FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Woody Harrelson - A video about fur

Woody Harrelson - A video about fur

(2:55) Cruelty in the fur industry through the experience of an unfortunate stuffed animal, narrated by American actor Woody Harrelson for The Humane Society of the United States. facebook.com/HSUSFurFree

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1800 days ago)
I'm a vegetarian so I can say this -- most of you are hypocrites. What is the difference between raising animals for their fur or raising animals to eat them? You should see the conditions chickens have to live in before they are slaughtered by machines and have their meat mechanically separated. So if you eat meat, what's the problem with fur? As for me, I don't eat meat or use fur because it is cruel to animals when you could have eaten a potato for dinner instead.
ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment
I'm a vegetarian so I can say this -- most of you are hypocrites. What is the difference between raising animals for their fur or raising animals to eat them? You should see the conditions chickens have to live in before they are slaughtered by machines and have their meat mechanically separated. So if you eat meat, what's the problem with fur? As for me, I don't eat meat or use fur because it is cruel to animals when you could have eaten a potato for dinner instead.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Norbert Norbert (1800 days ago)
That's a bit strong, I presume you don't have anything to do with leather, not in your car, sofa, shoes, wallet, boyfriends handbag? Look, putting your self righteous and slightly flawed stance aside, I agree, fur is totally unnecessary this day and age. But as we both know, people see profit and vanity over the suffering of others, let alone animal...
ReplyVote up (69)down (110)
Original comment
That's a bit strong, I presume you don't have anything to do with leather, not in your car, sofa, shoes, wallet, boyfriends handbag? Look, putting your self righteous and slightly flawed stance aside, I agree, fur is totally unnecessary this day and age. But as we both know, people see profit and vanity over the suffering of others, let alone animal...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1800 days ago)
I do own a couple things that have leather in them but it's not my choice. The car I bought did not have any option to downgrade. I do have a leather couch too but again that's not by choice. If the couch was offered using pleather, I would have purchased that one instead but it wasn't. My shoes, except for the oldest ones, do not have any leather and are all synthetic. Anyway, my comment was about comparing eating the animals versus using their fur. So would it be appropriate to kill those animals for the food and then use their fur as a by product of the food? That's what we do for leather right? What if they used that meat for dog or cat food, would it be okay then? How can people think it's okay to kill an innocent animal for one part but not for others? It's still hypocritical in my opinion. Next time you see someone wearing a fur coat, think about you non-vegetarians before you judge them.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
I do own a couple things that have leather in them but it's not my choice. The car I bought did not have any option to downgrade. I do have a leather couch too but again that's not by choice. If the couch was offered using pleather, I would have purchased that one instead but it wasn't. My shoes, except for the oldest ones, do not have any leather and are all synthetic. Anyway, my comment was about comparing eating the animals versus using their fur. So would it be appropriate to kill those animals for the food and then use their fur as a by product of the food? That's what we do for leather right? What if they used that meat for dog or cat food, would it be okay then? How can people think it's okay to kill an innocent animal for one part but not for others? It's still hypocritical in my opinion. Next time you see someone wearing a fur coat, think about you non-vegetarians before you judge them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1800 days ago)
Cengland0, B***S**T!
ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment
Cengland0, B***S**T!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1800 days ago)
What part of my comment do you call BS? I have no reason to lie and freely admit I own some leather products. What's your problem?
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
What part of my comment do you call BS? I have no reason to lie and freely admit I own some leather products. What's your problem?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1799 days ago)
You wouldn't want your family members live under conditions the people who put together your phone either. Probably not even your dog. Alone in the US, people spent more that 18 billion dollars only on cat and dog food in 2011. In the same year, the US supported anti-malaria research with 0.8 billion dollars. That is 22.5 times less. And malaria kills roughly a millions children per year. Everybody cares more about his dog, cat or goldfish that about a kid that dies of malaria that he doesn't know or see. There is no absolute measure of moral - it always depends on social proximity and the circumstances, either real or constructed.
ReplyVote up (83)down (108)
Original comment
You wouldn't want your family members live under conditions the people who put together your phone either. Probably not even your dog. Alone in the US, people spent more that 18 billion dollars only on cat and dog food in 2011. In the same year, the US supported anti-malaria research with 0.8 billion dollars. That is 22.5 times less. And malaria kills roughly a millions children per year. Everybody cares more about his dog, cat or goldfish that about a kid that dies of malaria that he doesn't know or see. There is no absolute measure of moral - it always depends on social proximity and the circumstances, either real or constructed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1799 days ago)
So that's a good point. Why not focus on cures for malaria that kills a million children a year instead of worrying about guns that only kill 30,000 people a year? That was the point Mackenzie was trying to make on this boreme video: LINK
ReplyVote up (65)down (110)
Original comment
So that's a good point. Why not focus on cures for malaria that kills a million children a year instead of worrying about guns that only kill 30,000 people a year? That was the point Mackenzie was trying to make on this boreme video: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1799 days ago)
Legal, retail sales of guns in the US are at an average of 3.5 billion dollars. That is still more than 4 times of the budget for malaria reserach. A good point would be to spend the money not on guns, but on malraia cure research.
Original comment
Legal, retail sales of guns in the US are at an average of 3.5 billion dollars. That is still more than 4 times of the budget for malaria reserach. A good point would be to spend the money not on guns, but on malraia cure research.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1799 days ago)
I understand what you're discussing; however, it is the private companies that are selling the guns but who is responsible for curing malaria? Is that the same companies that create guns are supposed to use their revenue and stockholder profits to pay for the research of a malaria cure? Or, is that the responsibility of the government to pay for it with our tax dollars. Better yet, if there is this much demand for a cure, why isn't there a bunch of companies trying to find that cure so they can patent it and get the rights to sell their drugs exclusively for several years in the future? You could actually say the same thing about any private company. Why does Microsoft sell so many copies of Microsoft Office when they could be finding a cure for Malaria. Why does GM sell so many cars when they could also be finding a cure for Malaria. Why use guns as the product that should be used to fund this research?
ReplyVote up (221)down (68)
Original comment
I understand what you're discussing; however, it is the private companies that are selling the guns but who is responsible for curing malaria? Is that the same companies that create guns are supposed to use their revenue and stockholder profits to pay for the research of a malaria cure? Or, is that the responsibility of the government to pay for it with our tax dollars. Better yet, if there is this much demand for a cure, why isn't there a bunch of companies trying to find that cure so they can patent it and get the rights to sell their drugs exclusively for several years in the future? You could actually say the same thing about any private company. Why does Microsoft sell so many copies of Microsoft Office when they could be finding a cure for Malaria. Why does GM sell so many cars when they could also be finding a cure for Malaria. Why use guns as the product that should be used to fund this research?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1799 days ago)
Latest comment: So the point was not so good to begin with? (Actually is was about what a society as a whole thinks is important. Pet food and guns are more important than people dying of malaria. But the comparison was not really so correct, as it compared private with public spendings. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation actually spends 0.75 billion dollars for the fight gains HIV, TB and malaria.)
ReplyVote up (106)down (93)
Original comment
Latest comment: So the point was not so good to begin with? (Actually is was about what a society as a whole thinks is important. Pet food and guns are more important than people dying of malaria. But the comparison was not really so correct, as it compared private with public spendings. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation actually spends 0.75 billion dollars for the fight gains HIV, TB and malaria.)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Do you think this practice belongs to another age?
Do you think this practice belongs to another age?
Abused dog feels petting for the first time
Abused dog feels petting for the first time
Honest Ads - The Meat Industry
Honest Ads - The Meat Industry
Bot Lives Matter
Bot Lives Matter
Tickling is torture, the truth behind the slow loris pet trade
Tickling is torture, the truth behind the slow loris pet trade