No. Why would you wear the skin of a dead animal ? And what kind of message would it send to others ?
If anything, because the damage has already been done and to throw away a product an animal gave its life for is a giant waste and a disservice to the respect of that animal. Leather clothes can last almost forever, and the environmental impact is considerably lower than that of synthetic wear.
No animal gave his/her life for leather, let's make that 100% clear..
That wool jacket of yours should be in the market for a immoral sob that would otherwise purchase something like that new.. you don't eat roadkill cause that's potential filled up stomach space for a carnivore, giving them reason to kill less.
"No animal gave his/her life for leather, let's make that 100% clear.."
Could you expand on that? I don't understand. Do you mean to say rather that the animal did not give but had its life taken? If so, the implications don't really change.
"That wool jacket of yours should be in the market for a immoral sob that would otherwise purchase something like that new.. you don't eat roadkill cause that's potential filled up stomach space for a carnivore, giving them reason to kill less."
Ideally yes, but the reality is, many animal product clothing is simply thrown away because we live in a society that glamorizes new things over the old. Yes, perhaps the best option would be to buy all the used leather goods and personally be a salesmen to people who are in the market for new animal product clothing. But I'm just not sure how successful you'd be in reality. Your roadkill example epitomizes my point. There is, virtually, not an omnivore/carnivore in the world that you could convince to eat roadkill instead of buying from the butcher.
Yes i mean that the animal was murdered for it.. and that the so called argument (also commonly heared by short sighted meat eaters about meat in the supermarket) that the animal gave his/her life for it is BS, especially that you mention that it's a disservice to the respect of that animal.. as if that animal ran it's head into a blade for the soul purpose of his skin to be used for leather and for it to be used out.. when i get murdered for my skin it's disrespectfull to me for anyone to walk around dressed in my skin.. perhaps, besides the murder itself, it's the most disrespectfull someone can do (even so called in honor of me when your saying it like you present it).
there's plenty of thrift stores or whatever where you can bring used clothing to and they will sell it.
My roadkill example had nothing to do with humans.. i was talking about real carnivores.
Sure the animal was murdered against their will and had absolutely no say in the matter, I'll grant you that without hesitation.
But I certainly never said murder was not disrespectful. My point was that it's more disrespectful to murder an animal and then throw away their fur or skin, than it is to do so and use that skin—even if there are alternative ways of clothing yourself. When the damage has already been done (by someone else), between throwing away the skin and using it, the latter is the more respectful and less wasteful option in my opinion.
Call me crazy, but, for example, I would rather be murdered for my organs than murdered for sport—even if the person wanting my organs to maintain their own health had alternatives, like eating a healthy vegan diet that would have prevented their organs from failing; or even if in the future there were synthetic organs.
Murder is murder, i don't give a damn why i'm murdered, no matter the motive murder remains just as wrong. maybe in a legit survival situation there is something to be said, but i personally would rather starve to dead.
As far as symbolic (respect for the dead) goes, preserving my body parts and parading with them is the most disrespectfull thing you can do.
wow, the road kill example was really good - very impressive.
Never said anything about wearing leather clothing!
My question was more with regard to this article I found:
I think it raises some good points, and my question was more specific than it seems you guys are taking it. I am talking about the strict definition of whether or not something is vegan. Buying used leather does not harm any animals, and I also don't think it supports the leather industry—especially if you are simply taking free of charge someone's leather they were going to throw away.
I have a hard time accepting the view that simply owning leather products should necessarily be considered promoting them.
If you are a model, and model animal product clothing very overtly, that is of course promotion.
But if my used jacket is lined with wool on the inside (and if someone happened to ask, I tell them its synthetic and that I am vegan), I really don't see how that supports any animal cruelty however indirectly.
In the article the author buys the car, not the leather, and decides to ditch the leather to replace it with a vegan option. He is not directly contributing to killing animals, but what will his seller think ? "He bought my car because it had leather sits, next car I will buy will have leather sits because it will be easier to sell when I'll want to". If on the other side the author had told the car seller that he was interested but as a vegan he could not contribute to the leather market, if he had told the guy "I take it if you replace the leather or at least make me a better price so I'll do it myself", then the seller would think "Next time I may not buy a car with leather sits".
Buying used leather contributes to the market of used leather, and to get used leather you have to get new leather in the first place. It's the same as why the trade of ivory is now forbidden (in most countries ?), even old/used ivory.