Saturday, February 24, 2007

As I Was Saying

Talk at Paula’s about skinning animals made me think … about … skinning …

Or did it? Everything makes me think, and nothing. I have opinions about everything, but that doesn’t mean I think about everything. I just have opinions. Sometimes, after venting an opinion, I have a nagging feeling that there was something wrong with it. But what? That I didn’t think about it? That it would somehow create another increment of isolation between myself and the larger crowd? Which is more important: That an opinion reflect considered judgment, or that it somehow add to one’s sense of social contact? We don’t blog just to express ourselves. If no one ever read it, we wouldn't publish it.

My instincts are both social and not. I’m a knee-jerk contrarian. If a bunch of people agree on something, it’s automatic to me that they are forgetting something, or are caught up in group-think. So with this idea that it’s just “wrong” to wear the furry skins of animals, especially warm cuddly animals. Yes, my intuition is the same as everyone else’s: It’s just wrong. But my intuition is to distrust my own intuition. If my first reaction is to take the high road, the nice road, and abhor turning furry animals into articles of clothing, then my first and a half reaction is to go, wait a minute, where’d that come from anyway? Same place that sees up and down as absolute? That is aware despite my disbelief of a supernatural intelligence acting as a guide and counselor every minute of the day? That assumes everyone is basically good and if we just trust each other the world will settle into an stable happy peace? I have those feelings, those gut feelings that my feet are on the ground, God is in heaven and everyone who smiles back can be trusted. Trouble is, my brain can’t be stopped from kicking in, and everything gets questioned again.

Including me. I was going to clarify my thoughts on the use of animals for human comfort. But I changed my mind. I love using animals for comfort, make no mistake. Petting my dog always makes me happy, and he likes it too. The cat rubs up on my leg, and like as not I will pick her up and make her lie back on my arm and endure some embarrassing displays of cross-species affection. But the wearing of fur whose original owner is dead doesn’t bother me, and once I silence that unthinking gut reaction against it I don’t see any reason why it should bother me. But this sort of thinking is only useful if it leads to a philosophical clarification and I ain’t in the mood for that.

Let’s just say I distrust slippery slopes. Gut feelings are about finding your natural place on a slippery slope, but slippery slopes are populated by all sorts of nasty creatures, from religious fanatics on down; and yet, so are the absolutes. Somewhere on this continuum, truth can be found. The trick for each person is finding it. And since “truth can be found” is a statement of faith hence probably not true, I am nagged always by the sense that my own truth, at least, will never be found either. So I will own up to the obvious conclusion: Whether written or said here or in private, don’t think I fully believe in anything that I say.

15 comments:

Deadman said...

Well I guess it's the old fur vs. leather thing for me. I figure if you wear leather you shouldn't have a problem wearing fur.

What about vintage furs being resold?

I don't see that as a problem, but PETA tried to put a woman in Guerneville out of business for doing so. That to me is the epitome of bullying.

What if we were in the middle of a frozen wasteland? Do we have a duty to freeze to death rather than kill another creature, or are we justified in using our intellect to kill and skin something with fur in order to keep warm?

What about cannibalism? I know, I'm just running with it.


Much food for thought in one post, Don.

Anonymous said...

I didn't really understand this post. It's not all that clear what you're trying to say. There's no slippery slope involved here. Wearing furs doesn't lead to wearing the skins of your family. No, really, it doesn't.

Mark, you need to learn to shut the fuck up if you have nothing to add. Wearing leather -- made from animals kept and killed for food -- is nothing like wearing furs -- made from animals kept and killed for their skins. See if you can spot the difference in there.

Anonymous said...

Don, I may not understand the blue barnacle thingie in the previous poast, but I agree with your thoughts on the dog fur issue. I don't wear fur -- fake or other -- simply because the days it's cold enough to warrant it are too few to justify spending money on something furry. But if you set aside the cruel treatment doled out to the animals we use -- whether it's chickens stacked atop one another or cows kept crated just to provide their byproducts, or a raccoon being hung by its toes and skinned while wriggling alive -- if you set aside those things, then what makes wearing fur any different from eating a steak? What makes a mink -- actually a verminous animal little different from a rat except for its fur -- any better than a cow? Why should I not have the mink's fur and the cow's meat (but not it's tongue, ew.)?

I'm against cruelty. But I'm not against using the things around us for my personal comfort, gain, or enjoyment.

I am also in favor of skinning Zen and using his leather to make a lovely collar for my dog to wear. I'd bop him on the noggin' first, natch.

Deadman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paula said...

Is that Zen, or Robert McWhoozit? The Lee Bral thing in comments on another post reminded me of him. If so, hey Robert, what's shakin'?

I'm not scared of slippery slopes. I think peeps who see everything as B/W are scary. I fully admit my hypocrisy over the fur/leather thing, yet I can't bring myself to care much about cows. I don't actually "care" about some vicious little mink either, but my emotional reaction to caging these things, brutally killing them, and wearing their skin is a strong mix of horror/sadness. I understand that other people don't necessarily feel these things, and I don't think they're "bad" for that. I don't care much about aborting a seven-week old clump of human cells, and I know there are people who see that as horrible. Hopefully they won't judge me either. Bwah.

There's no principle for me here on the fur thing (maybe a vegetarian can assert a principle). It just feels wrong. We don't need to do it (Eskimos excepted), so why should we? People do need to eat, and I'm not about to say that everyone should go veggie, though it might help in the obesity department. I still eat meat.

Reselling fur is a disgusting way to make a living, and I can understand why PETA would target that, just as others target the tobacco industry, etc. It enables the overall acceptability of wearing fur, when (IMO) it should not be socially acceptable.

Deadman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deadman said...

Don and Gekko -

Thanks.

Don said...

This poast wasn't even about all that fur stuff.

Bu it was a starting point. As I said in comments elsewhere, if I'm willing to eat a hamburger, I may as well wear a fur coat doing it. S'posing I can afford it, which I can't. And s'posing the animal was treated well and killed without suffering, which all too often it isn't.

Paula said...

I understand, Don. It sounds very logical. But this isn't about logic, it's about feelings. I actually believe that's pretty much true for most topics, though it's clearer on this one. First is the feeling (or lack thereof), then comes the reason. I don't believe there's an absolute truth to be found here - as Asha said at Ultrablog, each person decides it for himself. Also, on distrusting your own feelings ... I can relate to that one. If I know I'd like to believe something, it makes me more skeptical, which is one of my main problems with the supernatural stuff and ideas on an afterlife. Doesn't apply here though because I never wanted to believe wearing fur was wrong, I just do. In fact, I realize it's illogical, so I'd rather not feel that way if I had a choice, which I don't.

Anonymous said...

Paula, I enjoy relativism as much as the next person, and of course there is no absolute truth here or anywhere else, but there are better and worse truths. Particularly if you are a raccoon.

Don said...

How is ...

Well, you didn't have much to work with but drew the lines anyway. You give the impression of one of those sad little bastards that likes to kick people. As for fur vs leather vs meat, it makes no difference to the animal which part of its body it's killed for. I say, either use animals (humanely) for our benefit, or don't. It does the animal more honor to use all of it rather than just some; but considering the economics generally, I'd say that's more likely than not to be the case.

Sal said...

OK. It's all about relativism, isn't it?

Why are folks worried about a racoon dog (... a not-dog ... as much a dog as a panda is a bear fer pete's sake) fur collar and the pain and suffering of that not-dog when people aren't concerned about the pain and suffering of the not-born.

Do you worry about fur collars and carry a leather purse? wear leather shoes? eat hamburgers?

What's up with that?

Oooo. Eeeks. "the not-born"

Yikes. I know... that's like calling, "Hitler!" in a crowded movie theater.

Still. ...


[note to those who don't know: I'm unrepentent pro-choice and I eat foie gras.]

Harry said...

"I can't stand to see the slaughter,
But still I eat the meat...."

Tower of Power, late 70's.

Anonymous said...

I think your point about mistrusting one's immediate reaction is a good one. Sometimes our immediate reactions don't make a lot of sense, or are overly influenced by context.

The fur issue is a weird one, I think . . . clearly furs were once worn for warmth, back before the good old days of central heating. One unexpected bonus of wearing furs happened to be that some warm animals are also very beautiful, and so wearing their pelts provided aesthetic pleasure as well as comfort. Wealthy people were able to afford the most attractive warm animals, so certain kinds of furs also became a status symbol.

Clearly we're out of the phase of needing fur for warmth. It seems a little morally suspect to me, personally, to raise and kill something merely for aesthetic pleasure. I can see raising and killing it for good use, such as food, or, frankly, leather, which is useful beyond mere aesthetics. To me, it's the intent, not the action. If I'm killing and wearing an animal because I'm cold, that's one thing. If I think I look more stylish in leopard spots, that's quite another.

Anonymous said...

@Sal

A panda is a bear though.


@don

"How is ...

Well, you didn't have much to work with but drew the lines anyway."

Sorry what? Simply repeating your baseless assertion doesn't give it a basis. Typical wingnut. You think that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become true automagically.