Comment

Comment on I'm right and the other vegans are wrong

IMO, leather really isn’t a big deal. It’s a by-product of the meat industry. Nobody is raising and butchering cows specifically for the leather. If nobody used the leather, then the skins would just be thrown away … or maybe ground up and used in dog food or something.

source

Sort:hotnew top

davepleasebehave@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
it subsidises the meat industry.

source
- roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Valid, lowers the price of the resulting meat and thus increases consumption
  
  source
- infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  It’s also responsible for a not-insignificant portion of the meat industry’s carbon footprint.
  
  source
v4ld1z@lemmy.zip ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Leather is horrible for the environment plus you’re still supporting animal AG

source
- I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I would argue polyester is worse than leather for the environment, but to each their own.
  
  source
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Fur on the other hand…

source
- Tiral@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  I mean, to be fair there aren’t many if any first world countries that eat fox, bear, or really anything with fur. I understand some people shoot bears and such, but in talking about actual farms.
  
  source
  - SkyezOpen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Yeah my bad, I meant the fur industry is almost entirely barbaric for no purpose, as opposed to leather being a byproduct.
    
    Though I have found a shop that allegedly has ethically sourced fur that they buy from Alaskan natives that hunt for food, but I don’t think I have the means to confirm that.
    
    source
volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
I agree, as well with things like sauces from shellfish shells that would otherwise be tossed.

However, I recently heard the reasoning (of a buddhist who tries to avoid animal products, i.e. would not actively seek out a non vegan option, while accepting non vegan food if offered) - would the product in question still exist if the animal was seized to be killed? Even if it was for a different purpose and leather, seafish shells, gelatin etc were just byproducts, they would not exist if the animal it is derived from wasn’t killed for whatever reason.

I totally agree that it would be a shame to only use a part of an animal and let the other go to waste. Likewise, I get that “I’ll do X as long as everyone else does Y” is a way of reasoning that ends up counterproductive and keeps us locked in a status quo. So, if someone wants to stop using not just the primary products of the meat industry but also the secondary, I can understand.

source