John Mayer out in NYC on Wednesday, 12/18/2013.
Now, I don’t know John Mayer, but I imagine that for him, as it is with most people, he wouldn’t (knowingly) wear a dog or a cat. But yet somehow people like John Mayer justify mistreating and exploiting other animals for the sake of a coat or another article of clothing. A very ugly coat at that. But even if the coat was gorgeous, I’d still shake my head at this blatant speciesist behavior. It is problematic to believe that it’s okay to spare one species, e.g. dogs, from being a fur coat, but thinking it’s okay to torture, skin, and kill another. Animals are not ours to be worn. If you believe they are, then you are a speciesist, and if so, you should think about where, and why, you draw your ethical lines at which species it is appropriate to cause harm to. At dogs? At cats? Foxes? Bunnies? Snakes?
Please educate yourself, John Mayer, on the reality and ultra-cruelty that is fur farming.
If you’re in the NYC/NJ area, please come out with us, Caring Activists Against Fur, for our anti-fur protests. The schedule for our upcoming protests is posted here.
Categories: Uncategorized
The Paw Report 
Reblogged this on Girl for Animal Liberation.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ann Novek–With the Sky as the Ceiling and the Heart Outdoors.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on "OUR WORLD".
LikeLike
Posts such as this perplex us. Mind if we push back a little?
You state that people “…should think about where, and why, (they) draw (their) ethical lines at which species it is appropriate to cause harm to.” OK, let’s all do that.
Are you wearing cotton? The forests that were felled, the marshes that were drained, the natural fields and meadows that were cut in order to grow that cotton were home to innumerable species of animals which were displaced and in most cases died a slow painful death because their habitat was altered. They are no less dead than had they been shot, trapped or purposely poisoned. Moreover, the fertilizers used to enhance production of that cotton enter the water system (streams, lakes, rivers and eventually the ocean) every time there is a significant wind or rain event, thus overnutrifying those ecosystems and resulting in phenomena such as the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
The same observations and questions pertain to linen and other natural fibers.
Are you wearing plastic? You know, some form of petro-chemical product? Do we need to go into detail regarding the often irreversible environmental damage oil extraction and refinement create?
Something else to consider is this: both large-scale agriculture – cotton production, for example -, and oil extraction result in massive extirpation of animals, up to and including extinction, which, for the unfortunate species in question, is permanent. A quick Google search of John Mayer’s coat did not reveal what type of animal it is, but neither domesticated reindeer nor wild caribou are endangered. In fact, precisely because humans have attached economic value to these and other food-providing and clothing-providing animals, in the more politically evolved nations these animals live in, stringent laws have been enacted to ensure that, as species, these animals will continue to thrive for generations to come. If these species do become extinct, it will most likely be due to a combination of environmental despoliation due to oil extraction and habitat change caused by the use of cars, appliances, air conditioners and so forth contributing to climate change. Do you use cars, appliances or air conditioners?
Please think about this: Ivory-billed woodpeckers – the largest, most magnificent woodpecker to ever exist – did NOT go extinct because it was harvested for feathers or food. It went extinct because the old-growth forests it inhabited were cut down and converted to soy bean fields.
We are not saying everyone should go out and buy a fur coat. What we are saying is that before you provide the world with a non-solution born of your own narrow view, you should educate yourself further on these complex issues.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response.
So do you disagree with the idea that people should not wear fur because of the animal cruelty issues? I’m confused by your statement that the proposal to not wear or buy fur is a “non-solution” — it wasn’t intended to be a solution to all the world’s problems. While the information you presented is interesting, it’s not quite germane to the subject that I was focused on.
LikeLike
Glad you wrote back. However, your question (above) reflects a simplistic, black or white perspective that serves no purpose in what is a very complex set of issues. In some locales, particularly the far north, wearing fur is fairly routine. This practice is a) environmentally sustainable at current levels of use, and b) creates less impact on resources than making similar garments from agricultural or oil fields and then expending the fuel to ship these products thousands of miles.
We readily acknowledge that animals suffer when they are harvested for food and clothing. However, laws and AWARENESS among people who engage in this kind of harvesting ensure that the great majority of this type of harvesting is done as humanely as possible.
By contrast, you present yourself as a person who would rather tell others how to live than reflect on your own impact on the environment. Again, we ask, do you wear cotton or other natural fibers? When animals are displaced to create fields to grow your clothing, where do you think they go? When these fields are fertilized and rain run-off creates associated pollution in nearby waters (and eventually in near shore oceans) what do you think happens to the fish, birds, sea mammals and so forth that have been adversely affected? You seem to think that just because you personally can’t see these animals suffer – their nests abandoned, their offspring starving, members of their species dying from toxicity, that it somehow doesn’t happen and that you somehow aren’t responsible and that all this somehow “isn’t the same” as someone harvesting, say a caribou for meat and clothing.
And you’re right. It’s not the same. By and large the people who utilize, say, a single caribou in the fashion we just described do so with far more care, thought, self-reflection and awareness of overall impact on the environment that your behavior suggests you do. And they do you even one better by not going around prescribing non-solutions to others.
One thing we could not determine – and we did Google this: What Kind of coat is Mayer wearing and where did it come from? The coat in question may have been a gift from an Inupiat family, or his purchase of it may represent important income to a family. We look forward to your response.
LikeLike
He’ s a Hipster Speciest” like Justine Sacco is a “hipster racist”. Hipster Racist is a new term to describe people like him who makes superficial jokes at everything. They really suck. They don’t have no depth.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Sherlockian's Blog.
LikeLike
Please stop wearing the barbaric tortured souls who are ripped apart while still alive, simply for your “fashion statement”. Nothing is fashionable about murder!’
LikeLike