a story with good reason. Bias, irresponsibility, prejudice and sometimes fishy ways are being used to score a story... while scoring, readers should be able to take account of the plot, language, setting, style etc. separately... all such fundamentals of a story should be available to the readers to score distinctively one by one, say from score 1 to 5... This can be made available in a small table... It will reduce inflated scoring and likely to bring in realism in story rating. This may also lead to more objectivity in subsequent comments by the readers
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Adagio
I think I am perceived by some as dark. But that is the opposite of who I am. I write about things that create shadows and I write about flowers in meadows. I am just a lucky guy with family and wife. Self employed and owner of a small bookshop.
Yes I agree that many of us here at Lush are perceived to the opposite of our real self... but don't you think that it's because of our attitude here?... I mean it depends on how we present ourselves in our writing and interacting with members...
