Leather from charity shops...

i can understand why you ate the disgarded meat, although i would never do that personally.

what i do not get, is the concern for an already dead animal, because in most cases the animal has been killed for that purpose, and using it will make manufactorors to make more and more animals will suffer. if you are refferring to naturally caused animal death, it may be an invention of the mind, but i still find it ethical, as would you wear a dead humans skin because said human died naturally.
peacex

 

Whether or not the leather is 2nd hand doesn't matter, but the race of the wearer does? Ohhh.... kaaaayy......

 

when the leather is donated it charity, it becomes purified of all its negative vibes

 

donated by who, the animals? did we ask them?

 

how can you ask the animals when they died to make the leather that was donated? silly...

 

Thanks, drumminmama

 

your kidding right, my point is you have no right to that animals skin in the first place

 

the animal skin is in the thrift shop as it was donated which cleanses the leather from negative karmic ownership and so if one pays the thrift shop money for the pelt who then uses the money to progress its philanthropic objectives, one gains release from the cycle of samsara

 

Dang, I thought you were long gone.

Can you go away again?

 

Okay, I will say I don't think it's wrong to buy leather from a Salvation Army or something of that nature. True the original act of getting the leather was heinous, but that item gets donated to a Charity-type shop, and the benefits from buying said item go to help people who require help.

In the meantime the item in question, a coat for the sake of discussion, is used by someone who cannot afford to go buy a nice, new, expensive, PETA-approved coat, and requires something warm and cheap. Also the leather in question actually serves a few good purposes, while not being wasted- killed to serve no purpose.

just my opinion. The only thing worse than an animal killed, is an animal killed then wasted.

~Layla

 

just my opinion. The only thing worse than an animal killed, is an animal killed then wasted.


Actually, I think this is what I was trying to get at too. I didn't buy my jacket, but was given it. To throw it away now that the deed has already been done seems worse than slaughtering a fresh cow to me, since this one has already died.

I am planning on getting a nice new poly-whatchamacallit jacket when this one dies. But so far, it's still going strong. And living up in MN where we can (and do) reach temperatures of -40 each winter I do find myself thanking the poor dead cow for having come my way every year. I would never have been able to afford anything nearly as warm as his skin has been for the past 14 years.

I've been asked by many people in our church when I'm going to break down & get a new jacket. And I always respond the same way... When this poor dead cow has given me every bit of warmth she can, so she won't have died in vain.
love,
mom

 

Right on, I think I'd say you just put my thinking into a nutshell.

Don't get me wrong, I can see that other people in here have pretty strong views, and I respect you for expressing and upholding those values.

To me, it's really a case of you do your thing, I'll do mine.

Peace, Johnny.

 

I certainly wouldn't have gotten it....
lamb's fur!? jesus. I don't care how charity the place is.

I understand your predicament, because I have been ina similar one, but it involved wool. I found something else from the same store, so the store (humane society thrift store) benefited, but the animl product was not bought. I have also been in a place that boycotting them because they sell a few fur products would not help the cause ebcause they were one of the stores that get extra things. (tjmaxx). Though I sure as hell wouldn't buy the fur! Wearing someone else's skin is gross. I am not saying this to judge, this is just my personal opinion.

Of course the animal is already dead. you could use this same argument for meat. They wouldn't be dead if there was not a demand to kill them.

 

But that isn't the way it works. Right now, to feed cattle according to modern methods, you have to clear land to graze the cattle in a cow/calf operation. The calf is raised to a certain age, then sent to a cattle auction. From there, the calf is sent to be "finished" in a feed lot. These operations are super harmful to the environment, take up a huge amount of land (more de-forestation) and require that grain grown elsewhere (still more deforestation) be trucked in to feed the cattle. One uses far more land to produce a cow than to grow enough cotton/flax/hemp to produce an equal amount of clothing. Raising cattle also takes up an insane amount of water, much muuch more than the water required to grow plants for food & clothing, which is also very damaging to the eco-system.
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/boyan_environment.htm

Even if you are talking about grass-fed cattle, a tiny percentage of cattle raised for food and leather, cattle need a gigantic amount of land on which to graze. I was born in a cattle-raising community and it takes A LOT of land to graze cattle. In addition, the land geographically available to graze cattle is generally not enough land, so hay must be grown elsewhere on other land and trucked in. Most cow/calf operations that don't even finish their cattle have a hard time finding adequate grazing land.
http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

With the number of people currently residing on this planet, it would be impossible to produce the amount of leather needed to clothe everyone using traditional Native American methods.

If all people in the 1800s had a similar attitude, there would still be slavery and women still would not have the right to vote.

It's impossible to meet the current demand for animal products without cruel farming practices. You seem to be advocating a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is an impossibility with the current world population. It's irrelevant to speculate on whether or not Vegans could survive in a hunter/gatherer situation, because the chances of society returning to that system without a catastrophic event (i.e. a comet hitting the earth, widespread nuclear war, sudden massive climate shift, etc.) is non-existant.

 

bufalo hide jackets are environmentally sensitive and we should encourage people to wear these

 

"bufalo hide jackets are environmentally sensitive and we should encourage people to wear these"

Not when leather is not necessary

"There's nothing wrong with eating meat. Factory farming, yes, is cruel and destructive. I'm not supporting that. But I think it's unhealthy to swing to the extremes. Been there, done that."

Hanging an animal upside down and cutting its throat so you can have a snack is *extreme*. Meat is simply not needed by anyone. Vegetarianism is not extreme, it is more peaceful and ethical. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't mean it's extreme. The two seem to be interchangeable today and that just isn't so.

 

I'm afraid I'm not clear on what is environmentally sensitive about killing an animal that was nearly decimated in the late 1800s-early 1900s. In 1902, there were less than 50 wild bison in Yellowstone National Park. Twenty-one additional animals were shipped in from private herds, and over 100 years later, the number of animals has finally risen to 4,900 in and around Yellowstone. I'm not sure how you plan to clothe 300,000,000 people in the US alone with the hides of 5,000 animals while continuing to manage the herd in natural habitat.

 

LOL. You are all taking MollytheHippy too seriously. Everything she...err...that is HE says is trollish...just ignore him/her...and she'll...HE'LL go away.