Animal Rights Activists...

Do you think Animal Rights Activists are right in throwing paint on those wearing fur? And do you people should be allowed to wear fur..?

The idea I think would be to bring attention by doing this not to 'avenge the animals' (not a quote but I can't think of a better phrase) The paint throwing seems to be the lesser of two evils.

I'm with Talandor... it's destruction of property and they should pay for it or at least to have it cleaned if that's possible and whatever fine any other vandal would be charged.

I have no problem with people wearing fur or not wearing fur. I don't like the idea of killing animals JUST for fur or any trophy kills. I would never do it, but if someone gave me a fur coat, I'd probably take it and wear it too. (However, if one of my friends was against wearing fur, I wouldn't wear it around that person)

It's not our place to judge what anyone else does. You do what you believe is right, and let them do the same.

If you're going to ask questions like this you need to make sure you ask them well. Are the activists 'right'? Well I don't really believe in their cause, so no, I guess I don't think they're right. However, do I believe that their act of destroying property could be justified as an action to bring about a positive result? That's a more difficult question. I don't really believe that the ends justify the means, so I still would say that they aren't right to destroy private property like that, but I think it's a fine line to consider. If it were people being killed instead of animals, would people really be complaining about the paint? (not that there would necessarily be paint, it's metaphorical paint =P)

'If it were people being killed instead of animals, would people really be complaining about the paint?'
True but that means you would be considering killing animals to be likened to murder of humans.

I already said that I don't agree with their views. My argument is that although my views are clear in relation to the actions of animal rights activists, they become clouded as elements of the situation change. Part of the question posed by this thread is a question of moral relativity and a question of the balance between means and ends.

I think my questions are worded right Sean, I questioned the ethics of Animal Rights Activists...And their aggressive approach to the whole "fur" fiasco...

And if what they are doing is in fact making any positive changes to what they are fighting for…So rather than say my questions are worded wrong…

I ask that you just answer the question…Thank you.

Any more!

I didn't read this whole thread but I'm going to share my thoughts anyway. Some animals are killed to be eaten...others merely for their heads or fur...what ever the hunter desires. I strongly believe that we COULD justify using the fur of the animals that are killed for food for fur as well...but to kill an animal merely for their fur is (in my eyes) a hundred percent wrong.

As far as animal rights activists throwing paint on people or being as aggressive as they can be some times...THAT IS WRONG. You can't stop negativity with negativity. Instead of using violence they should be TEACHING...and showing the others what is so imporant and special about these animals.
"Two wrongs don't make a right." PERFECT ANSWER!

"And do you people should be allowed to wear fur..?"

Ismail, I don't understand that question. If what you meant was:

"And do you people think that others should be allowed to wear fur...?"

Then I'd say that yes, people should be allowed to wear fur, to answer simply.

Concerning the ethics of animal rights activists (not what your question asked, but what your follow-up statement asked):

I think they (animal rights activists) are unjustly applying rights that human beings have to animals. There is a difference between the two, at least as far as rights goes. I think their whole ideology is blown out of proportion. If it were up to me entirely, I wouldn't have people wear fur, because it isn't necessary.

OMG SLUVIOUS!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm mean it's not funny....but it is!!!! HAHAHAHAHA

lol

As an animal lover, I wouldn't wear fur. Actually, fur has never really been my thing. However, I wouldn't hold it against someone else if they choose to wear it. I think it's up to the individual. I only wish they would think about how many animals have to die for them to have that coat & then decide if they REALLY need it. But I realize not everyone loves animals as I do. I am about like Bob.. I almost love animals more than people :)
And right now, I am in heaven. I have 9 beautiful boxer puppies. They are precious....

"He who does not respect life does not deserve it."

Wearing fur or leather is an individual choice. Assaulting someone by throwing paint on them is an individual choice. Being arrested for assault and destruction of property is your right should you choose to do that. If you want to protest something, great. You have that right. You do not have the right to destroy someones property or infringe on their rights because of yours.

Nicely said Bill.

I wear human skins.

If I ever have a an animal activist related leather jacket disorder then the animal activist will suffer a fist related teeth disorder.

What most animal activists fail to understand is that as much as we all enjoy the company of animals as pets we also enjoy them just as much (if not more) as food and clothing.

Aminal rights will always come second place to the applications of glue in 90% of the letters we open and boxes we use, the trainers we wear and so on.

Candles.. yurp... animal fats.

Soap... uh huh... animal fats.

Unless activists live in a shelter in some woods that they made themselves and are totally self sufficient then they are hypocrites.

In my opinion animal activists rank lower than conspiracy theorists, at least you can have a good laugh at most conspiracy theories.

I wear Animal activists like masks while I do my little cookie dance.