Submitted by bostondotcom t3_ye5504 in massachusetts
PakkyT t1_itzhwoy wrote
Reply to comment by bostondotcom in Soon to be furbidden: Cambridge adopts ordinance banning fur sales by bostondotcom
You are splitting hairs acting like the fur business is intrinsically bad while the meat business is not. Both have the same things, raising animals to then kill and harvest from them except the meat industry kills wayyyyyyyyy more animals.
I always find most of these "bans" illogical (not on fur per se, but anything towns and cities want to ban), because there is always some feel good reasoning behind whatever "bad thing" is the hot topic of the time that only makes sense if it was the only thing like it (rarely) or if you put on horse blinders and ignore all the other things that are just like it (the usual).
Take plastic water bottle bans or plastic bags in grocery stores. These are some of the current bad guys to be targeted and busy bodies like to pat themselves on the back for helping the environment because they made the local grocery store stop providing them. In the meantime there are rolls of plastic bags in the produce section for customers use and just about every item comes with so much plastic packaging, the bags or water bottles they banned is not even significant. Just one "Lunchable" probably has more plastic than all the plastic bags you get from one trip to the store.
I am all for bringing your own bags to the grocery store when you remember or have them in your car, I don't buy bottled water, and I don't wear fur. But these government feel good bans are stupid and don't really help anything with what they usually target and how they implement the ban.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments