PETA slams Lady Gaga

[Ty3009 232]

I have seen conflicting posts in this thread about whether the fur is real or not. Many news outlets say that it is rabbit fur. Others say that it is faux.

After a quick google search I was unable to find the answer. Does anyone have reliable confirmation of whether it's real or not? The tone of GaGa's message regarding the designer made me think that it was faux but I don't know.

[PaperIz 7,346]

as far as i know it was supposed to be humorous, and i think it does no harm to teach children about reality via unreality such as video games. http://features.peta...-kills-tanooki/ + the game is fun. my best score is 12 seconds. :)

i remember when it was happening, it was definitely serious. Until everyone called them out on their crazy that is. I don't really care if people wear real fur or not. I mean it's not the best thing, but its not like they killed them by wearing the fur

[Nemo 4,295]

peta should say dont eat meat!!!!!!

They do, at length.

[dc1993 1]

i remember when it was happening, it was definitely serious. Until everyone called them out on their crazy that is. I don't really care if people wear real fur or not. I mean it's not the best thing, but its not like they killed them by wearing the fur

But by wearing something that is made with real fur, you're supporting the industry. You're supporting: animals being bred and brought up in cages, mis-treated, and ultimately killed for a fashion item - which could be made with faux-fur. It's really disgusting.

I can understand her wearing the fur-thing in the Machete poster - that's a movie, she signed a contract, she'll do as she's told in that situation. If she didn't wanna do it, she wouldn't have done, but probably lost the role or caused problems for the production team. But choosing to go out, in her free time, wearing fur is just... bleugh, not nice.

Edited August 15, 2012 by dc1993

[Michelle 2,056]

This thread is a hot mess and going nowhere except battle of who is right.At this point it should be in Gaga thoughts since now its a personal belief thing.

[Lizzy 0]

The only "evidence" is this

http://www.fashionologie.com/Hermes-Runway-2012-Fall-22044060?page=0%2C0%2C0#7

because it says "high pile fur" which apparently = fake.

However, Hermes apparently often uses real fur, so the jury is still out.

I am curious about the pink jacket, tbh, as I hear Armani used real rabbit fur on that and a similar orange one in their new collection.

I really need to know too, I just wish someone would give am actual answer in regards to it being real or fake.

[miroe 24]

Fur is hot. Take that how you'd like.

[Nissa 51]

Why is there ANOTHER topic in the news section about this? And why doesn't this include that fact that the jacket in question is FAUX? It's Hermes, high-pile fur aka synthetic fur fabricated in China.

I wish people would stop about this. PETA is THE LAST AUTHORITY on animal rights issues, most of the animals they "save" are put to death unnecessarily + 40 lawsuits gathered over the last few years are still pending, both from the public and from companies. Most is destruction of property, violent breaking and entering, violent riots, assault and even manslaughter, etc. etc. etc. One of them concerns a woman who wore a supposedly fur coat (PETA never checks if it's faux or vintage or real, despite their claims to be totally okay with vintage and fake) who got half a bucket of red paint poured over her coat, face, arms and legs in the middle of the street, it contained a chemical that 55 year old woman was allergic to, apparently, because she died by the time she reached the hospital. They are indeed extremely violent (see the lawsuits I've been referring to, as well as all the actions they took in their history) and they are extremely misogynistic to boot. Jeez.

This thread is a hot mess and going nowhere except battle of who is right.At this point it should be in Gaga thoughts since now its a personal belief thing.

Exactly. Which stuns me since we have the EXACT coat (http://www.fashionol...60?page=0,0,0#7) which states it's high pile fur = aka fake.

I have yet to see any evidence of this, some people are saying the opposite. While "fake" is the only definition of high pile fur to be found.

Logically I'm not going to defend anyone who wears real fur but I'm no fan of PETA's "shoot first ask questions later" approach. Neither do I believe Gaga would just go out wearing real fur knowing the uproar it would cause in her own fanbase (and she surely saw the reactions on lm.com, at least).

You mean someone on lm.com? Well, yeah, since today there've been peta trolls on lm.com and just regular fans who are fanatical about this (but do not like research). Maybe the person you spoke to happened to be a girl proclaiming over and over again that PETA would not get in to this if it wasn't real fur? Or the countless twits on there saying Gaga confirmed it was real when she said it was Hermes, who all were assuming that Hermes uses only real fur (but just replying with "yes, gaga confirmed it" or "It's HERMES, it's like such a fancy brand it just is real fur" to anyone asking if it was real)? People blab about so many things they don't have any idea about. Go look it up on respectable websites or ask a professional, or an actual animal activist (aka non-PETA).

Why would you even be skeptical? The coat is made out of high-pile fur (http://www.fashionol...60?page=0,0,0#7): high-pile fur is a special type of synthetic fur. Seriously, don't act like those idiots on LM.com who'd rather listen to Peta first before listening to Gaga are the ultimate source of Truth - and she already made a statement, but most people didn't understand. She said to all the press writing about whether coat was faux or real that it was Hermes. A little bit of searching would bring you directly to the Hermes 2012 Fall Collection.

Those who are saying it's the opposite are confusing high-pile fur as real because in China they DO have fur farms as well. Most fur sold here is from China. BUT, high-pile fur means fake fur, no matter how you look at it. ;)

The only "evidence" is this

http://www.fashionol...60?page=0,0,0#7

because it says "high pile fur" which apparently = fake.

However, Hermes apparently often uses real fur, so the jury is still out.

I am curious about the pink jacket, tbh, as I hear Armani used real rabbit fur on that and a similar orange one in their new collection.

Same thing I said above. If you don't know what high-pile fur is (you said "apparently") look it up. When you've done so then you can leave your quotation marks aside. YES, there are fur farms in China. Most clothes Westerners wear come from China. The fact that there are fur farms in China does not negate the fact that they also produce high-pile fur, which is 100% synthetic fur. It's right there in the description that it's high-pile. Google it again to leave those doubts behind.

--------------------------

Man I thought this "issue" was already cleared up enough in the two threads and 2 places spread across the forum we've discussed this in. :fail:

Edited August 16, 2012 by Nissa

[Lolabunny 0]

you are all such ass suckers, animals do not choose to be skinned alive, anybody who wears fur deserves to be slammed, Gaga is at the same level of the olson twins.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lolabunny

[Kalameet 4]

Why would you even be skeptical? The coat is made out of high-pile fur (http://www.fashionol...60?page=0,0,0#7) google high-pile fur. Get the Aha Erlebnis ! moment when you discover high-pile fur is a special type of synthetic fur. Seriously, don't act like those idiots on LM.com who'd rather listen to Peta first before listening to Gaga - and she already made a statement, but most people didn't understand. She said to all the press that the was Hermes.

Come on, go google high-pile fur, if you don't believe me.

goodness.

Either I'm misunderstanding you or you misunderstood my post. I was skeptical about the part "hermes only uses real fur" because I can't find a source saying that they only use real fur, I know high pile means fake and in this particular case the coat is fake fur :sweat:

[Kalameet 4]

Why would you even be skeptical? The coat is made out of high-pile fur (http://www.fashionol...60?page=0,0,0#7): google high-pile fur. Discover (again, apparently) that high-pile fur is a special type of synthetic fur. Seriously, don't act like those idiots on LM.com who'd rather listen to Peta first before listening to Gaga - and she already made a statement, but most people didn't understand. She said to all the press writing about whether coat was faux or real that it was Hermes. A little bit of searching would bring you directly to the Hermes 2012 Fall Collection.

goodness.

Either I'm misunderstanding you or you misunderstood my post. I was skeptical about the part "hermes only uses real fur" because I can't find a source saying that they only use real fur, I know high pile means fake and in this particular case the coat is fake fur.

( MY POSTS KEEP DISAPPEARING WHAT IS THIS)

[easyride 1]

I've done my research and not all fur killings are gruesome like the horror videos we see, some animals are killed in the exact same way that some are killed for their meat (small stun bullet to head which not only kills on impact but also stuns the animal meaning it feels no pain if the bullet does not kill on impact). It all comes down to price, if you buy cheap fur then it's either going to be fake or the animal had no life at all, exactly the same with meat, if you buy it cheap it'll either be a bad cut or the animal had no life.

Not true. They cant kill an animal with a bullet because it ruins the fur.

[easyride 1]

Free range, where animals have enough space to live and are treated a lot better compared to those that are kept in cages. Some animals are treated better and then killed for their fur, it is a lot more rare compared to the food industry but it does happen.

If you're happy with not eating meat then good for you, I'll stick to my meat feast pizzas and you can stick to your veg stew

Please do your research. The animals using for fur arent cage-free, they live in cage their whole life. Some of them die of sadness or because they get to hungry and start eating themselves. Do you have the idea of this cute little furry things all running together on grass waiting to get killed ? Google it !

[Pop Art 1,773]

Please do your research. The animals using for fur arent cage-free, they live in cage their whole life. Some of them die of sadness or because they get to hungry and start eating themselves. Do you have the idea of this cute little furry things all running together on grass waiting to get killed ? Google it !

Plus, from what I've read, 'cage-free' can technically be defined as simply being outside of a cage for, say, half an hour, while still being in a small penned area or building (or at least this is the case in a factory farming setting). That's not really being in a pasture with sunshine and rainbows if you ask me.

[HybridWarhol 7]

Let me remind you that you said

"You're forgetting that some animals are killed both for fur and for meat. Not just one or the other. Most of the animals you see being killed for fur, are eaten in many countries and there are a market for them."

which I replied

"This is also not true. 99% of fur used in the fashion industry is obtained from Chinese fur farms, which exist for the sole purpose of obtaining fur. The rest of the animal is discarded. Please watch The Earthlings."

and your next reply implied that you haven't gotten all of the information, and we are not at all on the same page. Since then you have been nothing but rude and judgmental towards me. I haven't done anything wrong and you can't tell me not to reply to you when you are directly replying to me while ignoring my request to seek more information beyond what you claim to know. I simply refuse to argue with someone that doesn't have all the information, nor am I going to spend time typing out a damn novel extensively explaining each issue in detail when you could just watch the video.

I will wait for you to watch the documentary I've suggested several times, THEN come back at me with whatever points you have been trying to make, and I will respond. I am interested in seeing how you can justify your logic after seeing all of the ways animals are used in our society beyond fur and meat, because you insist that someone must be against all of them, or for none of them (black or white). In turn, if you have something you'd like me to take a look at which you feel will help your argument, I am all ears.

If you don't wanna give me the satisfaction of watching the documentary (which is extremely relevant and informative) or you just worry about learning something unpleasant, that's your choice, and you can just say it.

However, your arrogant comments and threatening to report me are uncalled for and unappreciated.

First of all, as I've told you about multiple times, that wasn't the purpose of what I said. Yet you keep jumping on the same irrelevant points, so I'm going to move on. What you commented on originally was merely my elaboration of a fragment of my original post, and I wasn't even talking to you in the first place. If you haven't noticed already, you commented on my post originally. Not the other way around.

Let me elaborate a bit, since this obviously isn't sinking in.

1.) All I said is most of the types of animals that are killed for fur are also the types of animals killed for meat. The only relevant answers would be "Yes, they are some of the same types of animals." or "No, they aren't some of the same types of animals."

That's why I keep saying your posts are irrelevant to my original post. Your answer isn't referring to the types of animals killed. Your answer is referring to where the animals are slaughtered and who the corpses are sold to, not what types of animals they are. You still haven't given a relevant answer.

2.) I haven't EVER been rude or judgmental to you. That's an outright lie. I've tried being respectful to you even after you insulted me. Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean I'm "ignorant" or that I'm "In dire need of education in this matter". It just means I disagree. This is the real world, not everyone is going to have the same opinion as you, and it's childish and immature to insult people just because you don't agree with them.

3.) By insulting me, you directly broke the posting rules you agreed to when you registered to this forum. The first words on the rule list explain it all. "Be Respectful - Do not insult or bully others." It's that simple. You insulting me and calling me "ignorant" and "uneducated" in this topic was rude and unnecessary. That is why I said I would report you if you continued. Why does it take me "threatening" to report you for you to start being respectful? You should be respectful even if you don't agree with someone.

4.) I'm not watching the movie you keep suggesting because it's irrelevant to my post. Every argument you've made is irrelevant to my original post. Simple as that. I made a simple statement, either you agree or disagree. There's no need to question my "education" in this matter. It's a simple statement that can be made by anyone with common sense about where fur and wear meat comes from.

It doesn't take an expert to see that if you wear authentic leather, it most likely comes from a dead cow's hide, and if you eat beef or steak, it also comes from a dead cow. That's the ENTIRE purpose of my original post, to show that most of these animals that are being killed (goats, rabbits, etc.) are also eaten in different cultures. So it's pointless to try to "save" them from being killed for fur, just so they'll be killed for meat. That's why this specific topic is "black and white" according to you. Either you want the animals to die or you don't. Simply put.

5.) When I was referring to people being either against or for animal cruelty, I was referring specifically to PETA (which if you haven't noticed is the exact topic that this thread is about), even though it can be applied to many people that claim to "want ethical treatment for animals", because animals being killed for meat isn't any more ethical than animals being killed for fur. As I've said before, either way an animal has still been tortured and killed.

Either give your opinion on my original statement (that's either "yes, they are" or "no, they aren't" if you've forgotten), and give it respectfully (without all the insults and disrespect) or don't respond to my post at all. It's that simple. Your turn.

Edited August 16, 2012 by TheNextOne