Janet Jackson fan to part with collectibles over fur line

[Ben]

animals don't only kill for food come on we all heard stories about people getting attacked because they happend to be in an animals terriorty ,

I cant even believe this discussion is happening. I thought the 70's were long gone and people had changed. Animals dont kill for fun, that's the main difference with humans. What is the point of fur farms? that stupid rich morons can walk around thinking they look smart. The end. We dont need fur to stay alive. We dont need leather either btw. Or meat, but that's another issue.

Now can you imagine what these animals have to go through? Constant fear, mistreatment, physical pain? For what? So that someone can make money out of it? Seriously? Does Janet need that to live? Certainly not.

 

[Rhilo]

lol you cannot seriosuly compare a wild lion , tiger or bear to a dog , and yes a lion tiger or bear would eat you in heart beat. oldest law of the jungle eat or be eaten.

Yes, but we are talking about the fur trade, and as far as I know wild lions, tigers nor bears are bred legally for this purpose. Animals that are often bred for fur include minks, chinchillas, fox, dogs (ya hear that?), cats and rabbits. As you can see, most of these species are also common pets.

End of the day, what does it matter? You are missing the point here. It's not only domesticated household pets that deserve our respect; all animals do. That includes wild animals. Using the logic that wild animals would harm humans as a means to justify human abuse and cruelty to animals is unfathomable, unless you deny the fact that humans pose a higher intelligence, consciousness and ability to reason - to understand right from wrong.

You are not doing any favor to the the human species by levelling their intelligence with that of animals, and that is what you and some others are doing by justifying there's nothing wrong with humans behaving like wild animals i.e. they would hurt us, so what's wrong with us hurting them?

On the flipside even wild animals are capable of returning love and respect to humans that have shown them exactly that. There are plenty of stories, and I'm not going to quote them here, but I will quote Ghandi:

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated

I think the same quote can be applied to each and every one of us, individually.

 

[Ben]

It's not only domesticated household pets that deserve our respect; all animals do. That includes wild animals. Using the logic that wild animals would harm humans as a means to justify human abuse and cruelty to animals is unfathomable, unless you deny the fact that humans pose a higher intelligence, consciousness and ability to reason - to understand right from wrong.

You are not doing any favor to the the human species by levelling their intelligence with that of animals, and that is what you and some others are doing by justifying there's nothing wrong with humans behaving like wild animals i.e. they would hurt us, so what's wrong with us hurting them?

Thank you

 

[twinklEE]

personally, at first I thought I'd keep away before stans scream 'hater' but some are pushing it now, I don't have any pets nor am I particularly fond of having one, but there is no way that I'd endorse or wear fur clothing. Animals may not be humans but they are not ''things'', they're alive and they feel pain period. For Janet to endorse this and at the same time claim she's an animal lover (like she's done so many times in the past) it IS pretty hypocritical, but then again it's Janet so no surprises there.

 

[KOPV]

Like I said before I do not wear fur due to my own comfort level of doing so, and for simular reasons why others stated.. But the reason why I say saying someone is disgusting because they wear fur or would endorse it is like saying someone is disgusting for being a particular religion is because it's someone beliefe either if it's wrong or right.. It boils down to simular arguments...

Half of my family is christian/catholic and the other half is muslim.. It is very culturaly accepted within the muslim culture to slaughter a lamb for a holiday and eat it for the next several days.. It's culturally accepted to even make a rug out of one every so often, I can remember my grandmother making one and outting in the house.. So would my grandmother be disgusting?? Of course not!!

When it comes to animals, what is acceptable is a matter of opinion..

My personal beliefs which is somewhat genetically and scientifically proven is we are built to be meat eaters, our teath and digestive system are built to be meat eaters.. I do feel uncomfortable with the abuse of animals for pleasure, I do not like hunting for sport etc. But that is because of my own uncomforts and my own reasoning..

In many cultures they wont even understand why it's a discussion, they kill there own animals at home.. While we are sensitive to the process because our meat is provided in a pretty little packaging where we never have to face the process.. If that same person was around it of course there is a high possibility that he/she would feel differently.

 

[Ben]

Like I said before I do not wear fur due to my own comfort level of doing so, and for simular reasons why others stated.. But the reason why I say saying someone is disgusting because they wear fur or would endorse it is like saying someone is disgusting for being a particular religion is because it's someone beliefe either if it's wrong or right.. It boils down to simular arguments...

Half of my family is christian/catholic and the other half is muslim.. It is very culturaly accepted within the muslim culture to slaughter a lamb for a holiday and eat it for the next several days.. It's culturally accepted to even make a rug out of one every so often, I can remember my grandmother making one and outting in the house.. So would my grandmother be disgusting?? Of course not!!

When it comes to animals, what is acceptable is a matter of opinion..

My personal beliefs which is somewhat genetically and scientifically proven is we are built to be meat eaters, our teath and digestive system are built to be meat eaters.. I do feel uncomfortable with the abuse of animals for pleasure, I do not like hunting for sport etc. But that is because of my own uncomforts and my own reasoning..

In many cultures they wont even understand why it's a discussion, they kill there own animals at home.. While we are sensitive to the process because our meat is provided in a pretty little packaging where we never have to face the process.. If that same person was around it of course there is a high possibility that he/she would feel differently.

I agree, although in many very old cultures, there are cruel traditions, that deny animal pain. Or human dignity. Excision is also culturally accepted, and legal, in several countries, and has been for a very long time. It doesnt mean it cant be changed. Humanity is supposed to learn, evolve, and improve, at least IMO.
You may think it's natural for humans to eat meat, but does the killing have to be painful as well? Shouldnt we know now that animals feel fear and pain, and as so called "superior beings" who have this knowledge, shouldnt we do all we can to avoid that fear and pain?

 

[KOPV]

Our bodies are built to be meat eaters, if someone choses not to be for personal reasons that can be respected.. But those who eat meat as we are built to do should not be told that they are wrong for doing so..

To me its simple.. I respect anyone choice not to eat meat, but I will defend those who do not find something wrong with it and are told there is..

Killing tactics does not have to be painful.. I know there is alot of it and I don't agree with it personally..

My main point is the act of eating meat, or even wearing fur in my opinion should not be looked at as basically something evil if someone else is doing so..

some comments towards Janet about this is just, wrong to me..

 

[Ben]

My main point is the act of eating meat, or even wearing fur in my opinion should not be looked at as basically something evil if someone else is doing so..

some comments towards Janet about this is just, wrong to me..

I dont think wearing fur and eating meat can be compared. The latter is to keep yourself alive (not discussing the whole to be a vegetarian or not coz it's not the topic here), whereas fur is just...to look cool? to show you have money? There are many ways to keep warm without hurting or killing another living being, so why do it anyway?

 

[kindofdisco]

Here is a quote from the summary of the interview abcnews did.



I am not gonna waste my time re-watching all the clips to find the one YOU ARE DENYING EXISTENCE...so be my guest, sift through ABC's archive, you will eventually find it.

Search: Janet Jackson in their video archives. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/InTheSpot...abc-news/story?id=9101233&page=2#.TtS8KGCCx8x

Honey, that's not a direct quote FROM JANET. That is a quote from the interviewer. And yes, I'd take Jermaine's word over the media any day. You know why? Because um, let's see. He lived with Janet for many years, he's her brother. He lived at Hayvenhurst. He knew what animals were kept there. You may not like Jermaine, but he was actually there.

And you do not deserve an apology. LOL. Please girl.

And FYI I did not "deny" the existence. I was waiting for you to show proof, because I have never heard her speak about the key in interviews before. Two different things.

 

[KOPV]

It comes down to beliefs built on cultural environment, and everyones is different.. and we cannot attack others for it.

If someone is against it they have the full right to try to make laws pass to support a belief.. that is 100% fine, and I would fallow the law accordingly..

 

[KingMikeJ]

I respect your opinion if you are against the use of fur, but it's pretty clear that one or two people here wouldn't give a about this if it wasn't Janet. You know who you are. Haters gonna hate, they just need to find a reason. This is the reason.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

I hate fur. I think it's disgusting and I personally and disgusted she is endorsing this.

I'm disappointed, too. I've never liked fur and the information on how those poor animals are horribly abused/killed for their fur is widely available for her to check out and educate herself.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

To be clear.. I dont hate nor am I against animals but I dont feel that my feelings about something should dictate someone else. If she wants to endorse fur then so what!?!?!? Its her life not mine. I still stand by what I said though... Im sure if the tables were turned the animals wouldnt care and they dont.

You most certainly sound like a HATER and an uninformed one to boot. No one is "dictating" to anyone what their personal choices concerning fur should be, we're all merely expression our opinions about it, not running through villages with torches after people that wear fur. Btw, raising animals for food (in a humane way, i.e. organic farms) versus mass breeding them in horrible conditions simply for fashion isn't the same thing. Also, the only animal that acts with malice is the HUMAN ANIMAL, which has proven time and time again to be far more dangerous, threatening and cruel than any other animal on this planet.

 

[chanel05]

You did it again if you want to quote more posts you can use the "+ icon on each post you want to quote so you can answer to both quotes in one post. I merged your posts now to one post.

I know how to multiquote.. As i stated earlier I was on my cell phone and you cannot multi quote on there ( i was using the mobile version of this website).

Like you would know. You've never had a pet I assume. I have two dogs, and they are the most loyal friends. I find some of your statements highly insensitive and offensive.

I have had pets in the past. Ive actually had two dogs before. I remember when we had to give my dog away, her name was Buttercup(I named her and I was into PowerPuff Girls at the time) and she was a BEAUTIFUL black lab, I CRIED AND CRIED AND CRIED like a BABY. I was so heartbroken that she had to go. The second dog I didnt have much of a connection to because I wasnt around that much.

One more thing, please tell me where I stated that I hate animals??? I have never stated that because I do not feel that way. So please only speak about what you know.

P.S. Im sorry that you feel offended by my opinion but its just that, MY OPINION. I stated earlier that my 1st post was pretty blunt, but I stand by what I said.

You most certainly sound like a HATER and an uninformed one to boot. No one is "dictating" to anyone what their personal choices concerning fur should be, we're all merely expression our opinions about it, not running through villages with torches after people that wear fur. Btw, raising animals for food (in a humane way, i.e. organic farms) versus mass breeding them in horrible conditions simply for fashion isn't the same thing. Also, the only animal that acts with malice is the HUMAN ANIMAL, which has proven time and time again to be far more dangerous, threatening and cruel than any other animal on this planet.

So people calling the woman all kinds of names and you referring to me as a "hater" may not necessarily trying to "dictate" but it sure as hell isnt being open to other peoples opinions and rights they have as a human being. If people were being sooo "open" or just expressing their opinion, then why all the name calling??? I never once resorted to calling anyone out of their name when stating my opinion so I dont see why others feel the need to. Dictating may be a strong word, but it feels that way because of the personal attacks on someone because they are exercising their free right to do what they please.

 

[strawberry45220]

Yes, but we are talking about the fur trade, and as far as I know wild lions, tigers nor bears are bred legally for this purpose. Animals that are often bred for fur include minks, chinchillas, fox, dogs (ya hear that?), cats and rabbits. As you can see, most of these species are also common pets.

End of the day, what does it matter? You are missing the point here. It's not only domesticated household pets that deserve our respect; all animals do. That includes wild animals. Using the logic that wild animals would harm humans as a means to justify human abuse and cruelty to animals is unfathomable, unless you deny the fact that humans pose a higher intelligence, consciousness and ability to reason - to understand right from wrong.

You are not doing any favor to the the human species by levelling their intelligence with that of animals, and that is what you and some others are doing by justifying there's nothing wrong with humans behaving like wild animals i.e. they would hurt us, so what's wrong with us hurting them?

On the flipside even wild animals are capable of returning love and respect to humans that have shown them exactly that. There are plenty of stories, and I'm not going to quote them here, but I will quote Ghandi:



I think the same quote can be applied to each and every one of us, individually.

they do not breed no lion, tigers ande etc for fur a long time ago thoes animals were pouched for fur ( which might have been why Janet was agains tfur ) most fur comes from minks and chinchillians that are farmed you only get fur that comes from china that may contain fur from dogs' cats and etc because it,s not regulated and your only going to get that if your buying cheap knock offs
yeah you said respect all animals but like I said eairler people are hypocritcal you can turn around and call somebody disguting for wearing fur than on the very same day go to kfc or mccdonalds where the.. animals are not treated better
so what's the difference?
Any way so is Janet being hypocritcal yeah but imo no more hypocritcal than most people who eat meat and don't wear food except Janet doesn't eat meat and wears furs

 

[strawberry45220]

I dont think wearing fur and eating meat can be compared. The latter is to keep yourself alive (not discussing the whole to be a vegetarian or not coz it's not the topic here), whereas fur is just...to look cool? to show you have money? There are many ways to keep warm without hurting or killing another living being, so why do it anyway?

you don not need no meat to keep yourself alive, you will not die if you don't eat meat , people eat meat cause they chose too period

 

[Severus Snape]

I don't really care about any of the Jacksons aside from Michael and MJ3, but, admittedly, I can't wait to see it!!

I love mink, and I hear that's the main focus of this new line!! ?

If she wants to endorse fur then let her. If you dont care for it than so what???? Its not something to have a damn fit over. Im sure those damn animals dont give two sh**ts about you or me. If needed they would maul our ass without thinking twice about it.

Basically, yes. Some people like to preach preach preach and make much ado about nothing, claiming it's "not natural," or whatever, as if that were such an amazing argument. Using the internet is not natural either, so why do it? Then there are the others who claim it is cruel (how much do you want to bet a good percentage of these people have items lying around the house which are made in China or some third world country where workers get a bloody pittance and are basically cruelly exploited for profit by some big company so fat consumers such as themselves can receive said goods at a cheap price?) No real reason to mind then, though, right?

Animals wouldn't think twice about killing us for food, etc. so it makes no sense, naturally, to do the same. (If we want to bark up the "natural" argument, something which I am admittedly not a fan of doing, since in our day and age we are so thoroughly divorced from the "natural" world the naturalness or lack thereof of a given thing is truly irrelevant).

The only thing that seems to be an issue here is that she apparently was anti-fur for a while (I wouldn't know if this is true, I don't follow her, but other posters here are claiming she's a hypocrite, etc. so I guess that's what that means), and now she's cozying up to a fur company...

I've always been of the opinion one should hold on to one's own principles (or lack thereof, I reckon, too). Thus, if she was a professed anti-fur person and is now sleeping with this fur company, well, it'd be as illogical and hypocritical as if I were to turn into some unglamourous hippie PETA freak tomorrow...

 

[Ben]

you don not need no meat to keep yourself alive, you will not die if you don't eat meat , people eat meat cause they chose too period

As much as I agree, as a vegetarian myself, this is not the topic of the thread. This is about fur, not eating or not eating meat.

I couldnt care less it this is about Janet or not. I think it even worse coming from her because she's someone others might look up to, and she can influence people. And it's hypocritical coming from someone claiming to care about animals.

 

[Rhilo]

I know how to multiquote.. As i stated earlier I was on my cell phone and you cannot multi quote on there ( i was using the mobile version of this website).



I have had pets in the past. Ive actually had two dogs before. I remember when we had to give my dog away, her name was Buttercup(I named her and I was into PowerPuff Girls at the time) and she was a BEAUTIFUL black lab, I CRIED AND CRIED AND CRIED like a BABY. I was so heartbroken that she had to go. The second dog I didnt have much of a connection to because I wasnt around that much.

One more thing, please tell me where I stated that I hate animals??? I have never stated that because I do not feel that way. So please only speak about what you know.

P.S. Im sorry that you feel offended by my opinion but its just that, MY OPINION. I stated earlier that my 1st post was pretty blunt, but I stand by what I said.



So people calling the woman all kinds of names and you referring to me as a "hater" may not necessarily trying to "dictate" but it sure as hell isnt being open to other peoples opinions and rights they have as a human being. If people were being sooo "open" or just expressing their opinion, then why all the name calling??? I never once resorted to calling anyone out of their name when stating my opinion so I dont see why others feel the need to. Dictating may be a strong word, but it feels that way because of the personal attacks on someone because they are exercising their free right to do what they please.

I don't believe I said you hated animals. Nevertheless, in your posts here, you don't come across as someone with compassion towards animals either.

 

[strawberry45220]

As much as I agree, as a vegetarian myself, this is not the topic of the thread. This is about fur, not eating or not eating meat.

I couldnt care less it this is about Janet or not. I think it even worse coming from her because she's someone others might look up to, and she can influence people. And it's hypocritical coming from someone claiming to care about animals.

yeah that's the point and why eating meat was brought up because it's a choice people make just like wearing fur is a choice some people don't make , and like I said yeah Janet is being no more hypocritcal than most people yeah people claim they love animals but without any hestiantion have no problem comsuming animals without a second thought, , and if minks and chillians were consumed would that some how make it better? heck I just saw on yahoo they lifted the ban on slautering horses in the Us where's the outrage in that? I just feel if people are going to talk the talk than walk the walk. and live animal free period and look at the whole picture, and I am glad you do .
As I said eariler what's the difference between a restaurant that has to thrown away orders at the night because they didn't sale enough or wearing fur, both animals deaths would a have been in vain and ( heck at least the coatt isn't getting thrown away) , it's just that people don't look at the overall picture .

 

[magiktori]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Janet-Jacks...780?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f10bdf78c rhe auction

 

[Rhilo]

they do not breed no lion, tigers ande etc for fur a long time thoes animals were pouched for fur ( which might have been why Janet was againstfur ) most fur comes from minks and chinchillians that are farmed you only get fur that comes from china that may contain fur from dogs' cats and etc because it,s not regulated and your only going to get that if your buying cheap knock off
yeah you said respect all animals but like I said eairler people are hypocritcal you can turn around and call somebody disguting for wearing fur than on the very same day go to kfc or mccdonalds where the.. animals are not treated better
so
what's the difference?
Any way so is Janet being hypocritcal yeah but imo no more hypocritcal than most people who eat meat and don't wear food except Janet doesn't eat meat and wears furs

Far East isn't the only place where dog and cat fur farming is prevelant. Certain East European countries also breed them for fur, and it isn't always the illegal 'cheap knock-offs' that use dog or cat fur, branded clothes too have been found with dog fur in instances. Read up on how dog fur was found in some of the jackets in Sean Comb's (P.Diddy) clothing line.

And you say there's no difference between meat eating and fur wearing? How about plain selfish vanity - perhaps the key reason why people consume the latter? I don't for a minute condone meat factory farming either. However, food is a basic human need, so is protein as a dietry requirement. Clothing is a basic need as well, but animal fur clothing is NOT a requirement NOR a need. If you fail to see that, you are too set in your thinking, and additional explanations from myself or others would be redudant.

 

[Ben]

As I said eariler what's the difference between a restaurant that has to thrown away orders at the night because they didn't sale enough or wearing fur, both animals deaths would a have been in vain and ( heck at least the coatt isn't getting thrown away) , it's just that people don't look at the overall picture .

There's no difference to me between industrial farms where thousands of animals are mistreated and fur farms. I dont see the difference between people eating foie gras when we know how it's obtained, and dog fights. It's all about how you see other forms of life.

In my mind, one of the most important things is not to inflict pain of any kind to any other living being.
And yes, it can be done

 

[MJJ7777]

I don't really care about any of the Jacksons aside from Michael and MJ3, but, admittedly, I can't wait to see it!!

I love mink, and I hear that's the main focus of this new line!! ?



Basically, yes. Some people like to preach preach preach and make much ado about nothing, claiming it's "not natural," or whatever, as if that were such an amazing argument. Using the internet is not natural either, so why do it? Then there are the others who claim it is cruel (how much do you want to bet a good percentage of these people have items lying around the house which are made in China or some third world country where workers get a bloody pittance and are basically cruelly exploited for profit by some big company so fat consumers such as themselves can receive said goods at a cheap price?) No real reason to mind then, though, right?

Animals wouldn't think twice about killing us for food, etc. so it makes no sense, naturally, to do the same. (If we want to bark up the "natural" argument, something which I am admittedly not a fan of doing, since in our day and age we are so thoroughly divorced from the "natural" world the naturalness or lack thereof of a given thing is truly irrelevant).

The only thing that seems to be an issue here is that she apparently was anti-fur for a while (I wouldn't know if this is true, I don't follow her, but other posters here are claiming she's a hypocrite, etc. so I guess that's what that means), and now she's cozying up to a fur company...

I've always been of the opinion one should hold on to one's own principles (or lack thereof, I reckon, too). Thus, if she was a professed anti-fur person and is now sleeping with this fur company, well, it'd be as illogical and hypocritical as if I were to turn into some unglamourous hippie PETA freak tomorrow...

:bugeyedThe way you say this is sort of cold, but when it comes down to it, I think you make a lot of sense.:yes:

I don't wear fur but I don't consider people who do evil either. I love animals, I don't like to see any living thing in pain however the same fierce advocates of animal rights need to remember that their fellow humans are also being exploited for the same purpose, I'd like to see more outrage over disadvantaged workers being exploited just so that the rest of the world could enjoy some of life's luxuries at crazy cheap prices. That I agree with Severus Snape 100 % . Lets be real people.

 

[Ben]

The fact that people are being exploited doesnt mean it's ok to torture and kill animals for fun. I believe we must fight that kind of abuse everywhere it happens. You can educate yourself about where products are made, and how companies treat their employees. It just needs a little research and can be found online. This allows you to decide what to buy or not. There are also plenty of campaigns fighting for animals and people rights.

Man in the Mirror is not just a song.

 

[Severus Snape]

Far East isn't the only place where dog and cat fur farming is prevelant. Certain East European countries also breed them for fur, and it isn't always the illegal 'cheap knock-offs' that use dog or cat fur, branded clothes too have been found with dog fur in instances. Read up on how dog fur was found in some of the jackets in Sean Comb's (P.Diddy) clothing line.

Actually, the animal in question used in the Sean Combs line was raccoon dog, a wild canine found in Asia. It is not domestic dog, as in the kind we think of when we think of "Fido" (admittedly, there is no difference at all between the two to me as far as emotional value, but for the sake of correctness, the distinction needs to be made). The raccoon dog, as I stated earlier, is a wild animal which lives in Asia, thus using its fur would be no different than using, say, fox or coyote fur (people just get butthurt because the word "dog" is there--technically, foxes, wolves, etc. are all "dogs," as in, canines). However, these people (most people, unfortunately) are ignorant idiots whose research evidently does not extend far enough to actually know what a raccoon dog is, and only take media sensationalism and actually believe Sean Combs used domestic dogs in his jackets, LMAO.

THIS is the wild raccoon dog:

This is a typical domestic dog:

As you can see, they are not one and the same, and neither are their habitats (or personalities, for that matter--raccoon dogs are nocturnal and not generally friendly, whereas domestic dogs are the opposite, but that's beside the point). The politics of the fur trade (theoretically, anyway) prohibit the use of domestic cats and dogs in the fur trade, but permit non-endangered wild animals to be used in the fur industry. The controversy spawned from Combs' jacket line I think had more to do with the false advertisement of the raccoon dog fur as "faux" than the use of the fur altogether. Andrew Marc uses raccoon dog to line jackets, and it is present on the tag. As far as I know, there have been no consequences from this. This is what a raccoon dog lined jacket looks like:

(My Marc New York jacket with duck feather stuffing and raccoon dog hood lining).

How anyone in their right mind could confuse this beautiful thing with the disgusting, stiff, and oftentimes ratty-looking faux fur linings most cheap coats come with is absolutely beyond me, especially when it comes to sensory perception. The lining in this coat is softer than cotton, truly magnificent material. So, I'm not sure what possessed Combs into thinking he could pass such a fine texture off as "faux" fur, which is typically, well, cheap-feeling and gross...

And you say there's no difference between meat eating and fur wearing? How about plain selfish vanity - perhaps the key reason why people consume the latter?

I will openly admit the latter is purely for vanity. Beautiful, fabulous, glamourous vanity.

You say it like it's a bad thing, though.

Man in the Mirror is not just a song.

No, it is not. However, as far as I know, there's no fascist mandate that states you have to act upon the message of every single song you happen to dig. You're free to pursue it if you wish, and I'm free to do as I like. Isn't freedom great? 8D

As for the rest of your message, I'm not attempting to justify my purchases due to the high likelihood that a lot of the preachy hippies who are anti-fur probably have a ton of stuff made by basically slave workers lying around their house. I need not justify a single thing because I'm not the one who's preaching. However, they would be hypocritical in harassing people who choose to purchase fur or eat meat while basically endorsing human trafficking/enslavement via their own purchases. Of course, not everyone fits this criteria, but you'd be surprised at how many of them do.

As for checking where you're sending your money into and what you are supporting via your purchases, I couldn't agree more with you. It is important to know where your money is going, and to ensure the people receiving it function under principles you are in accordance with. That is what the informed consumer does. I would strongly advocate thorough research on part of the consumer--a lot of them are woefully ignorant regarding where their money goes and what it supports.

However, I'm not one of them, so there's no budging me. =P

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Janet-Jacks...780?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f10bdf78c rhe auction

Admittedly, I will LMAO if this has zero takers by the time the auction ends. How much do you want to bet the hippie will be über-pissed over not only hating JJ for flip-flopping, but for having to pay the eBay post fee too lol! 8D

In all seriousness, though, the chinchilla depicted in the auction does bring up an important point. What has Janet done for the U.S. lately? Reckon she's not feeling particularly patriotic as of late?

 

[Ashtanga]

Actually, the animal in question used in the Sean Combs line was raccoon dog, a wild canine found in Asia. It is not domestic dog, as in the kind we think of when we think of "Fido" (admittedly, there is no difference at all between the two to me as far as emotional value, but for the sake of correctness, the distinction needs to be made). The raccoon dog, as I stated earlier, is a wild animal which lives in Asia, thus using its fur would be no different than using, say, fox or coyote fur (people just get butthurt because the word "dog" is there--technically, foxes, wolves, etc. are all "dogs," as in, canines). However, these people (most people, unfortunately) are ignorant idiots whose research evidently does not extend far enough to actually know what a raccoon dog is, and only take media sensationalism and actually believe Sean Combs used domestic dogs in his jackets, LMAO.

THIS is the wild raccoon dog:

This is a typical domestic dog:

As you can see, they are not one and the same, and neither are their habitats (or personalities, for that matter--raccoon dogs are nocturnal and not generally friendly, whereas domestic dogs are the opposite, but that's beside the point). The politics of the fur trade (theoretically, anyway) prohibit the use of domestic cats and dogs in the fur trade, but permit non-endangered wild animals to be used in the fur industry. The controversy spawned from Combs' jacket line I think had more to do with the false advertisement of the raccoon dog fur as "faux" than the use of the fur altogether. Andrew Marc uses raccoon dog to line jackets, and it is present on the tag. As far as I know, there have been no consequences from this. This is what a raccoon dog lined jacket looks like:

(My Marc New York jacket with duck feather stuffing and raccoon dog hood lining).

How anyone in their right mind could confuse this beautiful thing with the disgusting, stiff, and oftentimes ratty-looking faux fur linings most cheap coats come with is absolutely beyond me, especially when it comes to sensory perception. The lining in this coat is softer than cotton, truly magnificent material. So, I'm not sure what possessed Combs into thinking he could pass such a fine texture off as "faux" fur, which is typically, well, cheap-feeling and gross...

:bugeyed


This is very disgusting. I am completely against any kind of cruelty to any kind of animal, wild or not, and in this case, for vanity, glamour and being in fashion is even more disgusting. uke: But it's just my opinion...

 

[Rhilo]

Severus, I knew it was raccoon dog fur. It really doesn't matter. It's still a canine species, but if you say it does, consider that domestic dog breed fur is also still common. The majority produced in places like China are for import. Where do you think they end up? If the Sean Comb line and other brands have sold clothes made of real fur as faux fur, there is no telling that the Western markets are 100% free of products made of dog or cat fur even today.

And do I think it's a bad thing to wear animal fur for vanity? Of course. The fact that some animal has to live a short miserable life to be killed cruelly at the end, for the sake of human vanity is cruel. That's my opinion, and you can disagree.

 

[Severus Snape]

^We can agree to disagree, and I know of the issue regarding domestic dog/cat fur being used in Chinese imports. By the way, I wasn't saying you didn't know Combs used raccoon dog. I was saying the bulk of idiots who began and followed the media sensationalism when the "news" of Combs' false advertisement came out and tried to say he used actual domestic dogs in his line need to do better research.

Yes, there is a difference between raccoon dog and domestic dog. A huge difference, as I pointed out in my previous post. Raccoon dogs are wild animals and are therefore not "dogs" as we think of the term. You probably would not be allowed to own one as a pet (nor would it be recommended, as their temperament is diametrically opposed to that of the domestic dog). My point is that people try to make raccoon dog fur use sound worse than any other kind of fur use just because it has the word "dog," despite the fact that 1. foxes, coyotes, etc. are technically dogs too, and 2. raccoon dogs are not the same as domestic dogs--they are wild animals.

The issue with inferior fur from China being used in products is usually found among the lower quality brands. It personally does not bother me beyond the scope of being ripped off (if you're paying for, say, fox or rabbit, you don't expect anything else, right? That'd be like paying for apples and getting tangerines instead).

However, a fur wearer will know what animal the fur belongs to. Each different type of fur has its own unique texture, and there's no passing off anything else as it. For example, there's no way in Hell you're passing rabbit off as mink, or bobcat as fox. It takes a real connoisseur to distinguish between the different types, so there is a sure way of knowing what kind of fur your garment is made from.

The dog/cat issue is usually found, as I said, on lower-quality garments, and they are usually poorly attempted to pass as rabbit fur, but more commonly as faux or "ethical" fur, actually.

Yet another great reason not to buy fake fur!

 

[KOPV]

Someone can believe that it is ok to eat meat or even wear fur and still believe that it's not ok to put animals through pain..This dispute for domesticated animals and wild animals does not make too much sence to me though!! We do relize that we are taught by culture to have domestic animals.. That is a large portion of where our sensitivity towards animals stem from.. You know there are countries that believe that it's filthy to have a dog in the house and is insanitary. I have litterally heard people say its like having a pig in the house.. We have to be aware that culture will dictate what we find ok and what is culturaly accepted.. We are no smarter than others in different cultures we just have different point of views.