Mink

[Problem Child]

Who'd a thunk, PC was an animal rights activist?

I'm not. I fucking love killing animals. I just hate an illogical, diversionary argument.

 

[lavender]

 

[Guest]

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Omnivore and proud of it!

I was referring to your comment about young women. I felt that was a harsh commentary against the sexy older babes out there!

I didn't realize the first time round that you were objecting to my ageist adjective.

But I'd already figured out you were around my age.

 

[Problem Child]

Lavender you're a sick slimey fuck


And PC is decent......for a pansy bitch

Thanks dude. I'll remember that when I'm raping your skinny ass with a broken wine bottle.


(Hey, I can do Hanns! It takes no brains at all!)

 

[Agent99]

The entire argument that it's okay to wear fur because there are a lot of useable by-products is specious. The reason that there are by-products from mink farming is because people wear fur, not the other way around.

Well, for the third time now, nowhere do I say that I feel it is ok to wear fur.

My point is that using animals for food, medicines and all the various and sundry reasons I stated in my last post is good and right. All of those reasons are justifiable and compelling. I am all for it. They provide numerous goods and services to humans.

My argument is predicated on the fact that militant animal lovers forget that.

At the same time, I think that wearing a fur coat is nothing more than an indulgence in vanity. There is a big difference and while I think we are on the same side, I am not sure why you responded as you did?

 

[Guest]

 

[Siren]

 

[Problem Child]

Well, for the third time now, nowhere do I say that I feel it is ok to wear fur.

My point is that using animals for food, medicines and all the various and sundry reasons I stated in my last post is good and right. All of those reasons are justifiable and compelling. I am all for it. They provide numerous goods and services to humans.

My argument is predicated on the fact that militant animal lovers forget that.

At the same time, I think that wearing a fur coat is nothing more than an indulgence in vanity. There is a big difference and while I think we are on the same side, I am not sure why you responded as you did?

I went back and read your post. I suppose that after I saw your comment that there was no difference between killing a plant and killing an animal, and then reading all the wonderful uses for animal byproducts I assumed you were justifying wearing fur.

My apologies.

 

[Problem Child]

Laurel, could you ban PC for threatning me

It's against the rules

Or she could ban you for an appalling lack of imagination.

 

[Guest]

 

[Problem Child]

Comedy Value = won't register

Perfect example.

 

[Lancecastor]

I'm not. I fucking love killing animals. I just hate an illogical, diversionary argument.

The logic is sound, as is the causal link between domestic self sufficiency versus oil colonialism as a rationale for wearing home-grown animal skins versus Dupont fibers spun by slave labour from Middle Eastern blood oil.

Methinks you are simply uncomfortable with the reality of a petroleum based lifestyle having turned the USA into the same kind of thirsty imperialist colonial power as the one it revolted against in 1776, with the inevitable result that now those you oppress revolt againt you, tipping your metaphorical tea into the harbours of the world.

The most surprising thing about it is the surprise, disbelief and denial you so stoutly cling to even as your symbols of power and very citizenry are bombed, terrorized and killed.

Change starts with using renewable resources such as wind, water and animals to replace those things you've come to rely excessively on that are made from oil. Prior to WWII, this was the norm.

It was the opportunistic American monopolists like the Rockefellers that sold you the oily bill of goods you're now stuck with anyway....they're no better than England's Royal Family.

You could start with making a squirrel coat, PC !

 

[Problem Child]

The logic is sound, as is the causal link between domestic self sufficiency versus oil colonialism as a rationale for wearing home-grown animal skins versus Dupont fibers spun by slave labour from Middle Eastern blood oil.

Methinks you are simply uncomfortable with the reality of a petroleum based lifestyle having turned the USA into the same kind of thirsty imperialist colonial power as the one it revolted against in 1776, with the inevitable result that now those you oppress revolt againt you, tipping your metaphorical tea into the harbours of the world.

The most surprising thing about it is the surprise, disbelief and denial you so stoutly cling to even as your symbols of power and very citizenry are bombed, terrorized and killed.

Change starts with using renewable resources such as wind, water and animals to replace those things you've come to rely excessively on that are made from oil. Prior to WWII, this was the norm.

It was the opportunistic American monopolists like the Rockefellers that sold you the oily bill of goods you're now stuck with anyway....they're no better than England's Royal Family.

You could start with making a squirrel coat, PC !

Lance, old sod, I never said I was against developing alternative energy sources and practicing conservation in order to lessen our dependance on foreigh oil. I just think that you ran out of gas with this "mink reduces oil dependance" argument miles ago.

As soon as it's demonstrated that we must resort to wearing mink clothes, sitting on mink upholstery, driving cars fueled with mink oil, and eating savory minkmeat because that is the only way we can stop buying the hated arab oil, I'll agree wholeheartedly that mink farming is a great idea..

When I see the fruited plain covered in mink farms from sea to shining sea and the acrid stench of mink poo fills my nostrils from Texas to Minnesota, and the meat section of my local supermarket is bulging with ground mink, mink sausage, mink steaks, filet of mink and marinated mink testicles, I'll buy your argument.

When the value of the U.S. dollar is based on the market price of mink fur and I have a pure mink towel to dry my nutsack before donning my mink boxer shorts and slipping on my mink shirt and my mink trouser I'll agree with you.

Until then I have to think that your stretching this pelt a little too tight.

 

[sunstruck]

I'm not. I fucking love killing animals. I just hate an illogical, diversionary argument.

Can't fool us PC. We remember the puppy thread.

 

[Samuari]

Well, for the third time now, nowhere do I say that I feel it is ok to wear fur.

My point is that using animals for food, medicines and all the various and sundry reasons I stated in my last post is good and right. All of those reasons are justifiable and compelling. I am all for it. They provide numerous goods and services to humans.

My argument is predicated on the fact that militant animal lovers forget that.

At the same time, I think that wearing a fur coat is nothing more than an indulgence in vanity. There is a big difference and while I think we are on the same side, I am not sure why you responded as you did?

I think that you are missing the fundimental point in all of this... These critters, be they chickens in a pen, bovine on a feedlot, or mink in a cage, have only one reason for thier existence, and that is thier value to human beings. If they didn't have that value they would not not be alive at all. There may be a few that would survive in the wild, but they would be far fewer in number, lead even more wretched lives as a result, and a strong case could be made that in some instences these usefull animals would be extinct if not for thier utility.

To assign intrinsic rights to animals because you don't approve of the uses to which they will be put is silly. It would be nice to draw a line and say that as long as you only use the animals that I aprove of in ways that I approve of it is there is no problem, but I think that argument is fundamentally flawed. PITA is right about this: either it is ethical to use animal products or it isn't. PERIOD I think that is ethical to use these animals to provide things that I want and/or need.

 

[sunstruck]

Why is an animal living in it's natural habbitat wretched? I don't get that.

 

[Lancecastor]

Lance, old sod, I never said I was against developing alternative energy sources and practicing conservation in order to lessen our dependance on foreigh oil. I just think that you ran out of gas with this "mink reduces oil dependance" argument miles ago.

As soon as it's demonstrated that we must resort to wearing mink clothes, sitting on mink upholstery, driving cars fueled with mink oil, and eating savory minkmeat because that is the only way we can stop buying the hated arab oil, I'll agree wholeheartedly that mink farming is a great idea..

When I see the fruited plain covered in mink farms from sea to shining sea and the acrid stench of mink poo fills my nostrils from Texas to Minnesota, and the meat section of my local supermarket is bulging with ground mink, mink sausage, mink steaks, filet of mink and marinated mink testicles, I'll buy your argument.

When the value of the U.S. dollar is based on the market price of mink fur and I have a pure mink towel to dry my nutsack before donning my mink boxer shorts and slipping on my mink shirt and my mink trouser I'll agree with you.

Until then I have to think that your stretching this pelt a little too tight.

Fabulous post...like a Dr. Suess book!

I didn't say that mink would reduce oil dependance, but that's okay. I catch your drift...it was a wee bit of a stretch.

You make up for it with the US dollar floating against the spot price of mink fur.

 

[Lancecastor]

Why is an animal living in it's natural habbitat wretched? I don't get that.

Everyone knows mink are much better off in Mink Condos by the shore, where they are free to golf without fear of being scalped.

Lav calls them Happy Mink.

Those Rural Mink are scabby.

 

[Agent99]

Samuari,

You need to get on the bus with Lance and PC and learn to actually read what I wrote. But at least they had the cojones to admit that they skimmed my comments the first time around and missed the entire thrust of my words.

And while you're at it, the correct acronym is PETA. Not PITA. That is bread. It stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And I think they are wackos.

I am not writing in hieroglyphics here. I am using simple English words. I am not assigning rights to animals. I believe humans DO have dominion over them and can use them as we see fit.

I use animals for lots of things in my life and am happy about it and thankful for their existence. The only thing I do not do is wear them as symbols of luxury and money. Can it be any clearer?

 

[Sandia]

Laurel, could you ban PC for threatning me

It's against the rules

Huh. I was wondering how long it would take Hanns to start whining for Laurel's protection.

 

[Guest]

 

[Sandia]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Problem Child
I'm not. I fucking love killing animals. I just hate an illogical, diversionary argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which part of killing them do you like the most?

 

[Guest]

 

[lavender]