Israel to ban fur?

bluehorserunning

Posts: 1,754

friendlyatheist.com/2010/04/01/using-jud...

Just to stir up the pot a little...

allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts: 11,634

I have a reaction to the idea of banning anything.

On one hand, I would not buy fur products, and do not understand why someone would.

On the other, I don't want to see it banned, just because I value freedom more. You are not free to choose, unless you are free to pick all options.

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.

solfeggio

Posts: 7,698

I see your point, but there's 'freedom' and then there's freedom. I mean, here in the industrialised world, at least, we're all pretty much curtailed in our freedoms. For instance, there are laws against jay-walking, so most of us cross the street on the green light, even if we don't like to wait the minute or so for it to change. There are rules about how we treat our kids, and how we are allowed to discipline them. There are rules about what we can send in the mail, and what we can post online. Smoking marijuana is against the law, even though it really isn't all that different from smoking cigarettes, which are legal even though they are very dangerous for our health.

Anyway, I don't think that banning the fur trade would inpinge on anybody's 'freedom' simply because people who are in the clothing business can put their efforts into fake fur, which looks and feels exactly like the real thing.

And, aside from that, there is always the fact that the fur trade encourages people to kill endangered animals all over the world, much as the irvory trade hurt the elephant populations so badly. I'm sure nobody thought that banning ivory took away anybody's 'freedom.'

We don't want Japan and other nations to kill whales, do we? If you're looking at whale hunting as a 'freedom,' then you'd have to say you'd allow the Japanese to keep on doing it, wouldn't you? But many nations don't see it that way at all.

So, yes, I think that if Israel bans fur that would be a good thing and everybody would win.

Heretic_for_Christ

Posts: 4,777

Freedoms are NOT absolute. Here in America, no one is free to choose whether or not to own slaves. Bans on certain products or activities are instituted because those things are not just objectionable but demonstrably harmful.

I prayed for deliverance from the hard world of facts and logic to the happy land where fantasy and prejudice reign. But God spake unto me, saying, "No, keep telling the truth," and to that end afflicted me with severe Trenchant Mouth. So I'm sorry for making cutting remarks, but it's the will of God.

bluehorserunning

Posts: 1,754

I'm not sure how far the proposed ban goes - for instance, is it just a ban on the *production* of fur in Israel - ie, no mink farms? Or is it a ban on the *possesion* of fur - ie, your fur hat will be confiscated at the airport and you'll never see it again?

And will they be banning leather products as well? There's not much difference to the animal between skin with the fur on and skin with the fur off. Or is it just fur from non-domestic animals?

I think the details of the case would be important to me in whether or not I voted for the proposal, if I were an Israeli lawmaker.

solfeggio

Posts: 7,698

Good point about leather, bluehorse. I've always felt that, when it comes right down to it, there isn't all that much difference between wearing leather and wearing fur, as both are animal products. However, the case could be made that leather is a by-product of the animal agriculture industries, and as such will be available when animals are killed for food, rather than a product that hunters and poachers deliberately seek out for the skin/fur alone and not for eating purposes.

There is a difference.

As long as people are going to be raising, killing, and eating cattle and sheep, it would be difficult - if not impossible - to actually ban leather products. In any case, as long as you are going to be killing the animals anyway, why not use their skins in some way? No point is wasting them, after all.

The only thing that leather and fur have in common is the fact that both products are obtained without the animal's permission for the use of humans. And you could also argue that neither product is necessary for the health, welfare, or happiness of the human population!

allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts: 11,634

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

I see your point, but there's 'freedom' and then there's freedom. I mean, here in the industrialised world, at least, we're all pretty much curtailed in our freedoms. For instance, there are laws against jay-walking, so most of us cross the street on the green light, even if we don't like to wait the minute or so for it to change. There are rules about how we treat our kids, and how we are allowed to discipline them. There are rules about what we can send in the mail, and what we can post online. Smoking marijuana is against the law, even though it really isn't all that different from smoking cigarettes, which are legal even though they are very dangerous for our health.

I agree with what you said, but not with the point that you are trying to make.

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

Anyway, I don't think that banning the fur trade would inpinge on anybody's 'freedom' simply because people who are in the clothing business can put their efforts into fake fur, which looks and feels exactly like the real thing.

This is where I differ with you. Every new law does curtail a persons freedom. It does not matter if we agree with it or not, or if we can live with it or not.

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

And, aside from that, there is always the fact that the fur trade encourages people to kill endangered animals all over the world,

Yeah, it sucks.

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

much as the irvory trade hurt the elephant populations so badly. I'm sure nobody thought that banning ivory took away anybody's 'freedom.'

I do. To be clear, I don't think that anyone should want to engage in the ivory trade, but banning it did take away the freedom not to do it. Yes, I said not to. You are not free not to do a thing unless you are also free to do a thing.

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

We don't want Japan and other nations to kill whales, do we? If you're looking at whale hunting as a 'freedom,' then you'd have to say you'd allow the Japanese to keep on doing it, wouldn't you? But many nations don't see it that way at all.

I don't really want the Japenese to engage in commercial whaling, but I think that making a law does entail cutting that freedom.

Apr 3, 2010 -- 7:22PM, solfeggio wrote:

So, yes, I think that if Israel bans fur that would be a good thing and everybody would win.

I think that everyone would lose. Not because of the ban on fur, but because of the loss of freedom.

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.

d_p_m

Posts: 7,611

Apr 4, 2010 -- 12:47AM, Heretic_for_Christ wrote:
Freedoms are NOT absolute. Here in America, no one is free to choose whether or not to own slaves. Bans on certain products or activities are instituted because those things are not just objectionable but demonstrably harmful.

Not the best example, really.

The old principle of "Your freedom to wave your fist ends where my nose begins" takes care of banning slave ownership while condemning a ban on the production and/or use of fur.

If you don't like fur, or rock music, or photographs that show a woman's ankles, forearms, or face, don't make, use, or buy them... but stay away from telling me, and others, what we can or cannot do.

If you can't grant other people the right to make up their own minds about how they conduct there lives, I've got a long list of rules I want you to follow.

---------------------------------------------------------
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" do you not understand?
---------------------------------------------------------
Wind speeds of Mach 2 would messily disassemble most consumer electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------

solfeggio

Posts: 7,698

Freedoms are not absolute. There are prohibitions on actions that interfere with the public good or which cause suffering to any creatures, human or otherwise.

The fur business is one of those that causes suffering. Therefore, there are concerned people who think it should be banned.

allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts: 11,634

Freedoms are not absolute.

Yes they are.

There are prohibitions on actions that interfere with the public good or which cause suffering to any creatures, human or otherwise.

There are prohibitions, but it is it right to have them?

The fur business is one of those that causes suffering. Therefore, there are concerned people who think it should be banned.

Concerned people who want to limit behavior is the only thing that really frightens me in this world.

all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot