From "Fur is under attack. It’s not going down without a fight" by Robin Givhan (in WaPo).
Givhan quotes Kitty Block, president of the Humane Society of the United States: "I really take issue with the culture argument. Cruelty is not culture, and I think it’s kind of insulting."
Givhan adds: "Does culture have legal standing? Perhaps. Both California and New York have laws banning racial discrimination based on natural hairstyles."
If Hasidic Jewish men and African American ministers have a special cultural need for fur, should laws — like California's new law banning the sale of fur — be denounced as discrimination? Obviously, these laws are not intended to target Jewish men and successful African American ministers, so it's hard to picture a successful legal challenge.
It tends to be more effective to say that a law puts a burden on a religious practice, but the Hassidic shtreimel is perhaps not an obligation and as for African Americans and the outward display of success... well, you know what? I will get out of your way! Go ahead and argue that's religion.
But I doubt that Givhan means to hint that lawsuits against these anti-fur laws are plausible, only that the political push to get these laws passed can be met with a political argument that the urge to protect furry animals is outweighed by the interest in protecting the subjective preferences of people in minority groups that have experienced oppression.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
Wearing fur is okay to the degree that your people have suffered and earned SJW points.
This is 2019. Why aren't we growing our fur in a tank of gurgling fur fluids or whatever?
Won't someone think of the pimps?
Fur is murder
Meat is murder
Leashes are murder
Animal products are murder
Hunting is murder
Kill shelters are murder
Farming kajillions of genetically identical botanical clones on 15% of the Earth's arable surface to feed your ethical Dorito habit...
...priceless!
People like Ribin Govhan sneered at the pink fake fur on my dashboard so I got real pink fur. Now they want me to go back to fake fur? Screw that.
Fake fur has been around for 90 years. It won't stop activists from throwing paint on you, though.
And if you think you have a responsibility to a higher authority that demands you wear real fur it won't help you.
But what is this thing Black Protestant ministers are supposed to have for fur?
And what is the fetish community's stance on fake fur?
Wait, what? Fur is worse than eating meat? Why?
I took my granddaughter down into my parents basement to play this past weekend. In a box full of dress up items were my step grandmothers furs. These are the real deal and in perfect condition. Soft, silky, goregeous. Wraps, coats, hats and scarves. My mom couldn’t find anyone who wanted them so now they’re the grandchildren’s and great grandchildren’s play wear. Seems kind of sad. There’s a picture of my step Grandmother wearing the fur coat as she’s hugging my step Grandfather just as he returned from war.
Those of us of the hunting and fly fishing persuasion will be effected. How will I replenish my store of Polar Bear fur? Pretty soon we'll be up to our asses in harp seals. Then what?
Ban all things!
I had thought fur might be bad, but if the Blacks and Jews differ, than I must be wrong.
These people all have an opinion that furs promote animal cruelty. Others have the opposite opinion. And some religions need furs.
The California law is clearly unconstitutional.
The Progs are Fascists. Do what we say.
I say: Leave us alone. We don't agree with your opinions. We don't want electric cars. Some of us want to buy furs.
"Obviously, these laws are not intended to target Jewish men and successful African American ministers, so it's hard to picture a successful legal challenge."
Maybe in California, but a federal challenge or a challenge in a state with a Religious Freedom Restoration Act may have some teeth. Of course, you'd have to get someone who's willing to swear under oath that a fur ban burdens their exercise of religion and/or an expert who's willing to say the same thing. But who wants to argue that protecting animals, in our meat-eating society, is a compelling government interest?
What if the animal dies of "natural causes"?
Like having derogatory information about the Clintons.
What does say for the future of Tigers in Indiana?
When St Greta finally gets fossil fuel banned, we're gonna need that fur.
If millennials weren't swamped in student debt and could afford them, they would figure out that a fur coat is really yummy in bitter cold weather when a lady is dressed up.
Next thing you know we’ll have to stop eating Bald Eagles...
Interesting. I was out of town a couple of weeks ago and met- out of the blue- a man who had spent his life in the fur business. He was part of a multi-generational family that owned a fur business. When fur lost favor, his family's business finally had to close down. He now still works the industry, but only as a part time sales person for a former competitor. But he said the industry is coming back, first on the strength of the black community, which kept them going through the hard times, but now starting to spread again to the general public. Interest and business levels and again climbing.
We talked about the number of people we both knew who had generational furs in closets, or storage units across the country. None of them sure what to do with them.
I, personally think furs are a sign of another time. Not sure real fur is necessary any longer. In this day of high quality faux products (including human hair), I would think that there are very high quality faux furs. Now...they won't be as much of a show of luxury as they won't command the price the real thing does. But then, it won't be unnecessarily beheading small furry animals either.
They can take my leather jock strap from my cold, dead balls.
I found some at Grandma's that had heads and feet attached.
If millennials weren't swamped in student debt and could afford them, they would figure out that a fur coat is really yummy in bitter cold weather when a lady is dressed up.
It's even better when she's not dressed at all underneath.
Dave Begley said... I say: Leave us alone. We don't agree with your opinions. We don't want electric cars. Some of us want to buy furs.
I enjoy your posts.
But here I don't see the argument against electric cars, other than your freedom to buy one. Climate change or not, you get enough gas cars in a city and the air is shit for fucking miles. They're dirty. Assuming electric cars at some point give you all the performance, range, all the desirables, why would you fight for gas cars?
Although, as a motorhead myself, I admit the transition process is like heart removal.
I can get on board with setting standards on how the animals providing the fur are treated while waiting to fulfill their purpose, but I am no more anti-fur than I am anti-cheeseburger or leather belt.
Think of the animals! #HateLovesAbortion
Don't forget that the Humane Society is now run by PETA-level anti-meat wackos.
Wearing fur is okay to the degree that your people have suffered and earned SJW points.
Diversity (and exclusion) classes deny individual dignity and are a progressive form of bigotry. That said, Social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
Sounds like the Hasidim etc. can buy the fur somewhere else and get it shipped to New York? I wonder where their shtreimelach are made right now?
Do Basic Jews and Acidic Jews neutralize each other?
" Not sure real fur is necessary any longer. In this day of high quality faux products (including human hair),"
Down is good. There is no effective weight for weight man made substitute. But a prime Beaver pelt-the jokes write themselves- is warmer and waterproof. So is Harp seal.
Assuming electric cars at some point give you all the performance, range, all the desirables, why would you fight for gas cars?
This reminds me of a Bill Cosby comedy routine about where electricity comes from. If it is nuclear power, OK, but you know better.
Why not restrict cities to street cars? We used to have them as the only transportation in cities. Except horses, of course.
Leftist busybodies wanting to run everyone's life. They can go boil their heads.
Mr. Grovington:
I was thinking of the new MN rule as described by Power Line below when I wrote that comment. Because that's how the Left rolls. They force people to do things they don't want to do. Tesla would never have been funded but for the federal tax credit. The whole Green industry depends on federal tax credits. (If I had the balls, I'd short Tesla.)
The air is just fine in Omaha. Even better in Cherry County, Nebraska. I was in Santa Monica and LA last month. It was fine even there though very congested on the road.
"Minnesota’s Democratic governor has initiated a rule-making proceeding intended to import California’s vehicle emission standards to Minnesota. Basically, a large percentage of vehicles sold in the state would have to be electric. In order to meet that mandate, electric cars would be subsidized by higher prices for gasoline-powered vehicles, the ones a large majority of people want to buy."
in a city and the air is shit for fucking miles. They're dirty. Assuming electric cars
Shifted environmental impact in time and place. That said, electrics, or hybrids, do have a niche value in high-density population centers.
Ralph L: "I found some at Grandma's that had heads and feet attached."
Jock straps? Wow, times have changed.
remind me how What i wear on MY is YOUR business ?
Oh! that's right! on account of because an innocent animal is hurt?
So, if an innocent animal is hurt; you have a right to tell me what to wear on MY body?
What if i decide to start wearing hats made out of fetus skin? would THAT be okay?
How hard is this: if you don't wish to support the practices of the fur industry, don't buy fur.
Why must people push their beliefs on others and attempt to control their behavior?
fetus skin
Human fetus (i.e. baby)? There has been great progress to normalize discrimination, dismemberment, decapitation, and cannibalism (e.g. clinical) of Fetal-Americans. Ironically, the sanctuary cities are the worst offenders of human rights.
Stupid laws vs stupid beliefs.
Don't forget the cowboys. A good cowboy hat has at least 50% beaver in the felt.
@Ralph L
In East-Asia, lots of meat and animal products come with the feet attached, so as to ensure you're receiving the product as advertised.
I will now begin my internet search for jock-straps with intact hoofs. Wish me luck.
setting standards on how the animals providing the fur are treated
A rational expectation based on a common (i.e. systems and processes), close (e.g. empathetic appeal) life religion.
Mr. Groovington: Assuming electric cars at some point give you all the performance, range, all the desirables, why would you fight for gas cars?
If electrics provided "all the desirables", would there be any need to ban gas cars?
I will now begin my internet search for jock-straps with intact hoofs. Wish me luck.
There's bound to be a fetish group for it, and you'll get interesting ads for months.
One of her red fox stoles had the connecting snap on the two noses.
’...why would you fight for gas cars?’
Gasoline is a fuel. Electricity is typically energy derived from another fuel, e.g., nuclear, coal, so electric cars are inefficient by definition. And, if we replaced all internal combustion engines for vehicles, where would the electricity be derived? I’m not seeing many nuclear power plants under construction, and coal-fired plants are carbon-based and disfavored. Battery manufacturing and eventual disposal are toxic undertakings, not to mention the mining of the requisite metals.
The foul city air (and noise) is mostly caused by the diesel buses they want us to ride.
"Assuming electric cars at some point give you all the performance, range, all the desirables, why would you fight for gas cars?"
First, it would be very expensive for poorer people to buy a new car to replace a working gas car. Second, the price of electric power is very high and rising in California, the model state, which would make an electric car very expensive to run. Third, cars are workhorses for most people, transporting heavy loads of groceries, DIY supplies, and members of sports teams with equipment in all kinds of weather. A second-hand gas car is up to it but cheaper electric cars are small and lightweight and not up to the job. This doesn't even get into trucks, vans, tractors and combines as work vehicles.
And, PS, performance is safety in storms as well as range. What if your battery loses power in the cold and conks out in a Minnesota whiteout? I mean look how Boeing has just about destroyed itself by trying to develop a green engine at a good price. What they sacrificed was safety and people died. I'm sure the left would be happy for rural people to die but this is why electric cars won't be equal ever, except maybe better at killing people in novel ways in rural areas.
Assuming electric cars at some point give you all the performance, range, all the desirables, why would you fight for gas cars?"
Because electricity goes out.
"Electricity is typically energy derived from another fuel, e.g., nuclear, coal, so electric cars are inefficient by definition."
There are a lot of complex issues involved in a contemplated partial or complete transition to electric vehicles, but this statement is simply wrong. If you can burn the fuel much more efficiently in a large stationary plant than in a small mobile engine (and you can), the electric car has the potential to be a lot more efficient than the gasoline powered car.
I don't wear fur. I don't support the murderers of furry animals by purchasing fur products.
I am better than you.
along with a [mysterious!] group of African American ministers who described fur as a unique cultural symbol of achievement.
I guess none of the African American ministers in a google image search had achievements worth symbolizing.
I think when the Whappo said "ministers", they meant "pimps", but that would be a stereotype and therefore Antitru.
Q: solution was synthetic fur - but fossil fuels ....
Hmmmm.
I may have been careless in the brevity of my statement, Ficta, but I meant it to reference not only the transmitted electricity, but also storage. Are you calculating the life-cycle efficiency in your claim? What about the tremendous energy required to produce batteries. And not just the initial batteries, but the replacement batteries, as well. What about battery degradation and discharge?
Does that make sense?
I can’t wait until they ban Uggs and those $1000 Canadian goosedown jackets.
I think Givhan just needed to fill a column, and troll some comments. Mission accomplished.
Excuse me, I see no need to complicate this with a lot of law. Why not let the market work? Wear what you want. There is no need to ban fur except possibly to discourage poaching of endangered species (arguably it would be better to create ownership interests in them so that people would have an incentive to protect them and encourage more).
As for the virtues of fur, they are pretty obvious. It looks and feels marvelous and in cold weather it is hard to beat. You want to sleep warm? Get a caribou fur. Messy; not a fashion item; but unbeatable for warmth.
I was in a thrift shop in South Carolina that had several fur coats on the rack. I inquired about the market for them in SC. The answer was Canadians.
We need fur-bearing robots we can skin periodically. In the mean time they could bus tables and fulfill Amazon orders and what have you. They could skin one another and make hats.
I don't know how to build robots. I'm more of an idea man.
Michael K said... If it is nuclear power, OK, but you know better.
Yes, nuclear. No big fan of Netflix specials, or Bill G, but watch the 2nd episode of 'Inside Bill's Mind'.
Nuclear, de-urbanization, reclamation of the environment, and 'to the sky' occasional monolithic tera-cities is the only way looking ahead 50 years. Any observer can see that, show me an alternative. Sorry for the drama.
One more example of the Federal government allowing California to violate the Commerce Clause.
The authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations rests with Congress. Allowing California (or any other state) to restrict interstate or international commerce (the fur trade is both) harms the economy of citizens across the country.
I've noticed Inga/Ritmo only weigh in on Trump threads. Makes it seem like they're paid DNC operatives, no?
This is a great point you make. Fur are made from killing animals and it is absurd for a person to claim that anti-fur legislation could be racist or discriminating. Human beings have been on this planet for a short while yet we have made so much damage. I therefore support any effort aimed at protecting and conserving our environments and all animals and plants in it. If someone wants to display their opulence and achievement, they should walk with a list of their achievements hanged around their necks. We cannot support killing of animals so that some entitled people can show their opulence. That is just absurd!
How dumb do they think we are that we will shut up and accept idiot rules of no fur coat wearing, no beef eating, no oil and gas burning, no treating men and women as different types, and accept all that nonsense for no reason at all.
First fur, then leather, then animal meat of any kind. Someday you will be vegan whether you want to or not.
Several years ago my SIL, a California native, served us dinner one night. She made a big deal out of telling us it was a free range chicken, responsibly and respectfully raised. I asked why that mattered, thinking the meat might be healthier some how. She explained that it was the kind and humane way to raise the chicken. After a moment's pause I said, well it ended up dead and on our table however it was raised so what's the point? We all sat through a short awkward silence, then someone changed the subject to something uncontroversial. :-)
"I may have been careless in the brevity of my statement, Ficta, but I meant it to reference not only the transmitted electricity, but also storage. Are you calculating the life-cycle efficiency in your claim? What about the tremendous energy required to produce batteries. And not just the initial batteries, but the replacement batteries, as well. What about battery degradation and discharge?
Does that make sense?"
You're absolutely right that the overall calculation is very uncertain (a lot of variables to pin down, and while some things in the EV ecology may get better with time and technological advances, but that's not guaranteed). I was only objecting to the statement that EVs were inefficient by definition. I guess it depends on what you mean by "inefficient"; presumably not "less than 100%"; and if you mean "a priori (or obviously) less efficient than the internal combustion engine because EVs don't generate their power within the vehicle", then I don't think the statement is correct.
Thanks, Ficta - I appreciate your point.
Fur: Yet one more reason to hate the movie CATS?
Another problem with EVs is that every time you turn on the heater (hello winter in Minnesota) or air conditioner (Welcome To Fabulous Las Vegas), that comes right off your driving range. With internal combustion engines, cabin heat is free (being waste heat from the engine), and gasoline is so incredibly energy-dense compared to a lithium battery that you hardly notice its effect on your mileage ("range").
This problem cannot be fixed with technological improvements.
Anyone who owns a laptop knows that after only a few discharge cycles (even if they are not especially deep) the battery's capacity starts to diminish. Laptop batteries cost about $80. For the price of a new set of lithium car batteries, you could buy a new motor for your gasoline powered car. But you won't have to, because by the time you want to replace the batteries in your Tesla, your Toyota or Subaru hasn't even finished its first 100K miles yet.
And then there's the problem of how long it takes to charge those batteries up. One of my last projects as an electrical engineer involved designing a lithium battery charger (for a portable device, not a car). There is a tradeoff between how fast you charge a lithium cell (and how much), and how long they last. You want longer battery life? Capacity and charge rate is sacrificed. That's not propaganda from someone with an axe to grind, that's what the battery manufacturers tell you. Choose your design criteria and accept the compromises. That's life in engineering.
It also a fact that lithium batteries are a difficult, "brittle" technology. They are reasonably safe and reliable if everything is done perfectly in design and manufacturing, gasoline or diesel technology far less so. Recall the Samsung Galaxy 7 fiasco of a few years back. They had three vendors for the batteries. Samples were sent to several test labs for failure analysis (I read the reports). Each vendor's battery had a different failure mechanism. All led to the phones catching fire, of course.
Brittle technologies can be made to work with enough money and effort (e.g., manned space flight... oh, wait...) but this is difficult to achieve in a mass-market consumer item like a car.
I am unimpressed with the rationale or outlook for electric cars as a general replacement for gasoline or diesel vehicles.
Howard,
You sound pretty vile. Your ilk should be the ones getting off the planet. Happiness then will return.
“Obviously, these laws are not intended to target Jewish men and successful African American ministers, so it's hard to picture a successful legal challenge.”
Don’t I remember something about “sweeping with too broad a broom.” I don’t argue that it applies here, only that it may render intention irrelevant in some cases.
People in favor of banning fur are convinced they are noble because they oppose cruelty (to animals). In their opinion factory farms raising minks, etc., for clothing is cruel but factory farms raising cows and chickens solely to slaughter for human consumption is not cruel. Or it's OK because of reasons. Is the argument that exceptions are made because people have to eat meat and wear leather accessories to survive? Of course that's not true. Honestly, it makes no sense to me.
Also because of global warming AKA the climate crisis, there is likely to less demand for warm fur coats so why is this an urgent matter? To prove our kindness and wokeness? In my mind the emphasis on fake fur has created a greater demand for low cost fashion made from petroleum based fabrics which are less bio-degradable, so we are actually adding to land fill problems.
PS: From the Jewish Virtual Library:
"There is much speculation surrounding the origin of the shtreimel. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, it is of Tatar origin.
A traditional story has it that an anti-Semitic political figure once issued a decree that male Jews must be identified on Shabbat by 'wearing a tail' on their heads. Although the decree was an attempt to mock the Jews, the Hasidic rabbis considered the matter seriously, in keeping with the universally accepted Jewish law stating the Law of the Land in which Jews live is to be upheld so long as it does not obstruct Jewish observance. They arrived at a plan that complied with and even exceeded the decree by arranging to make hats such as worn by royalty, encircled by a ring of tails, thereby transforming an object of intended ridicule into a crown. Further, they instituted that the number of tails follow Jewish numerology, symbolizing the wearer's sacred intentions." Shreimels are never worn with ordinary workday clothes and are only worn to honor special religious occasions: Shabbat and holidays. So they are not mandated as men also wear a kippah or head covering, but they do have a spiritual function.
and gasoline is so incredibly energy-dense...
This is the singular hurdle greenies refuse to acknowledge. This and storage.
Mr. Groovington said...
Nuclear, de-urbanization, reclamation of the environment, and 'to the sky' occasional monolithic tera-cities is the only way looking ahead 50 years. Any observer can see that, show me an alternative. Sorry for the drama.
Yea, making predictions is hard, especially about stuff in the future.
You may want to take a look at a book from long ago. "The Population Bomb" It is filled with incontrovertible facts. The conclusions could not be questioned. But it the world does not operate statically. It is dynamic, and the unknown, unknowns, can't be considered.
I personally greatly admire the shtreimel and the heads they cover. So fuck you, Robin.
another iowan pointed out that ...
"The Population Bomb" It is filled with incontrovertible facts
ALL OF WHICH CAME TRUE!!!
remember the Massive die off, after the famines of the 1980's?
The earth used to have Almost 4 Billion People, HALF OF WHICH DIED !!!
The population of the USA used to be OVER 200 million people! That's more than live on the entire North American continent now.
IMAGE what the world was like back then! Things sure have changed!
Blogger Alex said...
I've noticed Inga/Ritmo only weigh in on Trump threads. Makes it seem like they're paid DNC operatives
That's because they ARE paid operatives. The amazing thing is; they're SO BAD at it
Hmmm.
One wonders if, like the people who claim kosher slaughter is cruel, it's just an excuse to be anti-Semitic.
on earth 38, that certainly happened, of course in the star wars universe, we've already been through the eugenics wars,
They are just waiting for you to die and your vile views of humanity will die with you and the world will be a better place for it.
Howard, I think some insane fascist has taken over your ID and is posting really crazy stuff. You're welcome.
star trek universe, Malthusianism seems to be the rage,
the subjective preferences of people
Are there other categories of preferences?
My older daughter once asked me, "Mom, what's an acidic Jew?"
Of course, I quipped, "One with a low pH."
Unless the furs come from an endangered species what is the compelling government interest? Furthermore how does the State get to ban a product that is not only legal at the Federal level but also in all other States? Isn't there a Commerce Clause issue here at the minimum?
The states are free to pass these dumb ass laws because the courts have not protected freedom as vigorously as they should have. The failure to protect property rights as integral to the freedoms recognized in the US Constitution (and the various state constitutions) has crippled the freedoms all humans should have.
IOW, law has become the cudgel preferred by moral busybodies to impose the will of the few onto the many. It is stultifying. It belittles the very conception of equality under the law.
Free people.
Free markets.
Controlled borders.
cubanbob said...
Unless the furs come from an endangered species what is the compelling government interest? Furthermore how does the State get to ban a product that is not only legal at the Federal level but also in all other States? Isn't there a Commerce Clause issue here at the minimum?
When they came for the foie gras I said nothing because I don't eat that foofy French muck so I don't know how good it is.
Birkel said...
The states are free to pass these dumb ass laws because the courts have not protected freedom as vigorously as they should have. The failure to protect property rights as integral to the freedoms recognized in the US Constitution (and the various state constitutions) has crippled the freedoms all humans should have.
Yes, quite.
Steve, you'd have been warmer in fur. Not only that, but if more people wore fur, they wouldn't need as much firewood.
I'll wear whatever I Goddamn please. Though my fur-lined coats are in storage for when I travel. Never need them here in S. FL.
THEOLDMAN
Love me some fresh-filled chicken too.
Replying to Mr. Groovington who made the point: "you get enough gas cars in a city and the air is shit for fucking miles. They're dirty." We can keep the air clean in your neighborhood by firing up coal-burning electric generating plants out there where the poor people live. Is this your point? Dirty air for thee but not for me.
Think of all those corns and wheats and lettuces screaming unheeded. If you're not going the whole dalit (?) fruitarian route I don't see the point at suddenly getting holy about animals as clothing. The morality for me would come in at wasting no part of the animal.
These people are more feral than animals, all things must be done in moderation
All electric cars use derivative power.whether from fossil fuels or nuclear until captured solar fusion exceeds the statistical efficiency drawing an ace of spades twice in a row from a two deck pile do not talk to me.And wolf fur hoods were really warm on those icy windy days and nights in Wyoming.
I'm more greatly annoyed by the ban on alligator leather. I need a replacement strap for a watch and now I have to buy it in NY or Chicago.
But I must defend the furriers in order to lift the ban on alligator, so be it.
It all started with this moronic state banning horsemeat for human consumption. I knew this was the slope. And thus began my policy of voting against all propositions.
The next step will not be banning meat, but regulating livestock ranching/chicken farms etc out of existence. it'll be easy in California with environmental rules. It'll be water for pork, manure disposal/greenhouse gas for cattle, "humanitarian" for fowl, a la cage requirements for laying hens and the ban on foie gras.
This is how they'll ban meat. Mark my words.
"’...why would you fight for gas cars?’"
Said the guy who never dropped the clutch on a 400 Hemi.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा