Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Forks Over Knifes





http://forksoverknives.com/

Shameless, Greedy Fashion Designers

Next to elements in the music and movie industry that make money by corrupting people, especially young people, and takes people down a path of self destruction or at least contributes in a huge way, the fashion industry is no better. They all prey on children because they are grooming the next generation of buyers for their products, that is come by through corruption.

Look at what sustains this whole industry. Look at the models, their life style, the drugs, the booze, and the whole unwholesome package. Is your teenage daughter obsessed with her looks? Well guess who is part of the problem? Instead of young vibrant children that enjoy the outdoors, or reading, learn about the environment, learn about nature, how food grows, doing productive things, come home with dirty fingernails and rosy cheeks, climb trees, enjoy the birds and all of God's creatures and develop a wholesome self image, they are obsessed with lipstick, fingernail polish, natuers's rosy cheeks are replaced by rouge, they obsess about their figure, their breasts, boys, their hair, cloths, glitter and jewelry and so on. Is that wholesome???
I say not.

Granted we have to dress. It's nice to have nice cloths. However the high fashions today are so out of most people financial reach, and are mostly ridiculous. The down grated version, more affordable, more wearable are often marketed to the most vulnerable people, the young ones, by using their IDOLS. Girls are made to look litte miniature women all eh while we lament child sexual predators.

On top of that we drag down other beings with us by killing thousands of animals if not millions to make cute fur trims. There is NOTHING CUTE about that. Our children would recoil if they saw how these poor creatures are killed.

Those that can't afford sable or fox, get cloths trimmed with rabbit of other farmed animals. They can be produced at little cost (MONEY), lives don't matter, animals are kept in atrocious conditions that are like concentration camps before killed, skinned (but much of import fur from China comes from animals that are not killed before skinned, they skin them while they are alive (saves time and avoids damage to the fur. YES THAT IS TRUE!) to make pretty cloth for the "average" consumer. Most of them never wonder what goes in to producing this fur collar, or trim (that has nothing to do with staying warm) they never bother looking at the suffering God's creatures on earth, that are sacrificed for our vanity and selfishness.

Of course the fashion industry counts on everyone ignorance and lack of self education. They propagandize and use distraction, like attacking organizations or individuals that fight for the tortured animal, trying to divert the issue away from what they are doing.
Lets be clear they have the power of MORE MONEY on their side and the have the power of people on their side who are captive in a world of consumerism, vanity, shallow wants they believe are needs, and all that is a powerful potion.

No matter how much money most animal rights organization raise, I bet it pales in comparison to the fur and fashion industry. That is like David & Goliath.

Fur is a fabric? No! Lets make it clear. Fur is NOT a fabric. You CAN NOT MAKE FUR. You can not WEAVE fur, it is ripped of the body of an animal that can be dead but is often still alive. Either bred and cages, or trapped, often wounded and in pain often left without food or water, treated like garbage. People say: "But it' s just an animal!"
What does that men???
That makes is OK to be cruel? I don't understand that sentence... "It's just an animal!!!"
Is that sort of like back in the day when white people said "It's just blacks they don't feel pain like whites!" that made it OK to whip them, talk down to them, keep them in cages, ridicule them, hang them? You did not have to feel compassion because they were different? Is that it?

If they are not like us (whites) then we can treat them cruelly, use them, buy and sell them, enslave them. White people gave themselves permission and eased their conscience by declaring black people as sub human.

Last night I watched in tears "The Lena Baker Story" Hope & Redemption. The only women ever send to the electric chair in Georgia, the state where I live. This happened in 1944. It is very difficult to imagine how such an atrocity could ever take place. What and injustice. But again when you decide or a segment of society decides that they can treat other beings as they please because they themselves are "Superior" then you get to understand why any atrocity, any cruelty can take place.



Lena was abducted, held captive, abused, beaten, raped, and when she could not take it anymore she shot her abuser half self defense half by accident as they struggled over the gun. Those that made themselves the superiors set in judgment and send her to the chair, she never stood a chance. There was no justice. Those whites that felt some sort of struggle with their conscience looked the other way, or looked down, but did nothing. They did not speak up for right!

It was gut wrenching and made me ashamed to belong to the white race.

Today I am ashamed to belong to the human race. Because we are doing the same thing. We humans are making us to be the superiors and give ourselves the right to do as we please with anything else. We have no mercy, no compassion, no respect!

Now we treat animals as less then animals. We deny them food, shelter, take their lives, their companions, kill their babies and take their milk, their skins, the list is endless, and we do it in cruel painful ways.

We treat them as sub animals when we say we can't do this or that to a dog or cat but we can do it to a cow or fox, or wolf. We make some of them villeins and some of them saints and therefore give ourselves permission to do as we please. And with us I mean all of us Humans, black, white, brown, beige, yellow, we all are now treading animals with the same disdain as whites treated blacks. It's all very disturbing. We have not learned a thing!

Animals feel pain just like we do!!! They have lots in common with the human animal.
So what does "It's just an animals mean??? Oh because we have a God.. religion... we are civilized? Is that the difference, we sure don't act like we love God. We act like we Love ourselves and hate God's creation. We act as if Humans are the ONLY LOVABLE creature on earth and even then half the time we kill each other. Violence begets violence!

In order to get any fur you first have to kill an innocent being on God's earth. It can only begotten through VIOLENCE.

Do you want your sweet child to wear something with a trim, dyed in candy colors, that came from violence and killing, a bunny fur? Then on Easter you see those Easter Bunnies and say "Ohhh how cute!"
Do you see the hypocrisy? Or you the adult... Do you think wearing things, useless things, that come from violence and death will bring good karma?

Fur is the skin and coat of an animal that is no different then our skin, it serves a purpose. The animals can not live without that skin, we should respect that and leave it be. It is born with it and it should be the only one wearing it. In today's world we DO NOT NEED fur to stay warm. The model in the picture below could really use something on her legs, like pants or pantyhose.? Lets be clear we can be perfectly fashionable without killing.



Now we are supposed to believe that fur is making a come back because it is so cold.

What a crock.
If it's all because it's cold then how about putting some pants on girl.

These fashion designers just don't get it. They are all on my blacklist. I will not buy anything from any of these designers and I am telling anyone and everyone that stand still long enough just how out of style, cruel and disgusting these people are. This coat would be more elegant without that bulky fur on it anyway!

GREED GREED GREED
VANITY VANITY VANITY

Who wears fur? Beautiful Animals and Ugly people


Halston (Blood Fashions)
excerpt from http://blogs.wsj.com/runway/
Halston’s management team hired a young London-based designer, Marios Schwab, for its collection, and more recently tapped Sarah Jessica Parker to be the designer of the brand’s lower priced “Halston Heritage” line.

“It’s been a long time coming but I think we got it right,” said Mr. Weinstein, who was looking decidedly unfashionable with his signature shirt-un-tucked look, at the fashion presentation in a warehouse in Hell’s Kitchen (blogger comments: how appropriate). As he walked around the perimeter of the room, where models lounged on metallic props looking bored, he said, “Sarah Jessica has been a huge influence—she’s coming in ten minutes,” he added. (blogger comment: What about Sarah Jessica Parker, I thought she was on the side of animals? Has she changed her mind and is not going fur too? What gives?)

Designers Take Refuge in Warmer Fabrics

Speciesism

Speciesism is a term coined by Richard Ryder in 1970. The word refers to the widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals. (See Painism). ‘Speciesism’ can also be used to describe the oppressive behaviour, cruelty, prejudice and discrimination that are associated with such a belief. In a more restricted sense, speciesism can refer to such beliefs and behaviours if they are based upon the species-difference alone, as if such a difference is, in itself, a justification.
Ryder used the term as a deliberate ‘wake-up call’ to challenge the morality of current practices where nonhuman animals are being exploited in research, in farming, domestically and in the wild, and he consciously drew the parallel with the terms racism and sexism. Ryder pointed out that all such prejudices are based upon physical differences that are morally irrelevant. He suggested that the moral implication of Darwinism is that all sentient animals, including humans, should have a similar moral status.
In his first privately published leaflet entitled Speciesism, Ryder asked a number of rhetorical questions:
Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no ‘magical’ essential difference between human and other animals, biologically- speaking. Why, then, do we make an almost total distinction morally? If all organisms are on one physical continuum, then we should also be on the same moral continuum.
The word ‘species’, like the word ‘race’, is not precisely definable. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Under special laboratory conditions it may soon prove possible to mate a gorilla with a professor of biology — will the hairy offspring be kept in a cage or a cradle?
It is customary to describe Neanderthal Man as a separate species from ourselves, one especially equipped for Ice-Age survival. Yet most archaeologists now believe that this nonhuman creature practised ritual burial and possessed a larger brain than we do. Suppose that the elusive Abominable Snowman, when caught, turns out to be the last survivor of this Neanderthal species; would we give him a seat at the UN or would we implant electrodes in his super-human brain?
A second edition of this leaflet, illustrated and with the name and address of David Wood added, was circulated around the colleges of Oxford University where it was seen by the young Australian philosopher Peter Singer. A little earlier, the novelist Brigid Brophy, having read some of Ryder’s letters about the treatment of animals published in the Daily Telegraph (e.g. 7th April and 3rd May 1969), introduced Ryder to the Oxford philosophers John Harris and Roslind and Stanley Godlovitch who invited Ryder to contribute a chapter on Animal Experimentation to their forthcoming collection of essays entitled Animals, Men and Morals, subsequently published by Gollancz in 1971. In this contribution Ryder bases his moral objection to painful animal experimentation upon his principle of ‘speciesism’. This historic book was subsequently reviewed by Peter Singer who then approached Richard Ryder to find out more about his ideas on the subject. Singer invited Ryder to share the authorship of his forthcoming book, Animal Liberation. Ryder declined, but gave much research material to Singer that had already been used by Ryder for his book Victims of Science (1975). Peter Singer has frequently acknowledged his debt to Ryder for the term speciesism which Singer, as a Utilitarian, has used skilfully. The term is now in most English dictionaries and is much employed by philosophers.
Ryder points out that there is no absolute barrier between species and that transgenic animals and so-called chimeras contain the genes of several species. How would we treat hominids of a different species if some turned up, he asks, or aliens from outer space? The latter may be highly intelligent, autonomous and of a different species, but should intelligence or autonomy or species affect moral status? Suffering, surely is the essential feature. (See Painism).
Above all, Ryder and other anti-speciesists have challenged the usual Judaeo-Christian assumption of Western societies that the human-being has some semi-divine status. “I have never yet heard” Ryder has said “any rational argument in support of speciesism — except, of course, sheer bloody self-interest.”
Ryder went on to become a leading campaigner for animal protection, modernising the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) as its Chairman, and helping to put animals into politics internationally. He also became Director of the Political Animal Lobby, founder of Eurogroup for Animals and first Chairman of the Liberal Democrats Animal Welfare Group. Ryder refers to speciesism in all his main writings. (See Ryder Animal Revolution : Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1989, revised edition Berg, Oxford, 2000; The Political Animal : The Conquest of Speciesism, McFarland, 1998 and Putting Morality Back into Politics, Imprint Academic, 2006.) For a full treatment of Ryder’s wider-ranging ethics see his Painism: A Modern Morality, Opengate Press, 2001.
Link to the Wikipedia article on Richard D Ryder
WWW.RICHARDRYDER.CO.UK



Did the Nazis make lampshades out of human skin?