While the conclusion of this argument is valid your premises don’t follow a logical sequence. Firstly, leather is defined as a material obtained from rawhide which is tanned (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leather) - this is real leather, there is no need for calls to ignorance here.
Secondly, what do mean by referring to “someone else’s”? Because the common usage for such statements usually mean human, not non-human animals. This essentially looks like an emotional appeal at this point.
Thirdly, you state that it is common for leather to be coated in plastic. While this is technically correct - as large portion of the market is composed of reusing scraps, it dismisses leather production from virgin rawhide and processes using vegetable or synthetic tanning which don’t need plastic for the resultant product.
Pipster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
And veg tan? I try not to use chrome tan in stuff I make for both environmental reasons and the fact its a pain to work with but we have been veg tanning for thousands of years.
rapchee@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
we’ve (as human) been doing things for thousands of years, which was barely noticeable because there were less than a billion of us until the 1800s, less than 400 million until 1400s and the obvs even less before
Pipster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
My point was more that harmful chemicals in the sense of chromium salts etc. aren’t present in veg tan which, for the most part, is boiling it in a load of tree bark.
rapchee@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
oh i completely misunderstood your comment, i didn’t see the “veg” before the tanning, so i thought your were writing about tanning in general