Jump to content

Open Letter to fur critic now at Yahoo group Aboutfurfashion


Recommended Posts



How I relate to fur haters is based on where I am in life. I get considerable spiritual nurturing from organizations dedicated to creating human economies that co-exist with ecological communities rather than exploiting such communities to the point of collapse. Rightly or wrongly, such organizations typically welcome anti-fur campaigns. I can't expect the fur haters that are attracted there to simply drop dead, nor can I expect to control their minds or dictate their tastes. But I don't want to be excluded from such communities because I see things differently. So I'm seeking to create a space for myself through invitations to mutually respectful conversation. Recently I saw an opportunity to try this approach. The moderator at Yahoo group Aboutfurfashion allowed several posts by a fur critic.


So I gave my attention and essay-writing skills over to composing a response. Here's its introduction:


Open Letter to Erin Kanzenbach


Thank you for sharing your perspective at the Yahoo group About Fur Fashion. You raise issues that deserve reflection, response, and, if you're willing, conversation. We agree that there's no pretty way to kill and skin a fur-bearing animal. For you, that ugly moment repeated until there are enough skins to make a coat clearly forbids forever and ever making, selling, buying, or wearing--to say nothing of celebrating--fur coats. Anyone not convinced must be an irredeemable pervert. Have I understood you so far?


Maybe I've missed something. If you really believed that we're beyond hope for still fancying furs, I don't think you would respond to objections. Rather it seems you'd spout off once and leave. Do you see yourself as an anti-fur evangelist, expecting that after a moral conquest of our den you will lead to PETA a penitent string of converts ready to wage war on the fur-promoting, fur-clad Satan? If so, don't you ever, ever, ever expect me, short of insanity, to put your notion of God on a pedestal above my own understanding of my relationship and responsibility to the cosmos.


Still with me? We are each worthy of being heard. We don't have to abandon who we are or what we believe for such sharing. Given mutual respect, our conflicts can become a source of self-knowledge and creativity. If we're willing to share on such terms, we may even discover significant shared values.


Still with me? May I continue? You compared the plight of people of African ancestry forced to labor in American households and plantations to the plight of animals reared in captivity or captured from the wild to kill for pelts. You appear to like the abolitionist role. You didn't mention the war it took to end that particularly oppressive manifestation of white supremacism, the four years of killing that sent some half a million people to premature graves. I've been thinking of you the fur abolitionist and me the fur lover. And I wonder: what if our moral ancestors, the fire-breathing, ban-slavery-now Yankee agitator and the small Dixie farmer who claimed a few field hands as property let's say in the 1830's could have imagined the cost of their disagreement. Not just the soldiers left in hastily dug graves, but those who would be maimed for the rest of their lives. Not just the human casualties, but the schools and churches abandoned, towns smashed and left smoldering, the ships sunk, the railroad bridges shelled, fields deserted as farmers fled combat or were drafted. And on top of all that, though the war would end the most glaring racist institution, it wouldn't heal that institution's wounds. Poverty and racial violence would be chronic legacies of slavery and the war that ended it. Imagine with me, would you, that a few courageous abolitionists and their pro-slavery antagonists, having inklings of the horrors their conflict might bring, began earnestly to share among one other. What if through mutually respectful, intimate conversation they began to see a way for those who claimed slaves to emancipate them with back pay and still to prosper? What if such a model of emancipation began to spread voluntarily? Abolitionists were elated, white southern farmers satisfied. Resources not spent on the war made it possible for former slaves to take a place with equal dignity among abolitionists and former slave owners alike as neighbors. I can guarantee you if such a thing had happened, you and I would live in a very different world. Can you imagine the music such a nation could make? Listen closely. Ours are scary times. Just a faint strain of a ballad here or a fanfare there filtering through dim decades that weren't might bring courage.


You might say it sounds impossibly idealistic, and maybe it is. Besides that, if there ever was such an opportunity, it's well over a century too late. Be that as it may, what if we had such an opportunity ourselves? Wasn't there something of Quixotic idealism that brought you to share in this belly of the fur-loving beast? Despite my disagreement, I admit to some admiration. I like idealists. Heck, I even claim to be one myself, though to you it might not seem so, hidden by my cynical, sinful lust to embrace and be embraced by fur. So there it is again, what divides us. I've come around again. When galaxies merge, their contents still spin, though telltale orbits hint that they did not all begin in the same spiral. Pour cherry syrup into an Italian soda, and watch the red curls until the whole glass takes a uniform tinge. In conflict when we spin, we're in harmony with other zones of conflict. May I presently get dizzy.


I care about furs. I've already invested the words that brought us this far. Furs must matter to me. It must be something that's not going to fall away just because you shook a stick (be it ever such a magic wand) at it. If you like, I can share my first recollections of it and the tormented years between then and now...



To read the rest of the letter, you may join or log in to




Once you are logged in, you would need to select files, then click on the one named Open_Letter.


And one word about the background image. It reminds me of these words by touchofsable even though I created it before reading touchofsable's comments:


The crucifix is an animist symbol. every shamen uses the four points...from Yakut to Apache to Celt to Bantu. What Christ died on was X shaped. That is historical fact yet it does not stop Christians placing much emphasis on the animist compass. So why shouldn't we accept the positive and beautiful and good energy of fur as a gift from your God....whoever he may be... and value it?


Responses welcome here or at the hosting Yahoo group.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine words frugalfurguy.


Unfortunately the controlling aspect over the mind of an evangelist or abolishonist is not just their willingness to die and self immolate but their eagerness.


This is what prevents them from engaging in creative dialogue or discussions of any sort short of your surrender or death.


Pearls before swine.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with you OFF.


But the main thing is that when an evangelist meets the rational mind in open debate, the people that look on will see the evangelist for what they are.



And for that reason every time they are engaged, the public that stumble on such things see that it is our argument that wins every time.


And the best way to defeat the evangelist is to prove their God is false and prophets are hypocrites .


See conventional Christianity or Islam does not proclaim that the earth is only 4000 years old. Christs and mohammed did exist, and were jolly decent people. No debunking possible. BUT a Jehovah's witness for example. It is easy to take them down every time. It does not change their mind...they are brainwashed...but it does prevent the weak willed and mindless from being drawn to their cause.


So engage NOT to change the evangelist, t to make them look foolish in front of the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have commented on this before.


It is all down to personal taste. If people are against the fur trade so be it. I smoke and i have seen posts on this sight by people that abhore smoking. Look what society has done for smokers; turned them into social lepers.


We contribute to this site because we all like fur, but we disagree about each others points of view on a variety of subjects. People are naturally intolerant.


People who are against smoking p*ss me off as much as people who are against the wearing of fur because they all prevent me from my right to do as i chose.


Just enjoy the site and be positive about wearing fur. As for the antis; i don't know why they keep getting mentioned on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



My personal opinions and facts are well know here and I'm not about to go that round again.


This is not a place for another smoking round but anti fur and anti smoking are not the sme at all and you should be ashamed for bringit up here.






Link to comment
Share on other sites



As a VERY long time member of this and almost every other Fur site on the net I am sad to say I rarely post on any of them, (mostly because of time) but I really had to take a moment to respond to your reply to Erin... I felt it a "moral imperative" (quote from the movie "Real Genius")


While I agree with the sentiment, the argument you made does little to attract anyone to our point of view. Comparing our "love" and enjoyment of furs with the cruelty of slavery is, to my ming, unthinkable. The enslavement of people that could and have contributed to the world is for any reason just plain WRONG.


Animals are in no way human beings! Do they or should they have rights? I don't have an answer to that. I do have a belief that human beings are the top of the food chain and as such we are the ones able to make those decisions. Of course animal rights actives will say things like that because we are at the "top of the food chain" we should consider the feelings of the animals.


Well as in all debates we have a retort for that reply. AND the beat goes on...


If I were to respond to PETA like individuals I think the argument should stay along the environmental, personal choice, the "who are you to tell me how I should think or feel" and hypocritical aspects of their statements ("people are not as important as animals").


I am sure there are other great points to be made on this front but that's not the point of this reply.


Personally I take little time considering PETA and the other "ANTI" groups. I just know that they are mostly made up of very closed minded individuals who rarely consider anything past the point they need you to believe to justify their existence. Anti-Choice groups in general try and beat you down till you are scared and/or tried of the fight. To my mind it's only a fight if there are two involved. Other wise it's just preaching to the quire. We should only be fighting if there is a chance that our right could be taken away. THEN it's time to take out the brass knuckles.


Just my $0.02 (and probably worth less then that)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be truly honest. If someone has a belief that they truly believe in, then basically there are two chances of changing that point of view: None and Buckley's..... and they went outta business last century.


Yes, there will be the odd convert or the person who realises the error of their way, but that will be because they never really truly believed it anyway. It is like politics and religion.... and has to do with power and control. It is a chance for the weak and morally corrupt to garner "respect", not for their individuality, but their conformity.


Speaking personally, I likes being a non-conformist. It gives me freedom to experience things others fear to expose themselves to and to enjoy life without having to worry too much about the wash-up. This may give the impression of wishy-washiness at times, but there are times when I ain't so.


As for the Petaphiles.... eh. they are entitled to their misguided opinions. What I do resent is when they try and force said opinions down my throat.


See?? Not so wishy-washy..... just consistent...... otherwise I would not allow some topics herein and elsewhere because I don't particularly agree with their tone or ideas. But that is just me. I do not believe in censorship, be it the written word, pictures,art or movies. I have developed MY standards over the last 50yrs and either ignore or avoid those things that I know I do not like. I do not seek them out, nor will I avoid them if confronted by them (well, unless I have nothing to add that is).


And so it is with that group. They are but an annoying bee ...... get too active in trying to get rid of it and in all liklihood it will attack and sting you. Avoid it's space, and both can life happily ever after.... in our own little worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small Point furmylove, but one that we should all consider when trying to understand ourselves.


I Believe (open to argument). "I may be wrong but I doubt it !"(that's a joke)


The human species is definately not top of the food chain. We can be a dangerous predator - yes - but only because we have been forced to be so. resulting in an interlect that enables us to make tools


Put a human against bear, wolf, tiger, shark, etc etc. and I'm pretty sure who would end up as dinner. (as well as being eaten alive, no "rights" to humane death being considered.)


There is substantial evidence emerging that we we may have started onto the plains as a prey animal, not a predator. And it was only the development of our interlect that enabled us to develop cunning and tool/weapon making to defend our helpless bodies. (where are our fangs, claws, strength).


Tools and weapons are secondary to our evolution. Without them we are nothing more than a scavenging predator.


Ps. "Rights" dont exist outside human experience. We all have to earn "rights" to be a part of, and maintain our place in our human community. If rights do exist in nature they are species specific for the benefit of that species only, and their only purpose is to aid harmonious survival of that species. ( I could be wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main method of attack is a sort of "Socratic" approach.


Basically, I ask, "Why?"


Most people's opinions are formed from what they hear in the media, be it actually true or not. They really don't know the facts. They just make up their mind from half-truths they hear.


Ask them, "How do you know that?" "Who told you that?" "How do you know that is true?"


A person makes a statement, I ask "How do you know that?" They answer, "I read it on the internet." (or whatever) I ask, "How do you know that's true? I read on the internet that George Bush is really a space alien."


Essentially, poke holes in their arguement until they are forced to say, "Well... PeTA says..."


From that point, you can point out all of PeTA's flaws... They employ criminals... They actually KILL more animals than they save... (You all know the rest.)


You can't fight somebody's moral judgement but you can show that their judgement is made from false information. You can force them to reformulate their judgement from more reliable information.


Maybe they will still have the same opinion when you leave them but, at least, you have taken some of the wind out of PeTA's sails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off's feelings about smoking are well known.

As are those of allfurme and myself.


I engage in fighting both.


Both ANTI lobbies claim absurdities as evidence and the majority of people bleat them as though they are unquestionable.


They are different issues, but the disease is the same.

it is possible to agree with one but not the other.


But to many of us the main grounds on which both can be opposed are the same. : morality fascism.


Now OFF's manin objection appears to be that a smoker interferes with his liberty while a fur wearer doesn't interfere with anybody else.


That is his position and I respect it. There is therefore a good argument for seperation. I have no objection to that.

HOWEVER that is NOT what legisaltion proposes. It does indeed go further than that. It actually excludes smoking from EVERYWHERE.


Smokers therefore feel excluded. We also are far more familiar with the arguments against as than the antis. In a similar way that most pro fur arguments are far more rational and coherent that the hyterics of the antis, in which HATE and INTOLERANCE seem far more important than reason.

This is a manifestation of control of one culture over another. The western liberal democracy is an intolerant and dangerous model for the world. We beleive that democratic mandate gives us the right to opress minorities. Sadly, becsuse of this, western democracy is now pretty much doomed to failure....or fascism.

It is INTOLERANT of other beliefs, and will have to enforce its law and moral imperialism with increasingly violent and unjust force.


Completely uneccesarily.


Tolerance is massively important, and nobody who claims to stand for peace can be intolerant of others.


The Labour Government will have their conference this week completely unaware of the seething hatred simmering in the British countryside against them. HALF A MILLION people demostrated peacefully to keep foxhunting before they banned it. 50 000 people have signed a declaration saying they are happy to go to prison before they will capitulate to this law.


Smokers sadly will accept it because they believe the hype themselves. They are sheep, and bleat willingly to slaughter. But a small percentage will fight on. It is that small percentage that will fight hardest.


A study yeterday showed that smoking and HIV were related. That appeared to indicate that smoking causes HIV.

It does of course , shows nothing of the sort. It just shows that smokers are more likely to have more sex.

That was the same mentality that once put cervical cancer down to smoking...a much higher correlation in fact than lung cancer. Again what it actually showed was smokers have more encounters sexually so are more likely to contract human papiloma virus...the SOLE cause of the disease.

Something similar happened with stomach cancer and smoking until helicobactor pylori was discovered.

What am I saying? That government is acting on unsound information from powerful lobby groups, and this is wrong.

Smoking and lung cancer have a small correlation. If we ban smoking it may save a few thousand lives, but millions will still get the disease. That should tell everyone that smoking is therfore NOT the main cause. The correlation between smoking and lung cancer is far less than betweeen HIV and smoking. Is nobody going therefore to question this?


Likewise, there is the absurdity in the simple animal rights followers mind that fur is bad because it threatens animal species. You read it all the time.

At some point, surely people will realise that this is a lie. The most COMMON mammal predator on the planet are fox and mink. They are of course, the most hunted and the most used for fur. Pity those mammals that are NOT vlaued by man in this way, for while the animal rights lobby scream about fox and mink, animals are becoming exticnt daily becuase nobody is protecting their habitat.


Now in Britain, a country which in this Labour administration has banned:


Mink farming

shortly banning smoking


The brass knuckles are out already.

And Allfrume and I OFF, see that the potential alliance beween people of these groups....maybe even Islam too when they start on Halal meat too....in fighting bigoted prejudiced views based on irrational evidence thrust on us by powerful lobby groups will be invaluable.


Governments are becoming killjoys, nanny states....responding to the pressure groups of the petit bourgeois who hacve major power issues and love to impose their morality on others.

They are also mucking about militarily in countries which will never accept democracy because they KNOW that it means one group opressing another.


Unless they are prepared to start putting hunters and smokers in prisons already full to overcrowding, or bombing mecca, they had better start reappraising what they are doing.


It is going to get very nasty in Britain shortly. Very.


We will see how the Hunts get on this year with the eagles; and whether huntsmen get sent to prison.

We will see what the government will do about the smirting culture that has seen smoking rise to levels unrecorded for 30 years in Ireland and Italy. And we will see what the French do when their government attempt to do it there.


Prohibition leads eventually to more indulgence.


And the freedom of the human spirit will fight against WHATEVER opresses it...especially when the dogma and propaganda and bigotry and intolerance against such groups is largely unfounded. People wil find ways around the laws and when these are exhausted, they will fight.


And in the meantime the type of female fur wearer in the UK that we know see is likely to be a fighter. She is also likely to support hunting and smoke.

And she to me is Liberty Leading the People.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just shows that smokers are more likely to have more sex.


That assumes that HIV is transmitted primarily through sex with an infected partner. This is not a reliable assumption.


The dominant means of transmission varies from locale to locale.


In poorer countries, HIV may be transmitted through sex. In more affluent countries, it is more likely to be transmitted through IV drug use.


People in poorer countries don't smoke as much, nor do they use IV drugs. They still get AIDS.


Is it possible that people who GET infected with HIV are more likely to smoke? Then, your relationship would be reversed. Wouldn't it? But the truth is that you can not draw a causal relationship between HIV and smoking. You do not know the actual cause/effect relationship.


You only know that there is a statistical correlation. Until you have more information you can not draw inferences from the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solid thinking worker.


Personally I would never want to see a blanket ban on smoking tobacco or marijuana. Both can be harmful to the user but that is the choice of the user and of no genuine concrern to governments other than taxation and any possible dangers anyone may pose due to distractions or being "under the influence" as with alcohol. Smoking driver are distracted.


It only becomes an issue in places of public assembly where others, non-smokers and children, don't have an option to avoid the smoker. I think that's a fair and reasonable restriction on a "users" habit.


So long as a non-smoker and children can live free of the smoker's indulgence then I have no truck with them smoking themselves to wahever fate they select.


Insurance companies are beginning to make smokers "pay" for their portion of the tab so even that is beginning to be addressed.


Public building mechanical systems are now free of the extra maintenance costs (in publicly restricted areas) and are no longer a burden to building owners and operators.


I do think that smoking bars should be allowed to exist but that's a real sticky one. Locally while smoking was allowed in bars, some owners placed their own restrictions on smoking and there was a 'migration' of customers to both options.


By the time the law was enacted it wasn't a real issue and many non-smokers were siding with folks who wanted their smoking bars back. Locally we have the Indian Casino's and their Bars that are unrestricted.


Much beyond the present situation, I think any further restrictions are truly treading on personal freedoms regardless of what country you reside in.


Live and let live.


Engaging in statistical debates is very much a total pissing match. It's an area mainly for medical reserch, insurance actuarians and adjusters.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to whether smoking should be legal or illegal in public places: Should there be laws to regulate smoking? Sure! We have laws to regulate the use automobiles and the sale of alcohol. Why not tobacco?


However, I don't believe in a total ban. I believe that is up to the property owner.


I think the law(s) should be written, not to ban or allow smoking, but to regulate where smoking occurs in public. If I was in charge of drafting the law it would say that every public place (bars, restaurants, stores, offices, etc., etc.) must be designated as a smoking or no-smoking establishment. Said designation must be posed on all public entrances to the property. The signs posting this notice must conform to a certain standard of wording and font/size.


For instance, the sign must be no smaller than 3" tall and 5" wide. It must use black letters in block print, no less than 1/2" tall. The background must be red for "No Smoking" and green for "Smoking Allowed". A graphic symbol of "Circle-Slash" or "Check Mark" must be on the sign, no less than 1" tall. The copy must read: "This property is designated as {SMOKING ALLOWED} {NON SMOKING} as per state law. Violation punishable by $xx fine or jail."

(This is really just a bare bones example. Don't nit-pick my sign, please.)


I believe that it should be up to every restaurant, bar and store owner to decide whether he/she believes that his/her business is better served and that he/she can make more money, either by allowing or prohibiting smoking.


If I own a restaurant and I think my customers would rather have a no-smoking environment, it should be my right to make my establishment off-limits to smokers.


On the other hand, if I believe there is a market for a restaurant where smokers can congregate, it should be my right to ALLOW smoking if I see fit.


As far as I am concerned, banning smoking from all public establishments and businesses is unconstitutional on the grounds of "Restraint of Trade".


It is MY RIGHT to decide how to run my business!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, this is the FUR Den forum. I have not seen any mention of fur in the last several posts. If this topic does not get back to fur quickly, it will be moved to the Pub


I find the current discussion interesting, but that is no excuse for violating the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any need to move it now.

My point was that much of the anti smoking propagnda was based (as with the HIV) on data which actually does not show a causal effect if you look at it. If people choose to believe it that is up to them.


So my point was that prejudice based on such erroneous information is rather like the prejudice encountered by fur wearers and hunters.


HOWEVER....that is not to say that some people feel uncomfortable in smokey confined spaces. Hell I do sometimes!

SO....I was trying to point out that:


1.Allfurme made a valid point and OFF jumped at him rather hastily. Ir is not wise to alienate peopel from our fur cause when many of them fight anti libertarian laws across the boards,

2. Especially when I knew that OFF was in fact NOT anti smoking in designated smokers facilities,

3. which as Worker pointed out comes down to individual establishments rights to choose, and not state legislation. In my town for example the restaurants are about 60/40 in benefit of non smoking anyway.


SO. This brings us back to FUR.


The most powerful argument against the PETAphiles who advocate the banning of fur is that likewise the state has NO RIGHT to interfere with the rights and morality of individuals.


Personally I despise training shoes, think they are ecologiclly unsound, and their production and disposal destroys animal habitats. if someone asks me what I think of them I tell them. HOWEVER, I do not go around campaigning for them to be banned, and would not attack anyone else for wearing them. It is not up to me...or the state...to interfere with another person's morality.


In the UK there is a new breed of fur wearer. These are brave, sophisticated young women with attitude. If the fur lobby is to get its message across it will do so by reclaiming the right to wear fur unhassled in public. These same women feel equally strongly about the hunting ban, and the smoking ban.


Often they wear fur as a sign of defiance and not for the same reason many of the women here do. These women are a growing group embodying a radical attitude towards individual kiberties of all kinds; not just one.


It therefore shows to me that ONE of the strongest defences of fur is that based on the LIBERTARIAN argument.

If you do not want to wear fur don't

If you do not agree with hunting don't go

If you do not like smoking keep out of smokers way, and we will keep out of yours.




I noticed just recently for example pro fur posts popping up on smoking fetish forums. There so far seems to be little ANTI reaction despite the fact that THOUSANDS of people (not hundreds) are involved in the smoking fetish. Clearly the vast majority can empathise with persecution.


So now OFF and Allfurme...make it up..... please.....


Likewise one of our strongest allies in the coming years is going to be Islam. Ther is no way on earth ANY of them are going to put up with any of PETA's crap re halal, and PETA will also be revelaed as the intolerant fascist they are when they start on it.


So likewise, I do not ever want to read any anti Islam posts here. They are our allies. The vast vast majority are not fundamentalist...in fact the fundamentalists are NOT true moslems.


The forces of fascism pitted against us can ONLY be opposed by opposing the idea of fascism oyeself.


NOBODY has the right to interfere with our enjoyment of fur. Or smoking, or hunting, or halal.


And THAT is how this thing will be beaten.


If you choose to fight on just a pro fur platform you are lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was some fantastic info in the first part of this thread that is exactly the type of information that should be saved in our Library.

Worker's comment about asking "Why" has for instance never been put forth before.


This is exactly the sort of thing that someone should post there. All you need to do is go to the area. Press "Edit". Type your info leaving no spaces at the beginning of the line and leaving a space between paragraphs. Click on preview if you want to check for mistakes and press save.


You can decide where to put it but I would suggest this might be a place.



It is that simple. Just like typing here. And then, when this topic comes up again you can find the info there.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a link to a site that talks about logical fallacies in the realm of debate. I use it all the time when "fighting" with people in discussions.


>> Click HERE to read it. <<


It makes a lot of sense. And, not just in the context of debating about fur. It's pretty much a good, all-around principle for people to think about in their daily lives when reading the day's news.


When I get the chance, I'll make sure I summarize it, translate it into talking about fur and put it into the Library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments, DENizens.


I suspect I failed to communicate genuinely what I'm attempting and why it's important to me. I'm seeing differences and possible sources of conflicts with others here. That doesn't mean those who disagree with me are bad, wrong, or any less worthy. It means we're each expressing our unique way of putting together the universe we're in.


I'm strongly drawn to fur. That doesn't mean I see fur as absolute goodness. In fact I see it as a quintessentially human artifact, taking on attributes of those that make it. We are all our own formula mixing elements of selfishness and goodness. To me fur has a dark side just as I do. But there's so much more to me and to fur than our dark sides.


Because I don't see moral absolutes but plenty of ambiguity, I can understand why other people see only the dark side or mostly the dark side. I believe that many people who otherwise share values of mine, attempting to live in conscious partnership with the web of life instead of bingeing in a bubble of excess consumption tend to see mostly or all furs' dark side, and people who have anything to do with approving or enjoying furs to be socially unacceptable. I don't want to blow these people off the face of the earth or at least rub their noses in sh**, winning some ultimate argument over the absolute rightness of fur. In so many areas, these are allies of mine. They don't want nuclear war. They don't want September 11, 2001's Ground Zero or much of Florida drowned in Greenland's one-time ice-cap. They want meaningful jobs creating worthwhile and healthy goods, not pollution and junk food. I want to create a circle where they and I can coexist, where I can receive support for what I'm doing to transform our economies in that direction. It seems to me they've created a circle drawn to exclude me despite huge common values. I want to counter my exclusion by opening up a circle that includes them and myself. Heck, if there's anyone here that would like to be there, it could include you too.


I don't mean I expect everybody here to join that circle. Plenty of folks here might prefer SUVs, MacMansions, and nuclear power, and I'm not here to talk them out of those preferences.


I don't see my peculiar relationship with fur as the purpose of my life. However, I believe that if I don't integrate my attraction to fur in my life, I'm not going to get very far in pursuing my life purpose as I currently understand it which has much to do with bringing healing in a web of life damaged by human greed. I want the courage to shape a place in the communities where this healing is valued where fur lovers like me could be accepted. I want the courage to share with the people in these communities the way I hurt myself when I hated myself for loving fur. I want to challenge common views there that fur is only about flaunting money, introducing other possible meanings. I'm not out to annihilate any and all objections to fur. But I want those objections balanced with other points of view.


So I'm not demanding that anyone here go along with me if they don't want to. But I'd like some validation that it's not wrong to desire integration both with my attraction to fur and with a community that at present tends to react with fear and loathing to furs.


Thanks for sticking by through my long deliberations!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are changing...and you see it in the UK especially.


Those indulging in consumerism live in cities and are pro PETA anti fur and what you Americans would regard as liberal.They have however no real respect for nature and eagerly consume petro chemical products, make unecessary journeys by car, and shop in overheated malls. They to me are hypocrites. And they support Blair remember.


Then you have your more rural based more conservative person. He will be anti war too, actually. He will consume less and have respect for the countryside. He will be pro fur pro hunting and be far more aware of the real eco issues rather than the sham that the urban liberal puts up.


Quite simply if you look at the map of the country the countryside is Conservative and the towns Labour . Labour is a destroyer of countryside....jobs and development matter more to them than green places.


Actually...I think it is probably getting like that there too. Your hunters for example are profoundly eco sound and work alongside conservationists.


The reality is that you cannot really hug a tree unless you hug the person who has kept it for the hundreds of years prior to now. And that person...wherever he is on the planet...will be a hunter, a fur farmer, an animal user.

Hippies will never hug that person. They will also never be tolerant of Islam, or the Inuit seal hunt, or cultures which it sees as opressive toward women. It is the "liberals" who will cause wars in the future. It is Concervatives who will end up always standing for Liberty.


The "dark side" of fur exists only in the mind of the urban liberal who is alienated from what we are and what nature is.


In my mind there is only a dark side to synthetics. Feel ....it is cold, dead, without energy and ugly. Feel fur...it is beautiful; alive almost...and treasured. If you are afraid to admit that to your friends they are not your friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very thought provoking thread to say the least, and I have learned a great deal from the various responses. I like the message put forth in a very quiet way in the book and film The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. The talking animals with obvious intellect did not object to the children eating fish or wearing fur coats. Something to think about, although not likely as has been pointed out in other posts, to change minds on the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...