“In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and even clothes and handbags, the discussion of fur is childish.” - Karl Lagerfeld, to the BBC.
3
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 12:25PM
Karl that is a completely foolish statement. People eat meat to sustaining themselves and the skins become a byproduct of consuming an animal for survival. Versus the fur industry where animals are brutally skinned alive, anally electrocuted or trapped and left to survive until someone comes to kill and skin them, for vanity. Simple vanity is not reason enough to brutally kill and torture animals in my book.
If you have no problems wearing fur good for you but don't make a lame ass argument that can't hold water in attempt to justify it. If you want to wear wear the damn thing and don't attempt to justify it. The attempt to justify tends to leave you sounding foolish.
Karl in 2009 maybe lets focus on Chanel. Firing 200 employees at the beginning of the year can't be a good sign of what's going on on your balance sheet.
5
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 12:29PM
Well
if you think about it, it IS in fact something different: consuming animal products for food is very different from consuming animal product for material, aesthetic reasons. morally speaking, at least, the two are different. sure, in the end, we kill the animal. but in the discussion of dinner, or a glamorous coat to make your going out attire that much more wonderful, i'd have to say the coat wearer is taking the food chain argument a little too far. we are the only animal that kills for purposes of glamour.. maybe except animals that fight to win over a female but my guess is they rarely kill. remember when the barbarians wore fur on their backs to assert their incredible might? well, it's sort of the same. and i think we can all agree that we aint so mighty nowadays...
now, with leather. i'd have to agree with sir karl.. if you're going to chastize fur-wearers, it should be the same for those wearing leather.
me, i'm just grossed out by real fur. makes me kind of squeemish.
dana
7
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 12:43PM
Fur, to me, is regressive. It is primative and I prefer to think of myself as a "progressive" person, one whom realizes that human survival is not based on pre-evolutionary tactics such as wearing skins. It is not necessary to kill. How can you ladies feel clean? When I see a woman in fur I just laugh to myself and think of the the History Museum's Homo-Heidelbergensis exhibit. Wear it if you want to, but be able to have a strong, educated argument to back up your decision. The electrocuted animals deserve at least that in their behalf.
I do not support PETA either, but can't we evolve and embrace synthetics? Or will we always be so blind and embrace unnecessary pain? ". If Darwin's survival of the fittest really is a description of our species, then all of you soulless beings will be the first to go because you have not opened your heart to the future of a better human species.
8
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 12:48PM
Humans don't need to eat meat; we do so because we like how it tastes. Why is killing something because it pleases your culinary sensibilities any more morally superior than killing something because it pleases your aesthetic ones?
The reason so many people freak out over fur (while eating meat and wearing leather) is because saying no to fur is a way they can feel righteous without making a sacrifice. It's "giving up" a luxury that is very likely not a part of their lives to begin with.
I respect the choices vegans and vegetarians make in regard to fur, but have no respect for meat eaters who look askance at my mink.
11
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 1:00PM
Guest 8, eating meat in North America and certain areas that can sustain farming is a matter of choice. However, in certain parts of the world farming is not always a viable option. At that point in time eating animals becomes a necessary means of survival. Also eating a vegetarian/vegan life tends to be a little more expensive than consuming meat which means for the vast majority of people that is not an actual alternative.
12
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 1:21PM
Totally agree with commenter #8.
Eating meat and wearing leather shoes/bags is in the same category as fur. And then again I dont really care what people/Peta say I will keep on wearing it because I think its beautifull.
@ 9 What do you mean eyelashcurler ? And yeah im commenter #2
@ 11 Come on this is so far searched.
13
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 1:47PM
@Guest 11
The debate over whether fur is ethical or not takes place in the developed world, and is predicated on the notion that we as consumers can make choices about what we eat/wear/otherwise use. I don't think that anyone who argues that meat eating is "okay" in the case of people existing on subsistence diets where refusing available meat would mean starving would argue that it's "not okay" for indigenous peoples who don't have access to PolarTec fleece to wear fur in the Artic.
My point is, it's fully possible for pretty much anyone who protests fur on ethical grounds to not eat meat or wear leather. A vegetarian diet can definitely be eaten cheaply and a model for doing so has been working for thousands of years in India.
15
posted by bluealvarez
Jan 02, 2009 2:56PM
Karl might be a little loony, but this is a pretty sane point. He could have taken it a step further and said that in a world where we (er, America) start wars unilaterally by fabricating provocation, there's no sense in arguing over clubbing a baby seal.
Cruelty is cruelty, I think maybe some people just see the fur trade as worse because in developed countries it's an obvious extravagance, so the spotlight shines a little brighter in that corner.
As a vegan on a limited budget, I can attest to the fact that, in the US anyway, it's cheaper to live without meat, leather, fur, wool, or dairy. You'd be amazed how little shopping you do and how much more money you save feeding yourself. Guest 13's point about India is spot on, a brilliant case in point.
17
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 4:49PM
Please, read the other Karl quotes from this interview. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/fashionnews/4075783/Karl-Lagerfeld-defends-fur-industry-saying-beasts-would-kill-us-if-we-didnt-kill-them.html
It is seriously the FUNNIEST shit I have read in a while. I'm beginning to wonder if his age is catching up to him and these interviews are one senior moment after another. My favorite by far in his reference to "zillions of fat people."
Another great one: "Hunters in the north 'make a living having learnt nothing else than hunting', he said, 'killing those beasts who would kill us if they could.'" Yes, minks are quite dangerous.
20
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 6:20PM
Karl encourages highway safety in France. Anyway fur is gross. Tell me how skinning an animal alive is okay? Tell me how eating meat and wearing leather is no different than wearing fur!!!? Such a poor analogy. Cows aren't skinned alive for their leather. I will sing a different tune the day I sit down to a chinchilla steak. Morons...
22
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 8:22PM
Guest #20, animals raised for consumption aren't necessarily treated humanely. Chickens have their beaks seared off while pigs and cows are castrated while still sentient. In my opinion, it is hypocritical for meat eaters to criticize people who wear real fur.
I personally could care less about animals. Eat as many burgers and wear as much fur as you want.
24
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 10:11PM
Comments like this is why fashion is irrelevent except for the few who have nothing better to worry about than what handbag to carry with which outfit, or those who aspire to such a wasted life. Fashion is by definition frivolous but when someone who is supposed to be an icon in the business says something so irresponsible and divorced from thought, humanity, and enlightenment as this, fashion is utterly obscene and crass.
28
posted by guest
Jan 03, 2009 11:36AM
This statement is completely nonsensical. Yes, people wear leather. Leather comes from cows, and people eat beef. When's the last time you at a mink? I think what Karl is missing out on is the concept of killing an animal just for their fur versus killing an animal for meat and then using the hide to make leather. Those are two totally separate things.
32
posted by guest
Jan 03, 2009 5:20PM
Love him so much. Is anyone else reminded of Lindsay Bluth on Arrested Development?
Michael: "You know they don't remove the meat surgically from cows, right?"
Lindsay: "That's different Michael, people need meat to survive."
I don't eat much meat, but I really love wearing leather shoes and my couple of fur items.
33
posted by Janet Lindgren
Jan 03, 2009 9:54PM
Karl, is an inhumane selfish little knob. He will get the karma he deserves----hopefully soon!
35
posted by guest
Jan 04, 2009 4:52PM
To commenter #11: Being vegan or vegetarian is actually much cheaper than eating meat. (Even though the rise of industrial agriculture has made meat cheaper and more accessible than ever; in addition to being one of the major causes of global warming). One pound of tofu has roughly 40g of protein; which you can buy for $1 at the store. How much chicken/beef/fish could you buy for $1? People need to quit using false, completely unfounded arguments to justify their own selfish and lazy behaviors. Everything in our world is connected, and if you cannot see how eating or wearing animal flesh impacts our environment and ecosystem, then you really have no clue.
36
posted by guest
Jan 05, 2009 12:25PM
Didn't Karl once make a comment that he's not able to handle intellectuals? The quote is an example of why; take a logic class, Karl.
Cow = meat to eat, leather to wear, i.e. nothing goes to waste.
Mink and the like = wear the fur, discard the rest of the animal, i.e. the animal is being killed solely for it's fur.
Conclusion: BIG difference.
38
posted by guest
Jan 05, 2009 6:16PM
Very "provoking". Maybe the intention? Seeing all he said was provoking. Get too little attention? I eat meat and wear leather - yet I wouldn't wear fur. Not for the fear of the well beeing of the animal, but a fur coat is like wearing corpses, which is abit grotesque. And although we do love the grotesque, and certainly can live with some fur lining, the huuge fur coats just SCREAMS ignorant overclass-lady.
On a more serious note, it helps to reflect on the quote, because if you think about it, there is a valid point there. Most of us eat meat and wear leather (in one form or another), and don't give it a second thought, but most of us are "against" (active or not) fur. And that is without giving it thought, so maybe take a minute to think it through. Nobody say that anyone should change their views, but just give it a minute of your life to think about
39
posted by guest
Jan 07, 2009 5:51AM
to all the fur- wearing ladies out there:
wear your fur if it s so important to you!
but do you actually give a damn?
do you at least care if the animal on your fur is becoming extinct ? do you care about the way it was killed? would you fight for the animal s comfort on the last moments on earth as other people do for the meat they actually eat?
my puppy is sleeping beside me while i am writing and she has the most beautiful soft white fur you have ever seen..no one could look as good ,as happy and as peaceful as she in her fur.
posted by guest
Jan 02, 2009 11:50AM
You picked this quote which sounds almost reasonable. But our beloved Karl also made the comment that we are "killing those beasts who would kill us if they could." He is a crazy crazy crazy man.