Fur is Murder - TTY

Fur is loved and enjoyed by the Cree, so it will be interesting to see how Morrissey's chosen support act, Buffy Sainte-Marie, reacts to this apparent ethnocentric assault on the heritage and values of her community.

Does she wear fur?

Do her family and friends? If so, does she still justify it when her community no longer lives a traditional lifestyle but uses modern technology?

How does Morrissey justify not visiting Canada because of the fur trade but endorsing Cree fur fetishism by giving a platform to perhaps it's most famous cultural voice?

Does Morrissey think 'traditional' fur hunting is ok but not using high-velocity rifles and fur farms? What fur do the Cree use today? Where is it sourced from?

What's the difference between leather and fur? If one eats milk and cheese one is supporting the economics of leather.

Morrissey eats cheese, complains about pleather not being as comfortable for him as leather, complains about fur whilst ignorning the cultural implications of inviting Buffy.

I have googled for Buffys views on fur but only come up with a link thanking her for inspiring a book called 'Kiss Of The Fur Queen'. I look forward to other contributions to this debate.

best
BB


"The documented westward migration over time has been strongly associated with their roles as traders and hunters in the North American Fur Trade.[SUP][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree
[/SUP]
 
Last edited:
Abortion is Murder




Death Penalty is Murder




Deforestation is Murder




Ivory is Murder




Diamonds are Murder




Islam is Murder




1. Pick your cause.
2. Add 'is murder.'
3. Find YouTube video to sell your idea.
4. Change hearts and minds?
5. Inspire agency? Probably not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's the difference between leather and fur? If one eats milk and cheese one is supporting the economics of leather.

best
BB

I will take up the debate on this one. I do see the smallest of differences between fur and leather as fur is generally obtained from the death of an animal for no other reason than this alone. Whereas, a cow is primarily killed for meat with the secondary benefit being the use of the skin to make leather.

Follow me here....I remember as a child reading about the native American Indians and how they worshiped the animals they killed for what they provided them. No part of the animal went to waste. Everything was used. In this sense, if a cow is going to be killed anyway for its meat, wouldn't it simply be wasteful not to use the entire animal before discarding it? Generally, leather is the by-product of meat and not the other way around. In this regard, the purchasing of leather does not "promote" the killing of the animal rather the complete use of the animal.

Economics aside. There is something here I believe. Your thoughts?
 
murder is murder
 
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is murder

tel_aviv_key.jpg
 
one attempt at the truth debunking, and the muddling just seems more and more dishonest and deliberate and childish.

can you successfully practice islam without murder. yes. can you be in the fur trade without murder. no. this would seem obvious to those who attempt objectivity which leads me to think the point is dishonest and designed to simply harass provoke which i dont really enjoy or find useful most of the time.
 
Cheese is loved and enjoyed by Morrissey.

Cheese Bleeds.

Milk Is Murder.

By his own logic he is involved in Murder. Another ludicrous troll post from TTY with the pantomime prop of the British "royal family" in "scare quotes".

best
BB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will take up the debate on this one. I do see the smallest of differences between fur and leather as fur is generally obtained from the death of an animal for no other reason than this alone. Whereas, a cow is primarily killed for meat with the secondary benefit being the use of the skin to make leather.

Follow me here....I remember as a child reading about the native American Indians and how they worshiped the animals they killed for what they provided them. No part of the animal went to waste. Everything was used. In this sense, if a cow is going to be killed anyway for its meat, wouldn't it simply be wasteful not to use the entire animal before discarding it? Generally, leather is the by-product of meat and not the other way around. In this regard, the purchasing of leather does not "promote" the killing of the animal rather the complete use of the animal.

Economics aside. There is something here I believe. Your thoughts?

I agree with you - I find the Peta film disturbing but not the one BB posted of the cow. I don't and never have worn fur but I do eat cheese and wear leather.
 
Morrissey eats cheese too. Unlike him, you don't lecture others about your choices on a public platform and demand that people agree that fur is worse than cheese or milk or leather. It's the same processes of animal abuse. Thus, Morrissey is a hypocrite in criticising fur whilst eating cheese. Morrissey chose to burnish his anti-fur faux credentialism by linking to the usual PETA emotinalist propaganda. I linked to a more subtle expose of the fate of calves, but there are many disturbing videos available. You *might* find this one disturbs you. Or maybe not. It's your life. Your choice. Morrissey clearly isn't disturbed enough by the fate of dairy calves to stop eating cheese but is HORRIFIED! by fur farms. Farms for fur. Farms for cheese. Only in his mind is there any logical difference as neither fur nor cheese are needed for human existence in a technological society such as ours.

best
BB

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morrissey eats cheese too. Unlike him, you don't lecture others about your choices on a public platform and demand that people agree that fur is worse than cheese or milk or leather. It's the same processes of animal abuse. Thus, Morrissey is a hypocrite in criticising fur whilst eating cheese. Morrissey chose to burnish his anti-fur faux credentialism by linking to the usual PETA emotinalist propaganda. I linked to a more subtle expose of the fate of calves, but there are many disturbing videos available. You *might* find this one disturbs you. Or maybe not. It's your life. Your choice. Morrissey clearly isn't disturbed enough by the fate of dairy calves to stop eating cheese but is HORRIFIED! by fur farms. Farms for fur. Farms for cheese. Only in his mind is there any logical difference as neither fur nor cheese are needed for human existence in a technological society such as ours.

best
BB



No the film doesn't bother me, neither does it bother me that Morrissey allegedly eats cheese, nor does it bother me that he lectures others on their choices. Guess why - because I am a grown up and can make my own choices on what I believe in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morrissey eats cheese too. Unlike him, you don't lecture others about your choices on a public platform and demand that people agree that fur is worse than cheese or milk or leather. It's the same processes of animal abuse. Thus, Morrissey is a hypocrite in criticising fur whilst eating cheese. Morrissey chose to burnish his anti-fur faux credentialism by linking to the usual PETA emotinalist propaganda. I linked to a more subtle expose of the fate of calves, but there are many disturbing videos available. You *might* find this one disturbs you. Or maybe not. It's your life. Your choice. Morrissey clearly isn't disturbed enough by the fate of dairy calves to stop eating cheese but is HORRIFIED! by fur farms. Farms for fur. Farms for cheese. Only in his mind is there any logical difference as neither fur nor cheese are needed for human existence in a technological society such as ours.

best
BB





So where are the RECENT photos of him eating cheese?

A rider isn't enough proof.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom