Reading the description of the new Edge Paints set, I noticed the brush included in that set is made with Sable hair. After seeing that, I went over to the brush section of GW's site and found out most of their brushes are in fact made with (Kolinsky) Sable hair.
It is an understatement to say that I now feel quite stupid for never checking that out before, because I am very VERY much opposed to fur products. There is a significant difference between side products of the meat industry (whatever I and anyone else may think of that is an entirely different discussion), and a fur industry that is simply nothing more than a completely unnecessary, completely unethical & disgusting form of animal cruelty.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
The (obvious) point of this thread:
I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.
Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.
Kanluwen wrote: How about explaining why this is an issue...?
Because animal cruelty is a HUGE issue to a lot of people?
No, I get that.
Explain how (Kolinsky) Sable hair brushes contribute to animal cruelty.
Do I really have to explain this
Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unneccesary.
Explain how (Kolinsky) Sable hair brushes contribute to animal cruelty.
Because in the process of gathering the hair, the Weasel may or may not be killed.
I've found sources that say they are raised on a farm, and then shaved (like sheep), and released back onto the farm.. and others that they are skinned in the process. Likely there are farms for both methods, but generally speaking, the weasel doesn't need to be killed to shave its tail.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
The (obvious) point of this thread:
I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.
Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.
Good luck... About 95% of the 'cruelty free' brushes on the market are just a perspective on what is cruel. They consider hair from aging horses whoa re going to be killed 'anyways' is cruelty free. They consider squirrels killed as pests cruelty free as well. And they shave goats for goat hair brushes which are coarse. So when a company says it is an animal-hair 'cruelty free' there is a good chance it won't actually meet your standards.
All good brushes are animal hair. You can try synthetics but I have never gotten a good paint job out of one.
Also. Everyone who uses brushes already knows where the brush hairs comes from. Not a surprise. It isn't like a majority of the world uses synthetic brushes and GW is some 1920's villain making demonic brushes out of the hairs of extinct animals and the stems from the bones of orphans. The entire industry makes their brushes of the exact same material.
Kanluwen wrote: How about explaining why this is an issue...?
Because animal cruelty is a HUGE issue to a lot of people?
No, I get that.
Explain how (Kolinsky) Sable hair brushes contribute to animal cruelty.
Do I really have to explain this
Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unnecessary.
Yeah, you kinda do.
Not everyone is aware of what Kolinsky Sable hair comes from, nor the fact that it comes from an animal which does not "farm" well.
If you want to raise awareness, it helps to explain things better than you did.
nkelsch wrote: Also. Everyone who uses brushes already knows where the brush hairs comes from. Not a surprise. It isn't like a majority of the world uses synthetic brushes and GW is some 1920's villain making demonic brushes out of the hairs of extinct animals and the stems from the bones of orphans. The entire industry makes their brushes of the exact same material.
This is why I pointed out the difference between side-products of the meat industry (for example ox hair + nylon fibres) and a fur product which is 100% unnecessary cruelty.
nkelsch wrote: ... It isn't like a majority of the world uses synthetic brushes and GW is some 1920's villain making demonic brushes out of the hairs of extinct animals and the stems from the bones of orphans.
nkelsch wrote: Also. Everyone who uses brushes already knows where the brush hairs comes from. Not a surprise. It isn't like a majority of the world uses synthetic brushes and GW is some 1920's villain making demonic brushes out of the hairs of extinct animals and the stems from the bones of orphans. The entire industry makes their brushes of the exact same material.
This is why I pointed out the difference between side-products of the meat industry (for example ox hair + nylon fibres) and a fur product which is 100% unnecessary cruelty.
Not really. Tools made from animals built civilization. Fur to wear may be deemed cruel, but I see a distinct difference for animal byproducts being used for tools. One could hardly call a 'brush' one of the first writing tools used in civilization 'cruel'. I also don't begrudge people who had to survive in Siberia to cover thier little pink skins in animal skins to survive. It also doesn't help that the Siberian weasel is a pest, destructive to livestock and crops and is overly destructive as it kills more than it eats opposed to only what it needs.
Sure fashion furs of rare animals may be cruel, but there is a million shades of grey as this issue is hardly black and white unless you live a very vegan lifestyle... (which I respect people who do so. It is the inconsistent, selective outrage, middle of the road people who I find disingenuous)
Not to mention the Siberian weasel is classified on the list of 'least concern' along with cockroaches, pigeons, mosquitoes and humans as species which are on the verge of going extinct.
I have no problem using brushes as it is a tool used by civilization, and it is not exploiting an endangered animal.
But surely it should be "The whole art industry contributes to animal cruelty".GW has its faults but they are not the only brush purveyor in the world. What next? Every time Mat Ward breaks wind a weasel dies!
Is logging forests for rulebooks and Codices okay?
Is using the last non-regenerative oil reserves for synthetic brushes (and plastic toy soldiers) okay?
nkelsch wrote: Not really. Tools made from animals built civilization. Fur to wear may be deemed cruel, but I see a distinct difference for animal byproducts being used for tools. One could hardly call a 'brush' one of the first writing tools used in civilization 'cruel'. I also don't begrudge people who had to survive in Siberia to cover thier little pink skins in animal skins to survive. It also doesn't help that the Siberian weasel is a pest, destructive to livestock and crops and is overly destructive as it kills more than it eats opposed to only what it needs.
Sure fashion furs of rare animals may be cruel, but there is a million shades of grey as this issue is hardly black and white unless you live a very vegan lifestyle... (which I respect people who do so. It is the inconsistent, selective outrage, middle of the road people who I find disingenuous)
Not to mention the Siberian weasel is classified on the list of 'least concern' along with cockroaches, pigeons, mosquitoes and humans as species which are on the verge of going extinct.
I have no problem using brushes as it is a tool used by civilization, and it is not exploiting an endangered animal.
Good to see you are interested in discussing this in an adult & civil manner, but I do disagree for several reasons.
People in Siberia, indians and other primitives killing animals to survive and using them whole (bones, skin/fur)... perfectly fine. These people usually have the utmost respect for nature and treat it as such, don't take more than they need, etc. I actually have a lot of respect for that.
Breeding whatever animal under bad circumstance, treating it like throw-away things while there are perfectly good alternatives.... inexcusable.
Nowadays, in general we don't need any tools made from animals anymore (there might be exceptions). We view ourselves as "civilized", in other words not primitives anymore. We don't need to use bone pens anymore either, do we? We have alternatives. Steel and metal instead of bones. Synthetics instead of hair or skin.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
And whether or not something is classified as least likely to become extinct also doesn't make in any different to me. It doesn't suddenly make it okay to abuse it and make it suffer for our pleasure-stuff while, again, we don't have to because we have alternatives.
*Because of its great expense, sable fur is typically integrated into various clothes fashions: to decorate collars, sleeves, hems and hats (see, for example the shtreimel). The so-called Kolinsky sable-hair brushes used for watercolor or oil painting are not manufactured from sable hair, but from that of the Siberian weasel.*
In my opinion, the fact that you are throwing away your brushes means nothing. Technicaly you already violated your morals by using them for some odd years. If your were really this concerned about organic brushes you would have done research before hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: *It's actually a weasel that's being killed harvested. The kolinsky is a Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica), not the far more expensive true sable. And these weasels need killing, as they are infamous among the Chinese for stealing souls.*
It's a bit naive to think they carefully shave them before releasing them into the wild. Of course they kill them, because they're weasels and mostly no one cares.
Unfortunately synthetic brushes tend not to have the same qualities as real hair brushes and theres little awareness or interest in changing the practices of the brush industry. There are probably animal based products in some paints too, fats and oils, etc.
TBD wrote: Reading the description of the new Edge Paints set, I noticed the brush included in that set is made with Sable hair. After seeing that, I went over to the brush section of GW's site and found out most of their brushes are in fact made with (Kolinsky) Sable hair.
It is an understatement to say that I now feel quite stupid for never checking that out before, because I am very VERY much opposed to fur products. There is a significant difference between side products of the meat industry (whatever I and anyone else may think of that is an entirely different discussion), and a fur industry that is simply nothing more than a completely unnecessary, completely unethical & disgusting form of animal cruelty.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
The (obvious) point of this thread:
I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.
Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.
If you are serious, if this is not a trolling thread, you need help. All I can say.
You do realize, they make human hair wigs without killing people? Just like they make sable hair brushes without killing the horses.
Compound this by the fact, you are a hypocrite to your own point and now you've actually not only encouraged what you consider 'animal cruelty' but also spit on that cruelty and called it all for naught by throwing away your brushes.
So essentially?
You are WORSE than the so called animal cruelty you are against. How does that feel?
But...surely you throwing away these brushes made out of animal hair means that they were shaved/whateva for nothing? You not buying anymore brushes wont make them change sources, as you will be one of like two people doing this. -_-
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
[quote=Midnightdeathblade 489536 4989753 76d4d2c12088b013e2db8e2a276b5c6b.jpgTechnicaly you already violated your morals by using them for some odd years.
Technically, if you are aware of everything and know everything beforehand you can travel the world with one ten cents in your pocket.
Sometimes unfortunately you only become aware of something at a certain point, and that is just the way it is.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.
This. A 2 minute search on Google would have told you that and this whole mess could have been avoided.
Well, you've certainly raised a point I'd not even considered before.
However it is only the tail hairs that are used in brushes, with the rest of the pelt used for other purposes. I suspect that a total worldwide boycott by all artists on kolinsky brushes would still result in the fur being collected with very little impact as its essentially a by product.
IdentifyZero wrote: [If you are serious, if this is not a trolling thread, you need help. All I can say.
You do realize, they make human hair wigs without killing people? Just like they make sable hair brushes without killing the horses.
Compound this by the fact, you are a hypocrite to your own point and now you've actually not only encouraged what you consider 'animal cruelty' but also spit on that cruelty and called it all for naught by throwing away your brushes.
So essentially?
You are WORSE than the so called animal cruelty you are against. How does that feel?
This is without a doubt the dumbest, most moronic response I have read in a while.
I could respond in kind, but it is probably better that Ijust pity you instead.
Being a toughguy on the internet is easy. It would be great if we ever met in person and you had the balls to repeat this to my face. Let us see how good that would end for you
It's always interesting watching people try to make rational arguments to convince someone to change an entirely emotional decision.
While I respect the decision to avoid making use of products that are the result of farmed animals, I would hope that discovering the truth about where the brush fibers actually comes from would change your mind and encourage you to returning to using byproducts of hunting (renewable) vermin rather than using (non-renewable) petroleum products.
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
The OP hasn't supported his statements that the animals are tortured or killed for the fur, so it comes across as someone who is whining that sheep are shaved for wool. Yes, he might be correct, but then animals are killed for many other reasons as well so unless there is a great amount of main/suffering it doesn't stand out as more concerning than other animal deaths for most people.
When I worked for the Evil Empire that is GW one of my colleagues had a box of teddy bears and other random toys left by shoppers. If you want to talk about cruelty and sadism you should've seen the contents of that box... Makes the movies Saw and Hostel look Family Friendly... So the fact that they ruthlessly kill and shave small rodents on the steppes wouldn't surprise me... But to pick them out as a specific company is a little pointed you could as easily have said Paintbrush Manufacturers contribute to unneccessary animal cruelty...
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
The OP hasn't supported his statements that the animals are tortured or killed for the fur, so it comes across as someone who is whining that sheep are shaved for wool. Yes, he might be correct, but then animals are killed for many other reasons as well so unless there is a great amount of main/suffering it doesn't stand out as more concerning than other animal deaths for most people.
This again.
It's the kind of ill-informed scaremongering tactics used by PETA and the ALF etc. to try and get people to join their cause.
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
So you're going to ignore the fact that you're wrong about these brushes?
The animals are hunted because they're pests. They are not bred on farms.
Te harvesting of the fur is a side effect.
Well, most parts of such creatures are actually used:
- We don't much use bones for glue anymore nowadays I believe, though that might be different in other parts of the world; I know I use hide/bone glue for instrument repair regularly and it has to come from somewhere - edible meat is *always* used. If not for human consumption (and believe it, that sausage which doesn't state in big shiny letters just what it's made of? Yeah, that can have quite varied contents in some parts of the - western, even - world) then surely it can be ground up and used as a component for animal food (popular for dog/cat feed: "contains real wildstock" as if your pet would really taste the difference after processing) or something like that.
- pelts, as said, are quite pricey actually.
(this by now is ~80% of a creature's live weight at least and they might have purposes for the rest, I'm not sure with such small creatures)
Then there's the "hey many of these are hunted as pests" argument and the whole "suffering" argument which is way, way overstated (both of which I actually could care less for; I have a *distinct* opinion about animal rights activists etc but since I have a personal rule against trying to get into a flamewar on dakka more than 3 times in two days I'll refrain from now.
... maybe tomorrow ).
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
Wow, you can resurrect dead weasels by tossing paint brushes into a garbage can?
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
While I do respect your convictions, I'd like to point out that that the thread was started by you not understanding the difference betweeen Kolinsky sable and actual sable hair. I'd hope you're the one who got enlightened.
BrookM wrote: Don't forget the oxen, drybrushes are made using oxen hair, or don't they count because they are not cute and fluffy?
While it was kind of creepy watching a guy get pissed off that we kept swatting flies, it is quite rare to run into someone who prioritizes preventing animal cruelty that applies it evenly across the entire animal kingdom.
Besides, trees don't scream when we kill them with axes.
This is pretty much the same reason I don't have an I-Pad/I-Phone because of the exploitation of the workers who make these luxury items who get paid very little compared to the retail cost of the product.... Oh and also the fact I can't afford those self same products... Everytime I travel, eat, wear clothing, buy products of almost any kind somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someone or something is being exploited/damaged/harmed or killed for me to have that item. I could rail on but I think my point is made there are consequences to everything we purchase... You have to weigh up whether your moral compass can deal with those consequences. Thats your choice, don't expect everyone else to share your moral compass...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: These 'White Sable' are synthetic from all accounts. I'm thinking of ordering some myself as I'm against fur farming in general.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.
I wish it was incorrect, but it really isn't.
Maybe that is where they get part of the hair too, but hair of farmed animals is also definitely used. You tell me which came from where?
The whole "this animal is a pest anyway" story isn't so clear cut either as long as there are commercial intersts involved, as always.
You are free to have your own definition of 'cruel' as there is by no means a universally correct definition. Just be prepared if you try to buy 'cruelty free' brushes, you may find that almost all brushes labeled as such are not going to meet your standards because 'the industry' doesn't consider farm-raised cruelty the same way trapping is. If you are not careful you may end up buying some cruelty free brushes which are made the same way as your devil GW brushes.
If you are going to apply a consistent vegan standard which all animal slavery or death is unacceptable, then you need to get synthetic brushes which are substandard and won't be as good.
If you are honest about your attitude and the plight of farm-raised Siberian weasals, I highly recommend checking out PETA's website and aligning your life values because if you didn't know animal-hair brushes were cruel, then prepare to find out a majority of your daily existence and civilization as a whole still to this day exists on the exploitation of animals as a natural resource.
Personally I feel recreational horse riding is cruel, but I am fine with 'working animals' in roles where they still serve a purpose. I know my beliefs are inconsistent and people see them as stupid, but I am fine with that. If you want to throw away brushes because some farm-raised weasels are killed, go for it.
Otherwise, this just seems like this week's "let's hate GW" thread.
DaddyWarcrimes wrote: It's always interesting watching people try to make rational arguments to convince someone to change an entirely emotional decision.
Thing is, I am not even trying to pursuade anyone from not using this product if they think it is okay to do so.
However if anyone reads this and thinks " hmm, I didn't know that and I don't like that either" and makes his/her own, subsequent decision, then it has served it's purpose.
If that seriously is what you think you are in for a rude awakening, unfortunately.
To answer your other question: yes, and if there is a reasonable alternative to any animal-unfriendly product I go with that.
Actually the vast majority of brush manufacturers who use natural fibers "comb" the animals to get the fibers. A special combs are designed to cut the hairs from the animals. These are then sorted, graded and used to create the various brushes used for art, makeup and other trades.
This is a growth out of the various animal rights hippy dippy types who make up a good chunk of the artist markets. The manufacturers realized that they could not risk loosing a sizable amount of their customers. Now, whether or not the animals are kept in a humane manner or later killed for their pelts (or for food or other purposes depending on the fiber in question) is generally not dealt with. However, in order to maintain their market and keep customers happy - they generally get the fibers for brushes from living animals who are no worse for wear after they are harvested.
In the case of Siberian Weasel Butt Hair - the specific fibers which are desired are those from the winter coat. They are readily available even without combing as the animal sheds the winter fur every spring. The winter fur fibers are better able to hold water and as a result are ideal water color brushes.
Now, whether or not GW is using a major brush manufacturer who harvests fur from live animals or is using a Chinese firm who uses scraps from animals killed for the fur trade is unknown to me. It is definitely easier and cheaper to get the fur from a dead animal than it is to get the fur from a live one.
Either way though, Kolinsky Sable Brushes work great - so I keep on using them. I'll even use them while wearing my lambskin slippers sitting in my leather upholstered chair while enjoying a bacon double cheeseburger.
Either way though, Kolinsky Sable Brushes work great - so I keep on using them. I'll even use them while wearing my lambskin slippers sitting in my leather upholstered chair while enjoying a bacon double cheeseburger.
I'm vegetarian and I could probably bench what you weigh. Please, no one likes an internet badass.
As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Cats will kill animals out of the sheer joy for it too. source Presumably you're in favour of the wholesale murder of cats?
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Yup, they're pretty much nature's sociopaths. I'd like to see video of someone trying to comb a weasel.
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Cats will kill animals out of the sheer joy for it too. source Presumably you're in favour of the wholesale murder of cats?
Cats (like ferrets) have been domesticated enough that they can be taught to kill the rats and mice but not the chickens. The same is not true tor the weasels in question. Cats on farms are frequently working animals much like the dogs who chase rabbits out of the vegetables and help herd sheep or horses who help with driving cows and cattle. They aren't pets. They're farm equipment.
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Cats will kill animals out of the sheer joy for it too. source Presumably you're in favour of the wholesale murder of cats?
It is fun to trash GW and other posters than to read facts as presented by Sean_OBrien which shows the exaggerated cruelty which doesn't actually exist and the unsubstantiated accusations that GW hairs come from tortured trapped animals which are harvested after the last ounce of life is drained from them opposed to combed from the butt-hair of a shedding farmed animal.
The more I read, the brush industry is already mostly 'cruelty free' from most peoples understanding... and the only standard it doesn't fit is vegans, who believe all animal slavery is wrong.
So this is seeming to be more and more then 'I hate GW thread' of the week and not really a real issue. Might make more sense if someone actually confirmed where GW gets their brushes from and how they obtain the hairs. I am totally ok with combing winter hairs from a shedding animal which seems to be the standard.
Either way though, Kolinsky Sable Brushes work great - so I keep on using them. I'll even use them while wearing my lambskin slippers sitting in my leather upholstered chair while enjoying a bacon double cheeseburger.
I'm vegetarian and I could probably bench what you weigh. Please, no one likes an internet badass.
>Brags about being a vegetarian >Brags about being able to bench >Says no one likes internet badasses
Sean_OBrien wrote: Actually the vast majority of brush manufacturers who use natural fibers "comb" the animals to get the fibers. A special combs are designed to cut the hairs from the animals. These are then sorted, graded and used to create the various brushes used for art, makeup and other trades.
This is a growth out of the various animal rights hippy dippy types who make up a good chunk of the artist markets. The manufacturers realized that they could not risk loosing a sizable amount of their customers. Now, whether or not the animals are kept in a humane manner or later killed for their pelts (or for food or other purposes depending on the fiber in question) is generally not dealt with. However, in order to maintain their market and keep customers happy - they generally get the fibers for brushes from living animals who are no worse for wear after they are harvested.
In the case of Siberian Weasel Butt Hair - the specific fibers which are desired are those from the winter coat. They are readily available even without combing as the animal sheds the winter fur every spring. The winter fur fibers are better able to hold water and as a result are ideal water color brushes.
Now, whether or not GW is using a major brush manufacturer who harvests fur from live animals or is using a Chinese firm who uses scraps from animals killed for the fur trade is unknown to me. It is definitely easier and cheaper to get the fur from a dead animal than it is to get the fur from a live one.
Either way though, Kolinsky Sable Brushes work great - so I keep on using them. I'll even use them while wearing my lambskin slippers sitting in my leather upholstered chair while enjoying a bacon double cheeseburger.
Except for the last little part perhaps this is a very good & useful response.
The problem is that it is indeed hard to identify which way the hair was gained. What some people in this thread (not you) don't seem to understand is that I would actually prefer if someone proved me wrong on the cruelty aspect, but so far nobody has been able to do so conclusively. There seems to be a large untransparant grey area.
@ Corso Vitt: this wasn't meant to be GW bashing specific, but for the same reason Testify already posted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: These 'White Sable' are synthetic from all accounts. I'm thinking of ordering some myself as I'm against fur farming in general.
nkelsch wrote: The more I read, the brush industry is already mostly 'cruelty free' from most peoples understanding... and the only standard it doesn't fit is vegans, who believe all animal slavery is wrong.
There are actually "vegan" friendly brushes out there - I recall seeing an add for them in one of the magazines I read a few years back (don't recall the name of the company though). As I said - the animals shed their winter coat each spring and the winter coat is what is of value for the brushes. Apparently, this company hired locals to go out into the woods and grab the shed fur off twigs and branches each spring in order to make their brushes with. They cost two arms and a leg and likely didn't have a practical way of ensuring the locals didn't just catch and kill the vermin...but still, it gave their customers the warm fuzzy feeling they needed.
I'm genuinely curious as to how you balance being repulsed by the thought of using an animal hair brush, but are perfectly fine with synthetic brushes made from oil, often times harvested from the sea bed, which can result in causing major suffering and death in marine animals such as whales and porpoises etc? You only have to look at the Deepwater Horizon tragedy to see the environmental cost of raping the oil reserves, and the millions of lives lost, from singled celled organisms, all the way up to complex life.
Me, I don't get it. I'd never want an animal to suffer, but I'm quite happy to gut a fish for the barbecue, buy a leather couch, or use a good quality sable paint brush. I reckon I have a decent understanding of where the things I buy come from, and appreciate the fact I can buy them.
It's a bit like the whole electric car nonsense, as in, an electric car, over the life cycle of the product, is more harmful to the environment than my V8 jag - lots of nasty chemicals and manufacturing processes involved in the manufacture of the electric car, and of course, the hidden environmental cost of the electricity (whether its from coal fired plants, nuclear plants or whatever). At a superficial level, its all well and good you avoiding the obvious environmental cost of a sable brush, but when you're using your non-biodegradeable synthetic number, just remember that somewhere, a fish probably died to make that brush.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
Wow, you can resurrect dead weasels by tossing paint brushes into a garbage can?
It has nothing to do with that.
If you found out some item in your house was made out of something you ethically don't agree with, which could be a wide area of things, would you just keep it there/continue using/eating it?
If you would that is perfectly fine with me, but just curious.
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
Way to collect people to your cause, by insulting the very people you are trying to convince.
Personally, I am against animal cruelty. But I also won't let it get in the way of practicality.
I'm genuinely curious as to how you balance being repulsed by the thought of using an animal hair brush, but
It's a bit like the whole electric car nonsense, as in, an electric car, over the life cycle of the product, is more harmful to the environment than my V8 jag - lots of nasty chemicals and manufacturing processes involved in the manufacture of the electric car, and of course, the hidden environmental cost of the electricity (whether its from coal fired plants, nuclear plants or whatever). At a superficial level, its all well and good you avoiding the obvious environmental cost of a sable brush, but when you're using your non-biodegradeable synthetic number, just remember that somewhere, a fish probably died to make that brush.
If it's sub-oceanic oil. It's made entirely of dead fish, If it's from land-based oil wells, it's more than likely being harvested by people who are spending the proceeds on continuing a horrific record of human rights abuses and funneling money to people who've dedicated their lives to eradicating every way of life other than their own. While you're at it, check out where the brass in those brushes you were looking at comes from. The zinc and copper are mostly strip mined in places like Chile and China, by borderline slave labor. Refining nickel uses and produces huge amounts of Carbon Monoxide. Everything made in the modern world traces its roots back to something wretched being done to a living creature.
Oh, and I hope you don't ever have a health problem. Every drug that's shown any degree of effectiveness at treating cancer has gotten its start with a culture of animal cells harvested from farm raised small mammals. The best nerve, skin, and dural regenerative technologies get their start with animal byproducts from farm raised animals who are killed to harvest the desired tissues.
nkelsch wrote: The more I read, the brush industry is already mostly 'cruelty free' from most peoples understanding... and the only standard it doesn't fit is vegans, who believe all animal slavery is wrong.
There are actually "vegan" friendly brushes out there - I recall seeing an add for them in one of the magazines I read a few years back (don't recall the name of the company though). As I said - the animals shed their winter coat each spring and the winter coat is what is of value for the brushes. Apparently, this company hired locals to go out into the woods and grab the shed fur off twigs and branches each spring in order to make their brushes with. They cost two arms and a leg and likely didn't have a practical way of ensuring the locals didn't just catch and kill the vermin...but still, it gave their customers the warm fuzzy feeling they needed.
Interesting! I suppose you could find natural sheddings to harvest branches. If I had an issue with the industry, I feel like paying extra money for a vegan brush is a much better solution than an inferior synthetic brush.
This whole thread brings up a wierd encounter I had with a so called animal rights activist once.
I was driving by a house one time that had been abandoned when I noticed a dog that was chained up beside the house. The dog had no food, not water, and could not get away. The guy that owned the house had just abandoned the dog there.
Now I work with a woman that claims she is an animal rights activist and I have listened to her talk about animal rescue and things of that nature for about four years now. When I got to work that morning I told her about the dog chained up and here's what she told me.
" I'm not interested in rescuing the dog unless you know who owns it. I want to hold that guy accountable for the animal cruelty"
I said to her that I don't know who owns it but I did know where the dog was at. I then asked her if she would go rescue it and maybe take it to a shelter or something. She said "no, not unless I can get the guy responsible"
I was like
She seemed more interested in having someone prosecuted rather than any real animal rescue.
As I have since come into contact with more and more animal rights activists, I have seen that this is a common attiude among many of them.
So I have to ask you. Since you know there is a problem, what are you personally doing to fix it? Coming on to a website about miniature games isn't really gonna solve the problem.
Are you going to start your own paint brush company that doesn't kill the animals? Are you going to point anyone in the direction of good companies that don't kill to make the brushes? Are you actively going to the paint brush company and standing outside with a bunch of other protestors holding signs and making the public aware of the problem besides just coming onto dakka and mentioning it? Are you getting involved in legislation that will try to stop the cruelty?
If you are, good for you. If not......then I question the motives behind the thread because it doesn't seem you are informed enough about the subject.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
Wow, you can resurrect dead weasels by tossing paint brushes into a garbage can?
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
Wow, you can resurrect dead weasels by tossing paint brushes into a garbage can?
Sigged
I too genuinely lolled hard at that comment. I brightened my day!
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Cats will kill animals out of the sheer joy for it too. source Presumably you're in favour of the wholesale murder of cats?
I own cats as well and they occasionally kill a pest out in the barn that could harm me or my birds. Pest that will eat a newborn chick whole right out from under it's mother. This is useful. Full scale chicken genocide is not. People are far to absolute in matters they have no personal experience in or don't see the bigger picture of (not calling you out specifically Testify). There are probably few endeavours that don't impact the natural world in a negative way. Polystyrene miniature are a petroleum product no doubt causing way more environmental damage than sable brushes. The world needs to suffer so we as a species can live the life we do. To be absolutely opposed to animal cruelty is the ultimate hypocracy. It's about sustainable practices and limiting the amount that individual animals suffer. If you want to do something to help animals in my opinion, stop buying chicken at the supermarket. These animals live a horrible life.
Lead Farmer wrote: If you want to do something to help animals in my opinion, stop buying chicken at the supermarket. These animals live a horrible life.
Free-range chicken tastes waaaaaaaay better too. If there was a way I could raise my own chickens, I would.
To live a life where brush-hair gathering actually matters, you have to have a vegan core value set. It is very hard to do.
You also have to re-evaluate your position on 'pet ownership' vs 'animal companionship'. A lot of people who seem to have opinions against animal cruelty may find out that others see them as abusive pet owners. One of the big things is it sounds like 'no kill' shelters are humane when in fact, hardcore animal activists see 'no kill' shelters as the ultimate in animal abuse and support humane euthanization of animals over lifetime animal prison as seen in most underfunded 'no kill' shelters.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
Neither a human nor an animal is significantly different than any other collection of star-forged atoms (such as an iron deposit). I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I like how your saying all these things about animal cruelty and stuff, but just look at your profile pic, its a picture of an animal enslaved my mankind,come on, how much suffering has that Jokaero Weaponsmith has had to be shoved in the power armor? so your a bit of a hypocrite don't you think?
alphaecho wrote: But surely it should be "The whole art industry contributes to animal cruelty".GW has its faults but they are not the only brush purveyor in the world. What next? Every time Mat Ward breaks wind a weasel dies!
Much like the way to kill a fairy, everytime someone shouts "I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE CHAOS GODS!" a games designer dies.
Well thank you first of all for the huge amount of laughter this thread has brought me. I never thought I would see the day someone would accuse GW of animal cruelty. Truly DakkaDakka will never run out of reasons to bash GW.
Secondly, natural hair brushes are completely superior to nylon brushes. They pick up paint easier and are far more controllable. Professional painters always use natural hair brushes. GW brushes aren't the best, but using sable hair is definately the right way to go.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
Neither a human nor an animal is significantly different than any other collection of star-forged atoms (such as an iron deposit). I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I'll take that challenge...
If you actually believe and live by your last statement, you'd be a psychopath by society's standards and kill humans or animals without remorse or empathy as they are 'just a collection of atoms'. Self aware beings that we are, we measure ourselves by rules we implement via our collectives in order to maintain structure. I don't run over a pedestrian in the way of my intended car parking spot or shoot someone in the head when wanting to get ahead in the queue to pay for my groceries because I have a measure of empathy for the other people around me, this extends, to a lesser degree, to animal life around me and when I've hunted or fished, I have tried to ensure I minimize the suffering of the animal I intend to eat because I understand pain and do not wish to extend that unpleasant experience to another being.
We seek to reduce the suffering of other living things due to the level of empathy we possess as a cognitive being capable of recognizing similarities with other life forms.
Eggs wrote: I'm genuinely curious as to how you balance being repulsed by the thought of using an animal hair brush, but are perfectly fine with synthetic brushes made from oil, often times harvested from the sea bed, which can result in causing major suffering and death in marine animals such as whales and porpoises etc? You only have to look at the Deepwater Horizon tragedy to see the environmental cost of raping the oil reserves, and the millions of lives lost, from singled celled organisms, all the way up to complex life.
Me, I don't get it. I'd never want an animal to suffer, but I'm quite happy to gut a fish for the barbecue, buy a leather couch, or use a good quality sable paint brush. I reckon I have a decent understanding of where the things I buy come from, and appreciate the fact I can buy them.
It's a bit like the whole electric car nonsense, as in, an electric car, over the life cycle of the product, is more harmful to the environment than my V8 jag - lots of nasty chemicals and manufacturing processes involved in the manufacture of the electric car, and of course, the hidden environmental cost of the electricity (whether its from coal fired plants, nuclear plants or whatever). At a superficial level, its all well and good you avoiding the obvious environmental cost of a sable brush, but when you're using your non-biodegradeable synthetic number, just remember that somewhere, a fish probably died to make that brush.
This balance is incredibly hard to find.
It is almost impossible to live daily life 100% ethically safe and also in a normal fashion. Being aware of every single item you use & encounter day in day out.... subsequently avoiding (indirect) use of certain ingredients in certain products.... keeping it entirely oil-product free for example.... I can't imagine this reasonably possible. It probably is, but unless you get to the most basic hippy levels it is as good as undoable.
If you take it to the extreme you would never be able to safely eat anything anywhere that you didn't yourself grow or buy at the "safe" store. Are these fries made in vegetable oil or animal fat? Do I order fries at McDonalds? Could you use the phone at work, or is there an oil product used in it or somewhere in the production process? Toothpaste and shaving cream, soap... is it, or is there any ingredient that was animal tested? I did some research on that, and I can tell you it is incredibly hard to know. This brand/company that claims to be animal test free is owned by another parent company which also owns a third company that does involve animal testing. In the end your money goes into the pockets of the parent company. This product isn't tested on animals, but some of the ingredients might have been somewhere in the developmental process. Sometimes local restrictions are avoided by having things done elsewhere, down again to the level of individual ingredients so you never can be sure. It goes on and on and is extremely complicated.
So it basically comes down to drawing the line somewhere.
I have resigned to the fact that I can't be aware of everything, but I try to do the best I can. This thread for example has shown that the gaining of the brush hair isn't as clear cut as it seems, and some ways do definitely cross my line, but others don't necessarily have to. The problem remains that we often can't know without a shadow of a doubt.
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Horse gak.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
If your chicken coop isn't critter proof, you need to improve it. We, as a species, can journey to the moon, split the atom and clone life and you're telling me you get outsmarted by a weasel?
Chicken wire and a concrete floor... My auntie keeps chickens, rescued battery hens, had them for years. They free run in the days and live in the coop at night. She's never lost one to a fox or stoat or weasel. She built her coops to be impregnable.
Testify wrote: ...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.
the internet.
It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
Way to collect people to your cause, by insulting the very people you are trying to convince.
Personally, I am against animal cruelty. But I also won't let it get in the way of practicality.
Did I say who specifically belongs to this group?
That part of my response was aimed mainly at the people trolling, flaming and mocking the notion of animal cruelty. I have no illusion of enlightening such people and they deserve to be insulted. Again, anyone decide for themself if they feel spoken to when it comes to that.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
Neither a human nor an animal is significantly different than any other collection of star-forged atoms (such as an iron deposit). I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I'll take that challenge...
If you actually believe and live by your last statement, you'd be a psychopath by society's standards and kill humans or animals without remorse or empathy as they are 'just a collection of atoms'. Self aware beings that we are, we measure ourselves by rules we implement via our collectives in order to maintain structure. I don't run over a pedestrian in the way of my intended car parking spot or shoot someone in the head when wanting to get ahead in the queue to pay for my groceries because I have a measure of empathy for the other people around me, this extends, to a lesser degree, to animal life around me and when I've hunted or fished, I have tried to ensure I minimize the suffering of the animal I intend to eat because I understand pain and do not wish to extend that unpleasant experience to another being.
We seek to reduce the suffering of other living things due to the level of empathy we possess as a cognitive being capable of recognizing similarities with other life forms.
Honestly, laws prevent me from running over pedestrians while parking or shooting people in front of me in line. If laws against murder and running down pedestrians didn't exist, you'd bet that I'd be first in line with my bloodstained front bumper every time.
And where is this glorification of empathy coming from? I understand pain. I do not wish to inflict it upon others for sheer enjoyment. But if there is a single good reason to do so (such as making brushes or rushing to a parking spot) then I think it is silly to allow one's empathy to interfere with one's efficiency.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
That is funny, because I happen to have those exact thought about people who'se reaction to this thread is LOLWUT.
The last part of your post I bolded is exactly right, but that doesn't mean it is/was justified in any kind of way. As far as I'm concerned it is part of our evolution as a race to abolish all such thing.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
That is funny, because I happen to have those exact thought about people who'se reaction to this thread is LOLWUT.
The last part of your post I bolded is exactly right, but that doesn't mean it is/was justified in any kind of way. As far as I'm concerned it is part of our evolution as a race to abolish all such thing.
I don't think its part of our evolution. Otherwise, evolution would do it and we would all feel this way as a species.
Maybe you think our social / cultural evolution should do it - in that case, I hope you see that the culture that is always careful not to hurt a fly will always be overrun by the culture willing to sacrifice animals and even people on the altar of efficiency in any sort of direct competition.
I actually understand the difficulties you face - my wife is a vegetarian, whereas I am a carnivore, so when we got together, it was a complete rethink for me on the way I do things - 'can't stir that pan with this spoon, cos I've just stirred the mince with it'. It can be tricky, but where I get frustrated is with the inherent hypocrisy that exists at the same time. (See the electric car example as one, there are many others).
I think that a synthetic brush is at its base level, at least as environmentally damaging as a sable one.
Good luck finding the brush you're looking for though.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
Not true. Chimpanzees torture and mutilate rival troops when they fight in turf wars as a way to intimidate and establish territory. It is not uncommon for them to beat and torture the young of other troops and purposefully keep the alive as long as possible in order to have the screams be heard by their families and then after the rival is dead, they play with the corpse and parts of the body for fun.
Anyone who says Humans invented war and hate need to research our closest cousins.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
Not true. Chimpanzees torture and mutilate rival troops when they fight in turf wars as a way to intimidate and establish territory. It is not uncommon for them to beat and torture the young of other troops and purposefully keep the alive as long as possible in order to have the screams be heard by their families and then after the rival is dead, they play with the corpse and parts of the body for fun.
Anyone who says Humans invented war and hate need to research our closest cousins.
That isn't sadism, sadism is derived pleasure from the suffering of others and there's nothing to establish that chimps are experiencing the human emotion. It's a common falsehood to ascribe the crimes and negative emotions of humans to animals, especially higher mammals, but they are not humans, therefore they don't commit ethically bad behaviours as they have no ethics to be guided by. Humans calling another animal 'cruel' or 'hateful' are simply ascribing the worse of humanity onto animals incorrectly. A chimpanzee isn't employing hate or war, it's employing territorial behaviours that our morality finds abhorrent if we tack it onto another species.
I've noticed that brushes made from weasels that suffered horrible deaths work much better and last way longer.
Farmed animals exist and are over bred for exactly 1 reason: they are products. Just like plants(which are just as much alive as animals), they are bred with the specific purpose of dying to produce something we can use.
You think the current population of cows is natural? or chickens? Or corn? They are over populated because we then kill them back down.
Furthermore, we are top of the food chain and as such reap the benefits of that status.
You think that carnivorous animals try "humane" tactics to get their meals? They kill as brutally and efficiently as possible to get what they want. So is every lion out there guilty of some manner of cruelty?
Death is not cruel, it is natural.
Now as for the living conditions of farmed animals, I agree that while they are alive they should be better treated, but that alone isn't enough to make me stop consuming them.
Would you feel better if we all started raising our own weasels, shaving them and sending the hair to Rosemary & Co to make my brushes for me?
I'll take that challenge...
If you actually believe and live by your last statement, you'd be a psychopath by society's standards and kill humans or animals without remorse or empathy as they are 'just a collection of atoms'. Self aware beings that we are, we measure ourselves by rules we implement via our collectives in order to maintain structure. I don't run over a pedestrian in the way of my intended car parking spot or shoot someone in the head when wanting to get ahead in the queue to pay for my groceries because I have a measure of empathy for the other people around me, this extends, to a lesser degree, to animal life around me and when I've hunted or fished, I have tried to ensure I minimize the suffering of the animal I intend to eat because I understand pain and do not wish to extend that unpleasant experience to another being.
We seek to reduce the suffering of other living things due to the level of empathy we possess as a cognitive being capable of recognizing similarities with other life forms.
Honestly, laws prevent me from running over pedestrians while parking or shooting people in front of me in line. If laws against murder and running down pedestrians didn't exist, you'd bet that I'd be first in line with my bloodstained front bumper every time.
And where is this glorification of empathy coming from? I understand pain. I do not wish to inflict it upon others for sheer enjoyment. But if there is a single good reason to do so (such as making brushes or rushing to a parking spot) then I think it is silly to allow one's empathy to interfere with one's efficiency.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: This whole thread brings up a wierd encounter I had with a so called animal rights activist once.... I was like
She seemed more interested in having someone prosecuted rather than any real animal rescue.
As I have since come into contact with more and more animal rights activists, I have seen that this is a common attiude among many of them.
So I have to ask you. Since you know there is a problem, what are you personally doing to fix it? Coming on to a website about miniature games isn't really gonna solve the problem.
Are you going to start your own paint brush company that doesn't kill the animals? Are you going to point anyone in the direction of good companies that don't kill to make the brushes? Are you actively going to the paint brush company and standing outside with a bunch of other protestors holding signs and making the public aware of the problem besides just coming onto dakka and mentioning it? Are you getting involved in legislation that will try to stop the cruelty?
If you are, good for you. If not......then I question the motives behind the thread because it doesn't seem you are informed enough about the subject.
That woman deserves your , and so does anyone who thinks alike to her. Care about the animal first, and care about holding someone responsible second. Being able to do both is preferable, but the first should always have priority.
If you scroll though this thread you would see a post by MGS that points to animal friendly brushes, and at least one person owned up to not being aware and agreeing, so those are all positives to begin with. Standing outside with signs is almost always useless. I don't believe in that as a means to achieve something at all, unless it is done at a massive level. And about the legislation the Netherlands just passed, or is about to pass, legislation that forbids this particular industry in the future.
Marthike wrote: So are we all murders for eating chicken? cows? drink milk?
Animals are there for us to "use" as a source of meat. etc
No, we are not murderers, he's not saying that.
The argument against using weasel fur in paint brushes is the same as the argument against the fur coat industry, that it is a needless and wasteful way to treat animals, that it is likely unregulated and cruel.
The original brushes were horse hair, I know we can harvest hair from horses without killing them, why not reexamine why that fell from favor? I also linked some synthetics that I intend to try out myself, that would also seem a decent solution.
If we are to use animal products that come from an animal that dies, why not examine the animals we already kill for food and consume the greater part of.
Every time I meet someone like this I can't help but think that they are Luddites - it seems to me that the current progress of the human race was built on the backs of slavery of humans and animals.
Neither a human nor an animal is significantly different than any other collection of star-forged atoms (such as an iron deposit). I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I'll take that challenge...
If you actually believe and live by your last statement, you'd be a psychopath by society's standards and kill humans or animals without remorse or empathy as they are 'just a collection of atoms'. Self aware beings that we are, we measure ourselves by rules we implement via our collectives in order to maintain structure. I don't run over a pedestrian in the way of my intended car parking spot or shoot someone in the head when wanting to get ahead in the queue to pay for my groceries because I have a measure of empathy for the other people around me, this extends, to a lesser degree, to animal life around me and when I've hunted or fished, I have tried to ensure I minimize the suffering of the animal I intend to eat because I understand pain and do not wish to extend that unpleasant experience to another being.
We seek to reduce the suffering of other living things due to the level of empathy we possess as a cognitive being capable of recognizing similarities with other life forms.
Great post.
For me at the base of it all it is about respect for all other life, ESPECIALLY since we (mankind) have all the power to do as we please upon it. We should be shepherd instead of (ab)users.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
Not true. Chimpanzees torture and mutilate rival troops when they fight in turf wars as a way to intimidate and establish territory. It is not uncommon for them to beat and torture the young of other troops and purposefully keep the alive as long as possible in order to have the screams be heard by their families and then after the rival is dead, they play with the corpse and parts of the body for fun.
Anyone who says Humans invented war and hate need to research our closest cousins.
couple things wrong with this statement.
1. the behaviour of chimps that you mentioned before is most likely to prove the superiorority of the alpha male in the troop,
2. we did invent war, because although violent struggles for survival do take place in nature it is NEVER on the indutrial scale of humanitys warfare.
TBD, im actually inclined to side with you, but throwing the brushes away doesnt solve anything, really its just a waste of that animals life as the reason it was killed was to make those brushes. all that throwing them away did was show the animal that its death was in vain.
And also GW probably doesnt care about this so the legal ban of lead shot for wildfowling is more likely to happen....
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Horse gak.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
Not true. Chimpanzees torture and mutilate rival troops when they fight in turf wars as a way to intimidate and establish territory. It is not uncommon for them to beat and torture the young of other troops and purposefully keep the alive as long as possible in order to have the screams be heard by their families and then after the rival is dead, they play with the corpse and parts of the body for fun.
Anyone who says Humans invented war and hate need to research our closest cousins.
That isn't sadism, sadism is derived pleasure from the suffering of others and there's nothing to establish that chimps are experiencing the human emotion. It's a common falsehood to ascribe the crimes and negative emotions of humans to animals, especially higher mammals, but they are not humans, therefore they don't commit ethically bad behaviours as they have no ethics to be guided by. Humans calling another animal 'cruel' or 'hateful' are simply ascribing the worse of humanity onto animals incorrectly. A chimpanzee isn't employing hate or war, it's employing territorial behaviours that our morality finds abhorrent if we tack it onto another species.
It's pointless.
Animals feel joy... what we as humans lack is the ability to scientifically determine if these animals are enjoying their actions or not. It is a scientific unknown and you absolute definition of emotion as a human trait is a biological unknown by scientists.
Primate anthropologists would 100% disagree with you that they do not have WAR and there are many who have observed chimpanzees torturing which is beyond simple 'killing' and that the act of torture is required to send a signal to other chimpanzees. They have a sense of 'self' and can understand that not only will they die if they go there, but in a painful, slow and drawn out way. This means this is worse than the death of simply starving and they are to not risk it. So they can experience sadness, joy loss, but somehow it is impossible to believe these animals might enjoy the actions they are doing? the unnecessary actions of live torture and then the displays of corpse defiling? Some may not, but to say none of them ever are capable is sure a bold scientifically supported stretch.
Chimpanzees to wage war, do torture and arguably it is unknown if they enjoy what they are doing but are capable of enjoying themselves. There is always room in any species for a 'deviant' who would commit extreme acts outside the natural behavior of the species and enjoy doing things potentially counter to thier species existence.
There are scientifically confirmed incidents of primates seeming to torture and murder animals for no reason but enjoyment, Until they can track brainwaves they have no way of confirming.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.
I wish it was incorrect, but it really isn't.
Maybe that is where they get part of the hair too, but hair of farmed animals is also definitely used. You tell me which came from where?
The whole "this animal is a pest anyway" story isn't so clear cut either as long as there are commercial intersts involved, as always.
Many people have shown evidence that Kolinsky sable brushes are not made from farm bred animals.
You continue to assert ant isn't true.
Please show some evidence. Or prove that GW brushes use some other kind of fur. Because your assertion that "these brushes" come from something other than that would be false advertising and rather more trouble than just an accusation of animal cruelty.
Animals feel joy... what we as humans lack is the ability to scientifically determine if these animals are enjoying their actions or not. It is a scientific unknown and you absolute definition of emotion as a human trait is a biological unknown by scientists.
Primate anthropologists would 100% disagree with you that they do not have WAR and there are many who have observed chimpanzees torturing which is beyond simple 'killing' and that the acto of torture is required to send a signal to other chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees to wage war, do torture and arguably it is unknown if they enjoy what they are doing but are capable of enjoying themselves. There is always room in any species for a 'deviant' who would commit extreme acts outside the natural behavior of the species and enjoy doing things potentially counter to thier species existence.
There are scientifically confirmed incidents of primates seeming to torture and murder animals for no reason but enjoyment, Until they can track brainwaves they have no way of confirming.
You can have sadist tendencies without morality.
Joy, War, Torture, Sadism.
All human concepts and ascribing them to animal behavior is emotive, projective and unscientific.
Animals can demonstrate bonding, supportive behaviors to one another or hostile, aggressive behaviors. There are scientific incidents of primates performing actions we can call torture or murder, but calling them either detracts from the fact they aren't either, they are just animal behaviors, not emotive human moral behavior.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: That isn't sadism, sadism is derived pleasure from the suffering of others and there's nothing to establish that chimps are experiencing the human emotion. It's a common falsehood to ascribe the crimes and negative emotions of humans to animals, especially higher mammals, but they are not humans, therefore they don't commit ethically bad behaviours as they have no ethics to be guided by. Humans calling another animal 'cruel' or 'hateful' are simply ascribing the worse of humanity onto animals incorrectly. A chimpanzee isn't employing hate or war, it's employing territorial behaviours that our morality finds abhorrent if we tack it onto another species.
It's pointless.
Pretty sure cats are sadistic. There are thousands of videos on YouTube to back that assumption as well.
Animals feel joy... what we as humans lack is the ability to scientifically determine if these animals are enjoying their actions or not. It is a scientific unknown and you absolute definition of emotion as a human trait is a biological unknown by scientists.
Primate anthropologists would 100% disagree with you that they do not have WAR and there are many who have observed chimpanzees torturing which is beyond simple 'killing' and that the acto of torture is required to send a signal to other chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees to wage war, do torture and arguably it is unknown if they enjoy what they are doing but are capable of enjoying themselves. There is always room in any species for a 'deviant' who would commit extreme acts outside the natural behavior of the species and enjoy doing things potentially counter to thier species existence.
There are scientifically confirmed incidents of primates seeming to torture and murder animals for no reason but enjoyment, Until they can track brainwaves they have no way of confirming.
You can have sadist tendencies without morality.
Joy, War, Torture, Sadism.
All human concepts and ascribing them to animal behavior is emotive, projective and unscientific.
Animals can demonstrate bonding, supportive behaviors to one another or hostile, aggressive behaviors. There are scientific incidents of primates performing actions we can call torture or murder, but calling them either detracts from the fact they aren't either, they are just animal behaviors, not emotive human moral behavior.
So, to use one of the examples from the links I provided. If Dolphins killing Porpoises simply for gaks and giggles isn't sadism then what is it huh?
Honestly, laws prevent me from running over pedestrians while parking or shooting people in front of me in line. If laws against murder and running down pedestrians didn't exist, you'd bet that I'd be first in line with my bloodstained front bumper every time.
And where is this glorification of empathy coming from? I understand pain. I do not wish to inflict it upon others for sheer enjoyment. But if there is a single good reason to do so (such as making brushes or rushing to a parking spot) then I think it is silly to allow one's empathy to interfere with one's efficiency.
-Slowly backs away-
No offense man, you are making yourself look bad with every word you say.
The reason people are finding these claims weird is the idea that you are saying its horrible and atrocious that the one of the many things in this world which are killed for human use which you call for animal cruelty...Is weasels fur used to make paintbrushes?
Animals feel joy... what we as humans lack is the ability to scientifically determine if these animals are enjoying their actions or not. It is a scientific unknown and you absolute definition of emotion as a human trait is a biological unknown by scientists.
Primate anthropologists would 100% disagree with you that they do not have WAR and there are many who have observed chimpanzees torturing which is beyond simple 'killing' and that the acto of torture is required to send a signal to other chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees to wage war, do torture and arguably it is unknown if they enjoy what they are doing but are capable of enjoying themselves. There is always room in any species for a 'deviant' who would commit extreme acts outside the natural behavior of the species and enjoy doing things potentially counter to thier species existence.
There are scientifically confirmed incidents of primates seeming to torture and murder animals for no reason but enjoyment, Until they can track brainwaves they have no way of confirming.
You can have sadist tendencies without morality.
Joy, War, Torture, Sadism.
All human concepts and ascribing them to animal behavior is emotive, projective and unscientific.
Animals can demonstrate bonding, supportive behaviors to one another or hostile, aggressive behaviors. There are scientific incidents of primates performing actions we can call torture or murder, but calling them either detracts from the fact they aren't either, they are just animal behaviors, not emotive human moral behavior.
Real scientists will totally disagree with you. In fact there are entire fields of SCIENCE based around the application of human psychology to primates and other animals because it is actually real and has actual evidence that these animals not only have emotions but behaviors just like humans and other higher-thinking animals. After all, we are simply primates so to think somehow we are different from them is arrogance and unscientific. They are emotive behaviors and 'torture' can happen without moral applications. The act of causing pain and drawing it out for no practical purpose except to cause harm to the target completely lacks a moral aspect to it. Killing a rival to maintain foodstore is different from torturing an animal to have its cries heard and keeping it explicitly alive to extend the pain... the only reason an animal would do so is to know the animal it expects to hear said sounds will have a response to those actions, hopefully a 'feth you, I tortured your baby' response.
You can say animals have no morals, but you can't say they are incapable of emotions or actions. Real scientists disagree with you as Chimpanzees having war and torture is scientific fact and certainty and there is evidence that not only do animals kill and torture, but that they are capable of enjoying it. I would say higher the brain functions of the animal species, the more you will find such behaviors and ranges of emotions. To assume only humans have the brainpower and sense of self to have emotions or do anything 'wrong' is supreme arrogance that we are the most evolved thing on the planet.
For all we know GW does get the hair from natural sheddings or they believe they do.
Also, I view the op's point as agreeable, but my view is that my brushes most likely come from by-products so me not using them makes no difference, so I use them. If someone can provide concrete evidence that everything I said is not the case I'll change, till then... I need a new standard brush.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think its part of our evolution. Otherwise, evolution would do it and we would all feel this way as a species.
Maybe you think our social / cultural evolution should do it - in that case, I hope you see that the culture that is always careful not to hurt a fly will always be overrun by the culture willing to sacrifice animals and even people on the altar of efficiency in any sort of direct competition.
Evolution isn't exactly an overnight process. The awareness of these things is much greater already than it was in the past, but we are not where we should be yet. If we are forever to be warmongering savages our future is as joyfull as 40K depicts it, but we will have destroyed ourselves long before that, so we better hope you are wrong.
There is a difference between not hurting a fly because you don't have any reason to, and being able and wiling to respond with utter deadly force to any such culture that tries to overrun you. "Turning the other cheek" is certainly not something I believe in.
Sign language, mathematics, art, smoking cigars - also all human concepts, and all concepts that have been proven not just possible in other primates, but that there is inherent understanding and self awareness of what they are doing.
You say it's unscientific to ascribe human concepts to other creatures. I say it's unscientific to discount anything until there is concrete evidence either way.
An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?
An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?
They won't.
Like this for example.
Without much context you can see what emotion is going through their minds. To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.
An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?
They won't.
Like this for example.
Without much context you can see what emotion is going through their minds. To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.
sierra 1247 wrote: TBD, im actually inclined to side with you, but throwing the brushes away doesnt solve anything, really its just a waste of that animals life as the reason it was killed was to make those brushes. all that throwing them away did was show the animal that its death was in vain.
I agree that is true about the brushes I already have now.
However if the reasoning of "the animal was already dead anyway, so might as well use the product" is kept being used that industry will stay afloat and the cycle is never broken, so it obviously doesn't hold up from now on (I know this is not what you were saying, but it is reasoning I have often seen used in general).
Eggs wrote: Sign language, mathematics, art, smoking cigars - also all human concepts, and all concepts that have been proven not just possible in other primates, but that there is inherent understanding and self awareness of what they are doing.
You say it's unscientific to ascribe human concepts to other creatures. I say it's unscientific to discount anything until there is concrete evidence either way.
An emotion is a complex electro chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more. Chimps and others have largely similar brain structures, with the same chemicals in there. Why would they not feel similar emotions?
No, they are all actions. There is a massive difference between a chimp shooting a gun at a human being and a chimp committing murder, a person getting shot by an animal would be akin to being struck by lightning, unless you could prove another human trained the chimp to shoot at the victim, then the trainer would be the murderer. Our emotions and notions are governed by sociological structures built up over about 200,000 years, our emotional states and moral morays are our own, not that of other species.
The adult chimp isn't 'torturing' the young chimp from the other group, it's 'meeting out physical aggression on it that is releasing endorphin in it's brain, stimulating it to the experience'.
The young chimp isn't 'the victim of torture', it's just 'gak out of luck'.
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
The adult chimp isn't 'torturing' the young chimp from the other group, it's 'meeting out physical aggression on it that is releasing endorphin in it's brain, stimulating it to the experience'.
The young chimp isn't 'the victim of torture', it's just 'gak out of luck'.
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
And you know this how? Citation needed. Unless you're actually a Chimp (which would explain a lot) and know 100% how said species thinks.
The best we can do is apply a human analog to their actions, you're just splitting hairs (possibly Weasel ones) for no apparent reason.
To say animals cannot feel the same emotions as humans simply because we've applied the names to them (for all we know a Chimp one could be called Ooh ooh ah ooh-ism to what we call sadism) is just silly.
Pure speculative conjecture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eggs wrote:Since when was mathematics an action? Its one of the most abstract concepts there is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adding, subtracting etc is still an action, not a moral or emotive reaction.
Grimtuff wrote:
And you know this how? Citation needed. Unless you're actually a Chimp (which would explain a lot) and know 100% how said species thinks.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.
I wish it was incorrect, but it really isn't.
Maybe that is where they get part of the hair too, but hair of farmed animals is also definitely used. You tell me which came from where?
The whole "this animal is a pest anyway" story isn't so clear cut either as long as there are commercial intersts involved, as always.
Many people have shown evidence that Kolinsky sable brushes are not made from farm bred animals.
You continue to assert ant isn't true.
Please show some evidence. Or prove that GW brushes use some other kind of fur. Because your assertion that "these brushes" come from something other than that would be false advertising and rather more trouble than just an accusation of animal cruelty.
No, what I am saying is that we don't know which brushes hold which truth.
You are assuming the animal friendly (friendlier) option is "true" and I am assuming most of this hair doesn't have an animal friendly origin at all, because sadly most of the time the unfriendly option is the cheapest and thus that option is being used, ESPECIALLY in countries like Russia and China.
Nothing has been proven either way, so I could say the exact same thing right back to you, but this is not about what I WANT. I would absolutely LOVE for someone to prove me wrong with undeniable facts that leave no room for any doubt whatsoever, as I actually WANT to be wrong on this. Do you seriously think that the flow of this multifaceted business depends on whatever they happen to catch out there in the wild? That they can regulate all the demand without knowing exactly when they will have what amount of hair X available to ship out? Really?
You are assuming the animal friendly (friendlier) option is "true" and I am assuming most of this hair doesn't have an animal friendly origin at all, because sadly most of the time the unfriendly option is the cheapest and thus that option is being used, ESPECIALLY in countries like Russia and China.
Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "So, this is all shed hair you've collected right? No animals harmed here""
Russian 'Fur Collector': "Oh yes, absolutely...we use gigantic home made combs to collect the hair from the undergrowth."
Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "Amazing!"
Russian 'Fur Collector': "Yup, we're a hardy and ingenious people....want any weasel jerky?"
Cruelty Free Animal Hair Purchaser: "I'm good thanks."
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.
Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.
There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.
Because it has been pointed out multiple times, but is being ignored:
The OP's thread title includes 'necessary animal cruelty'
The OP refers to the cruelty as "Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unneccesary."
That may apply to the Sable, but Kolinsky Sable hair brushes are made from the Siberian weasel which is not raised in captivity and instead are trapped from the wild and most likely killed.
However, since the OP has confused the two, it isn't clear what animal cruelty is specific to these animals that may or may not be different than other animals that are hunted/harvested/trapped in the wild.
For example, shark fins are collected by cutting the fin off a living shark and throwing the body back. I find this cruel because the animal suffers after the event because it is left to die. If they were killed and the fin removed I would find it a waste, but not cruel.
In the case of the Siberian weasel, the pelt as a whole is prized, so I'm not sure how trapping and killing would be considered cruel on its own. The fact that some of the pelt is used for paint brushes doesn't mean the whole process is inherently cruel.
TBD wrote: This balance is incredibly hard to find.
It is almost impossible to live daily life 100% ethically safe and also in a normal fashion. Being aware of every single item you use & encounter day in day out.... subsequently avoiding (indirect) use of certain ingredients in certain products.... keeping it entirely oil-product free for example.... I can't imagine this reasonably possible. It probably is, but unless you get to the most basic hippy levels it is as good as undoable.
If you take it to the extreme you would never be able to safely eat anything anywhere that you didn't yourself grow or buy at the "safe" store. Are these fries made in vegetable oil or animal fat? Do I order fries at McDonalds? Could you use the phone at work, or is there an oil product used in it or somewhere in the production process? Toothpaste and shaving cream, soap... is it, or is there any ingredient that was animal tested? I did some research on that, and I can tell you it is incredibly hard to know. This brand/company that claims to be animal test free is owned by another parent company which also owns a third company that does involve animal testing. In the end your money goes into the pockets of the parent company. This product isn't tested on animals, but some of the ingredients might have been somewhere in the developmental process. Sometimes local restrictions are avoided by having things done elsewhere, down again to the level of individual ingredients so you never can be sure. It goes on and on and is extremely complicated.
So it basically comes down to drawing the line somewhere.
I have resigned to the fact that I can't be aware of everything, but I try to do the best I can. This thread for example has shown that the gaining of the brush hair isn't as clear cut as it seems, and some ways do definitely cross my line, but others don't necessarily have to. The problem remains that we often can't know without a shadow of a doubt.
I completely agree. I'm vegetarian. I realise it's impossible to be completely vegetarian, and I probably consume animal products anyway. But that's fine. More people start thinking like this every day, and the world is changing to accommodate it. If you don't have to use dead animals for stuff, then don't. If you live in a part of the world where you do have to, then do.
I hadn't really thought about it before, and (possibly like the OP) had just assumed GW were synthetic because it's GW. I might keep my eyes open for vegan brushes in the future. Useful thread, marred by the usual reactionary 'justify yourself for not being like me' crowd...
Haven't any of you who've been to Warhammer World in Nottingham seen the gigantic slaughterhouse on the grounds? And of course, you're forgetting that all GW cavalry miniatures are made from 100% real horse(sometimes lizard, sometimes daemon).
TBD wrote: Reading the description of the new Edge Paints set, I noticed the brush included in that set is made with Sable hair. After seeing that, I went over to the brush section of GW's site and found out most of their brushes are in fact made with (Kolinsky) Sable hair.
It is an understatement to say that I now feel quite stupid for never checking that out before, because I am very VERY much opposed to fur products. There is a significant difference between side products of the meat industry (whatever I and anyone else may think of that is an entirely different discussion), and a fur industry that is simply nothing more than a completely unnecessary, completely unethical & disgusting form of animal cruelty.
So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.
The (obvious) point of this thread:
I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.
Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.
So, have you complained to your local art store as well? Or is GW the only manufacturer of sable brushes in the whole world?
WaaaaghLord wrote: Haven't any of you who've been to Warhammer World in Nottingham seen the gigantic slaughterhouse on the grounds? And of course, you're forgetting that all GW cavalry miniatures are made from 100% real horse(sometimes lizard, sometimes daemon).
Of course.
If you go to Bugman's and ask them what the Vegetarian option is you will get the reply of "Make do or feth off!"
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.
Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.
There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.
Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:
A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.
Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.
Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.
There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.
Sorry, I just can't get the image out of my head of a chimpanzee in a lab coat going "I'm sorry, you need to do more research, the results were inconclusive".
TBD wrote: Do you seriously think that the flow of this multifaceted business depends on whatever they happen to catch out there in the wild? That they can regulate all the demand without knowing exactly when they will have what amount of hair X available to ship out? Really?
While I can't specifically speak to the question of the weasel butt fur - I can say, yes...they can regulate the supplies to generally meet the needs when dealing with wild animal resources. Over centuries we have become fairly good at controlling how much we hunt, trap and fish and determining based on observations how much can be hunted, trapped or fished next year as well. We do it every year with the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses as well as monitoring commercial activity. It isn't really that difficult to do, and there are lots of indicators which allow you to predict future animal populations.
That said - shortages can and do happen. Back in the mid-1990s I recall a shortage in the sable brush supply and the price of a quality sable brush tripled for about a year. Some things go out of stock for a period of time...manufacturers then adjust their prices in order to maintain supply and demand balances over other brush fibers.
When an adult human tortures another adult human, the torturer has the ability to understand and empathize with how that would feel, to equate their actions along a cause and effect and, lastly, ramification.
Chimps and other animals have explicitly been proven to understand and empathize with how things feel, including pain and equate their actions to what they do. They know what pain is, they know they are causing pain and they know when other chimps are in pain. That is proven fact. What is 'unknown' is if they can enjoy it... but considering they are capable of feeling emotions means it is always going to be possible for there to be outliers of every species which may feel pleasure where others feel nothing or even sadness or regret over their actions.
Humans are almost the same as primates scientifically so to think somehow humans feel all this and are the sole species capable of understanding and empathy is scientifically unsound and pretty arrogant.
There are whole fields of science which has lots of evidence that what you say simply isn't supported by science. Emotions are not a human only thing and deviant emotions are not human only. And some things like taking pleasure in inflicting pain on other living creatures is not a 'moral' issue and animals are capable of doing it.
Sorry, I just can't get the image out of my head of a chimpanzee in a lab coat going "I'm sorry, you need to do more research, the results were inconclusive".
I am disappoint you didn't google image search that...
This thread is providing a wonderful amount of entertainment this evening.
So, GW finally uses in some of their brushes one of the finest materials (if not the finest) for watercolour painting, that should be great news.
For me it is a tool made from plentiful resources its not something made to show off and I have no issue with it.
I have issues with humans destroying the environment, driving species to extinction, shortsighted depleting natural resources, but no I do not have an issue in using nature as a resource.
On the subject, Nylon bristles are of worst quality, make average tools, get destroyed faster and are made from oil.
Did you read that article? It states pretty obviously in rigourus testing that
Bereaved baboons showed an increase in stress hormones and increased levels of social grooming: very similar responses to humans. "This kind of evidence is more compelling," says Semple. "It's rigorous and scientific. It allows us to speculate on what they are feeling or not."
It also says,
Being cautions about conflating animal and human emotions doesn't mean assuming the absence of emotions.
While it does say that more testing is needed to fully comprehend the depth of animal emotions, it also says
In the absence of certainty about what exactly animal emotions are, we should behave towards animals as if they do share emotions.
All of which suggests that investigating what exactly animals are feeling is one of the most pressing areas of contemporary research.
Real Kolinsky sable comes from the winter coat of a wild animal that is considered a pest
Some is taken from live animals, some (i suspect most) comes from animals trapped and killed (often they would be killed to remove the pest anyway)
Some brushes labled as Kolinsky sable will contain hair from other animals either in whole or in part, possibly farmed, possibly wild. This is most likely to happen in no-brand brushes, or from very large manufacturers where they buy in hair from a wide variey of souces
Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:
A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.
Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.
Going over the two kolinsky links on Wikipedia that were posted it sounds like the animals are not farm raised (A or B), but are rather trapped or hunted. There was no mention of combing or killing in either article, although since they apparently do not farm well I imagine that they're killed. Now if it's a particularly painful death or relatively humane I have absolutely no idea. On the animal cruelty scale it sounds right around in the hunting/fishing for sport and food range. I'd love to find some more detailed information though.
Did you read that article? It states pretty obviously in rigourus testing that
Bereaved baboons showed an increase in stress hormones and increased levels of social grooming: very similar responses to humans. "This kind of evidence is more compelling," says Semple. "It's rigorous and scientific. It allows us to speculate on what they are feeling or not."
It also says,
Being cautions about conflating animal and human emotions doesn't mean assuming the absence of emotions.
While it does say that more testing is needed to fully comprehend the depth of animal emotions, it also says
In the absence of certainty about what exactly animal emotions are, we should behave towards animals as if they do share emotions.
All of which suggests that investigating what exactly animals are feeling is one of the most pressing areas of contemporary research.
Of course I read it.
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:
A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.
Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.
No, not really (on any count).
Most the big brush manufacturers use bristles from live animals - sometimes farmed...sometimes wild caught. At least one manufacturer (if I cared enough, I would look - but I have forgotten the name and only recall the gimick) uses naturally shed fibers. Some manufacturers will use animals which are killed for fur purposes (or meat, or some other reason for natural fibers other than sable).
Generally speaking, fur farms take good care of their animals. Blemishes and scars reduce the value of the pelt and a poor diet leads to poor quality hides and fibers. Back home there were three commercial furriers relatively close to my house and I actually saw the processing up close and personal. I have never seen an animal skinned alive as a lot of the animal rights groups claim. Normally the animals are dispatched quickly with a snap of the neck and then skinned on a skinning board before the blood has a chance to pool and damage the skin. The same methods are used to kill rabbits for food and fur use as well as many other small animals.
The mere concept that you would attempt to skin a fur animal while the heart is still beating is simply slowed. A stained pelt is a worthless pelt, not to mention the technical difficulties of attempting to do the task to an animal that is "suffering".
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants and the only animal to have sex for pleasure; other than Humans are Dolphins.
Both of which are very "human" things. Apparently. That no other species does, as they lack the capacity to do so.
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
I read it. I even quoted the last statement. It also dangerous to state that they don't feel the same emotions you are trying to say they don't. All the article is saying is that there is not enough evidence either way to conclude decively one way or the other.
Ratius wrote: Good post Sean, I hope no one was advocating live skinning and interesting to hear your first hand experiences.
No - just a common claim I hear from a lot of animal rights groups. As I said though, attempting to skin a live animal for fur would not be a very productive task. Even if you could - the pelt would be ruined in the process and the task would have no commercial value (which is the goal of furriers after all).
The real issue, he thinks, is not any dispute about the existence of animal emotions but more a matter of establishing what exactly it is animals might be feeling and what those emotions are.
That says to me, animals feel emotions, but we are not exactly sure what they are.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants
Forgive me but what is your definition of "War"?
Ants fight over territory or recourses, so do Humans but so do several animal groups.
Saying that they "make war" is no different to Lion pride attacking a Hyena pride for food/territory/resources or a water well. Its not "fighting against themselves" - its a Darwinian driven drive to thrive - whether other Ants or the local Centipedes are in their path, matters not.
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Horse gak.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
If your chicken coop isn't critter proof, you need to improve it. We, as a species, can journey to the moon, split the atom and clone life and you're telling me you get outsmarted by a weasel?
Chicken wire and a concrete floor... My auntie keeps chickens, rescued battery hens, had them for years. They free run in the days and live in the coop at night. She's never lost one to a fox or stoat or weasel. She built her coops to be impregnable.
The coop has since been improved after two exterminations four years apart and is now predator proof. However the most likely conclusion is that the birds were killed simply because the creature wanted to, It didn't eat anything, store them for later, or gain anything as far as I can tell. Why would you think humans are an anomaly that are unique in experiencing emotions, similar to ours or not.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants
Forgive me but what is your definition of "War"?
Ants fight over territory or recourses, so do Humans but so do several animal groups.
Saying that they "make war" is no different to Lion pride attacking a Hyena pride for food/territory/resources or a water well. Its not "fighting against themselves" - its a Darwinian driven drive to thrive - whether other Ants or the local Centipedes are in their path, matters not.
these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it.
Uhm, you are really ascribing Human-motivations to an non-Anthropomorphistic (allowable as a word?) group.
You might percieve the culprits as having Human-esque emotions but I'd wager (pretty heavily) they have none - its simply nature acting on nature.
I cant take those links as empirically proven or valid Im afraid Grim - they are intesresting but nothing short of unscientific and "pop cultured" Im afraid - thats not being harsh to you, just I'd prefer a peer reviewed journal or scientific study to prove that as you said "Ants make War"
They do not imho, they simply do as most other animal groups do, they look for food/terriroty/rescourses - as most animals do.
Human "War" can involve ideology/religion/hatred and the factors above - animals do not - no Lion wars over his belief in God
There is no requirement for "war" to be over ideological lines... Natural resources and social reasons are just as valid and are motivators in the animal kingdom.
While scientists don't have all the facts, experts with much more experience than everyone on dakkadakka have evidence to directly refute many of the claims maid on the lack of animal emotions, and ability to wage war. There is almost do difference between humans and chimps so this idea that we are somehow unique in our ability to do things equated as "evil" and such isn't supported by science, just dogma of artificial walls between man and beast.
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants and the only animal to have sex for pleasure; other than Humans are Dolphins.
Both of which are very "human" things. Apparently. That no other species does, as they lack the capacity to do so.
There is no requirement for "war" to be over ideological lines... Natural resources and social reasons are just as valid and are motivators in the animal kingdom.
While scientists don't have all the facts, experts with much more experience than everyone on dakkadakka have evidence to directly refute many of the claims maid on the lack of animal emotions, and ability to wage war. There is almost do difference between humans and chimps so this idea that we are somehow unique in our ability to do things equated as "evil" and such isn't supported by science, just dogma of artificial walls between man and beast.
Interesting stuff, worth some rumination.
However I will reiterate the original supposition that War is:
A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
War is an organized, armed, and, often, a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.[1][2] War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war (and other violence) is usually called peace.
(Ripped from dict and Wiki, I know - hardly empirical - which I asked for - granted )
However, the point that animal groups cannot wage said definition due to lack of nations etc. (as we define them - if you define Ant colonies as such, then we anthroprophise them (help us out there Dogma), ) hence the point cannot hold.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lets define "War" first before we continue, would that be fair?
Or else use another term for when non - Humanoids fight each other?
Some is taken from live animals, some (i suspect most) comes from animals trapped and killed (often they would be killed to remove the pest anyway)
Some brushes labled as Kolinsky sable will contain hair from other animals either in whole or in part, possibly farmed, possibly wild. This is most likely to happen in no-brand brushes, or from very large manufacturers where they buy in hair from a wide variey of souces
This is exactly why I am not automatically buying that the whole distinction between this (cruel) hair and that (less cruel) hair is the complete and undisputed truth.
We are talking about Russia (and China) here, and $$$ are involved. They will spin it any which way they can to get their desired results, so if the label "pest" achieves this, then great! In Siberia where hardly anybody lives... a pest to who? Normally in areas not or barely populated by humans nature regulates itself. It is only us who declares anything a pest (to us). I need to hear/read more about that first. Are we sure the Russian fur/hair dealers aren't just saying whatever is convenient to them? If that is what you need to say to sell your stuff then of course these are caught in the wild!
And where are these brushes made, does anybody know? Could that be China, where labels of components & ingredients are forged on a scale we can't imagine in the West? Does GW (and other such companies) even know/want to know?
I do admit that the contributions of the three or four posters in this thread who have explained this difference in nature have swayed me somewhat, again if in fact this whole distinction between farmed and caught in the wild and "pest" story is true, but given the whole nature of this business I am not inclined to trust it just yet. There is a lot of shadyness.
Kanluwen wrote: How about explaining why this is an issue...?
Because animal cruelty is a HUGE issue to a lot of people?
No, I get that.
Explain how (Kolinsky) Sable hair brushes contribute to animal cruelty.
Do I really have to explain this
Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unnecessary.
Yeah, you kinda do.
Not everyone is aware of what Kolinsky Sable hair comes from, nor the fact that it comes from an animal which does not "farm" well.
If you want to raise awareness, it helps to explain things better than you did.
So basically...
>Dives into this thread, inquests OP for the purpose of thread a couple of times.
>Eventually you realized what OP said was a fact, only you didn't know about it prior.
>Would expect google to be used after the first post.
Quoting specifically from your friend,
You're here, so your internet can't be 'broken'...
Since when are people always the ones that have to explain things to you when you can google before you speak?
Who ever said this thread need to raise awareness to start? is it to do with the anecdote "since I don't know what sable hair is, Im sure no one else in thread does!" ???.
Maybe very silly, but couldn't they simply make (smaller) brushes out of human hair? Barbershops and the needy could make an extra buck, and it would be for a good cause too
Is it not considered usable? Anybody happen to know?
TBD wrote: In Siberia where hardly anybody lives... a pest to who?
From Wikipedia:
The range of the Siberian weasels includes northern Myanmar, Laos, North Korea, Pakistan, Nepal, India, (Himalayas), Bhutan, Russia (from the Kirov Province, Tataria, and the western Urals through Siberia and the Russian Far East), Taiwan and northern Thailand. They have been introduced to Honshu, Shikoku, Kamishima and Jebu
TBD wrote: Maybe very silly, but couldn't they simply make (smaller) brushes out of human hair? Barbershops and the needy could make an extra buck, and it would be for a good cause too
Is it not considered usable? Anybody happen to know?
Cut a lock off your hair, stick it to a stick or a twig, and you tell me how well that holds up for our hobby purposes.
Maybe eyelashes or nose hair is best... But then we will find the eyelashes of newborn infants make the best brushes and we will find out GW sneaks into hospitals to pluck the eyelashes from day-old babies to make the finest brushes ever made. The cruelty never ends!
Animals will often kill more than they need to eat given the opportunity.
They will then cache what they can for later, but can easily be driven/scared off, especially if they are full (why take any risk whe you are not hungry)
I've seen some quite neat footage of both lions and leopards trying for multiple kills during the wildebeast migration (which resulted in them rushing the suffocation of the prey, so when they moved on to animal two the first woke up and escaped)
Foxes/Weasels etc getting into a bird coop have the opportunity to kill a lot of birds because those birds generally don't have an exit.... even if they try and remove and cache them they usuallly run out of time before doing them all as the farmer/owner will check the birds before they have a chance to finish
TBD wrote: In Siberia where hardly anybody lives... a pest to who?
From Wikipedia:
The range of the Siberian weasels includes northern Myanmar, Laos, North Korea, Pakistan, Nepal, India, (Himalayas), Bhutan, Russia (from the Kirov Province, Tataria, and the western Urals through Siberia and the Russian Far East), Taiwan and northern Thailand. They have been introduced to Honshu, Shikoku, Kamishima and Jebu
Where hardly anyone lives, indeed...
Lol, alright.... however Siberia, much like Australia is immense and most of it indeed is not populated.
Those Weasels sure picked a list of nice places to live btw...
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
Pardon me while I roll my eyes at the arrogance and self-righteousness of this statement by the OP. And people have the gall to say that my far-right political views are "intolerant"....
Hey OP. Do you support the acts of eco-terrorist groups like "Earth First" "Earth Liberation Front", "Animal Liberation Front", and others who use violence and criminal acts to attack what they deem to be "animal cruelty"?
TR
Edit: I will probably not reply again to this thread as I can see it having the potential of getting me in trouble. I have a short fuse when it comes to dealing with animal rights extremists. Needless to say the whole point raised by the OP is a non-issue to me...
TBD wrote: In Siberia where hardly anybody lives... a pest to who?
From Wikipedia:
The range of the Siberian weasels includes northern Myanmar, Laos, North Korea, Pakistan, Nepal, India, (Himalayas), Bhutan, Russia (from the Kirov Province, Tataria, and the western Urals through Siberia and the Russian Far East), Taiwan and northern Thailand. They have been introduced to Honshu, Shikoku, Kamishima and Jebu
Where hardly anyone lives, indeed...
Lol, alright.... however Siberia, much like Australia is immense and most of it indeed is not populated.
Those Weasels sure picked a list of nice places to live btw...
Just because 1 act of kindness happens, doesnt make us a saint, nor does it automatically means we are obligated to deal with every other animal rights.
OP isn't preaching it like some holy act. If knowing the fact can change your mind, even a little, enough to say give synthetic hair a try next time, thats a plus!.
Its neither arrogance or self righteous.
Im so sick of seeing that as counterargument to be honest trench raider, sorry, its not just you, its when everytime I see someone trying to suggest
something different for a good cause, they get hit with same retorts.
nkelsch wrote: Maybe eyelashes or nose hair is best... But then we will find the eyelashes of newborn infants make the best brushes and we will find out GW sneaks into hospitals to pluck the eyelashes from day-old babies to make the finest brushes ever made. The cruelty never ends!
LunaHound wrote: Just because 1 act of kindness happens, doesnt make us a saint, nor does it automatically means we are obligated to deal with every other animal rights. OP isn't preaching it like some holy act. If knowing the fact can change your mind, enough to say give synthetic hair a try next time, thats a plus!. Its neither arrogance or self righteous.
Im so sick of seeing that as counterargument to be honest trench raider, sorry.
You missed my point.
In the statement I quote above he dismisses those who disagree with his views as being "uncaring simpletons" and goes on to describe those who hold his views as being "enlightened". That smacks of arroance and "pat yourself on the back" self-righteousness.
I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.
If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.
Pardon me while I roll my eyes at the arrogance and self-righteousness of this statement by the OP. And people have the gall to say that my far-right political views are "intolerant"....
Hey OP. Do you support the acts of eco-terrorist groups like "Earth First" "Earth Liberation Front", "Animal Liberation Front", and others who use violence and criminal acts to attack what they deem to be "animal cruelty"?
TR
Edit: I will probably not reply again to this thread as I can see it having the potential of getting me in trouble. I have a short fuse when it comes to dealing with animal rights extremists. Needless to say the whole point raised by the OP is a non-issue to me...
You don't have to be an animal rights activist/terrorist to care about animal cruelty.
And if you look at the state of our world as it is today, would you say it is ruled by lovely intelligent and responsible creatures?
nkelsch wrote: Maybe eyelashes or nose hair is best... But then we will find the eyelashes of newborn infants make the best brushes and we will find out GW sneaks into hospitals to pluck the eyelashes from day-old babies to make the finest brushes ever made. The cruelty never ends!
You missed my point.
In the statement I quote above he dismisses those who disagree with his views as being "uncaring simpletons" and goes on to describe those who hold his views as being "enlightened". That smacks of arroance and "pat yourself on the back" self-righteousness.
nkelsch wrote: Maybe eyelashes or nose hair is best... But then we will find the eyelashes of newborn infants make the best brushes and we will find out GW sneaks into hospitals to pluck the eyelashes from day-old babies to make the finest brushes ever made. The cruelty never ends!
TBD wrote: Maybe very silly, but couldn't they simply make (smaller) brushes out of human hair? Barbershops and the needy could make an extra buck, and it would be for a good cause too
Is it not considered usable? Anybody happen to know?
Different animal hairs behave differently with different materials - this includes human animal hair.
The issue which we are looking to address is a hair which is capable of holding fairly large amounts of water while remaining stiff but flexible. Human hair generally is not a good fiber for this. We don't develop a winter coat of fibers that provide excellent insulation (and subsequently the excellent water holding abilities). Squirrel hair is comparable in many respects, though it tends to be much softer than sable (and when people catch/kill a squirrel, they tend to eat the meat). Pony hair - from the undercoat of horses during the winter - is OK as well, though again - not quite on par with sable in terms of being able to hold water. The ponies are not harmed in the process of collecting the hair...though they are kept as slaves for our own amusement. Certain brushes are a blend of different animal fibers in order to get a better overall brush. Camel for example isn't really from camel but tends to be a mix of goat, pony, squirrel and sometimes ox depending on the shape and bristle length on the brush. The hairs from the goats and oxen can be harvested easily without killing the animals - though it does tend to be things like hairs from the ears of the ox...so...however you feel about plucking hairs from the ears of oxen - I don't know.
This thread is full of so much fail it makes my brain want to bleed. If your seriously outraged by it, don't use or by them. Jesus man change your tampon and drive on
You don't have to be an animal rights activist/terrorist to care about animal cruelty.
And if you look at the state of our world as it is today, would you say it is ruled by lovely intelligent and responsible creatures?
I stand by those words because they are true.
So your not going to answer my question abou eco-terrorist groups. That's fine. Nothing says you have to.
I also stand my statment that a quote that boils down to "if you hold my views you are one of the special 'enlightened' elite and the rest of humanity are stupid troglodites" is arrogant, dismissive, and self-righteous.
And if I had to hazzard a guess, you hate "intolerant" people, don't you?
I am currently envisioning using my pet mice as monster drybrushes.
I think it would be work, they are great mice, very handleable, I might even get away with it..
Funny as the vision is, there is no way I would do such a thing.
darefsky wrote: This thread is full of so much fail it makes my brain want to bleed. If your seriously outraged by it, don't use or by them. Jesus man change your tampon and drive on
You don't have to be an animal rights activist/terrorist to care about animal cruelty.
And if you look at the state of our world as it is today, would you say it is ruled by lovely intelligent and responsible creatures?
I stand by those words because they are true.
So your not going to answer my question abou eco-terrorist groups. That's fine. Nothing says you have to.
I also stand my statment that a quote that boils down to "if you hold my views you are one of the special 'enlightened' elite and the rest of humanity are stupid troglodites" is arrogant, dismissive, and self-righteous.
And if I had to hazzard a guess, you hate "intolerant" people, don't you?
TR
You assume a lot of incorrect things, bring up nonsense none of which was referred to in this thread by anybody, and lack the reading comprehension to understand that basically I did answer your question.
Well, I think that's gone on quite long enough. Since those on both sides of the discussion seem more inclined to sling insults around than to actually discuss the issue, we're done here.
You forgot the twinkie extract.
