Shoes

[jaxs mom]

What ethical issue? If you're already buying leather there is nothing to object to, it's the same thing just without the hair removed.

[stevieb]

On 6/27/2014 jaxs mom said:

What ethical issue? If you're already buying leather there is nothing to object to, it's the same thing just without the hair removed.

I think different people are still permitted to see things differently. I get your point, but if there is any veracity whatsoever to some of the statements made about the origins of these products then that makes it different for some of us. If kachina's assessment is accurate then it's probably not so different than any other leather handbag except I don't personally care for the look, as I already stated.

Incidentally, I also will occasionally eat steak or hamburger but won't touch veal, so go figure... We all have our own personal codes and quirks and no one ever said they had to be completely consistent...

[Kachina624]

Many bemoan the fate of young male dairy calves but nobody can come up with an idea as to what they should be used for. They're not even used for breeding most places. It's done by artificial insemination. They're not cost effective to use for beef because that's not what they're bred for and the meat is poor quality. So what to do with them?

[champagnepoodle]

I believe you are misinformed, fairy1

[Bjobrit]

I will buy it if I like it, and prefer leather too, unless the faux looks and feels like leather. I hate faux that feels like some type of rubbery plastic thing.

[Q4u]

This never, ever ceases to amaze me. The OP is WRONG. The poster who defined it as the reverse side of the hide is correct, and it's nothing new.

Leather workers in Latin countries do wallets and all kinds of leather goods with haircalf. It's taken awhile for haircalf to catch on mainstream with high end designers, but it has caught on in the last few years far more than it ever has.

Also.... unfortunately (depending on how you feel about it) the cow was slaughtered for its meat, one of the by-products is the hide (among other things). How can we justify leaving and wasting anything from the killing? The Indians would slaughter the Buffalo for it's meat and then use every scrap and sinew of the animal in appreciation of its life. We (as a culture) slaughter cows for their meat. How can we in good conscience not use the by products for useful items?

Btw ,I'm not a fan of haircalf at all.

But I am in sync with the Indians.

[jaxs mom]

Well down here in Texas, we just call it cowhide or hair on hide and it's been very popular in purses for years and also on furniture and rugs. I've seen it on couches, purses, wall decor, pillows, lamps. I really don't see the problem with it, unless you're vegan. I have a real sheepskin, same principle.

BTW, anyone who'd actually been around livestock would know immediately looking at it that's not from a baby animal.

[Suhse]

The OP is completely wrong, but, it's been pointed out a number of times, so, why belabor it?

I admire Vegetarians/Vegans, who feel that they have made a choice for their health/personal beliefs, etc.

Unfortunately, my personal experience, has been to encounter a bit of hypocrisy.

As an example, I have a neighbor, basically a nice lady, who has been, by her definition, a committed Vegan for a decade. I don't monitor her diet, but, I assume she's faithful and she does not wear or use leather goods. OK.

However, very recently, this animal loving lady, trapped in her yard and took to a local kill shelter, a neighbors Cat, that she said was always in her yard, garden, etc, being a nuisance. Her next door neighbor saw her take the Cat in her car, told the owner, who was able to go get her Cat back.

Should the owner be responsible for her Cat; of course. But WHOA, what happened to this woman's passionate animal right activism, when an Animal irritated her by getting in her Petunia's?? It's immoral to eat animal flesh, but, it's OK, to take someone's pet to a shelter, knowing it could be destroyed, if it's an annoyance to you?? Pretty strange animal supporter, Me thinks!

[stevieb]

On 6/27/2014 SUHSE39 said:

The OP is completely wrong, but, it's been pointed out a number of times, so, why belabor it?

I admire Vegetarians/Vegans, who feel that they have made a choice for their health/personal beliefs, etc.

Unfortunately, my personal experience, has been to encounter a bit of hypocrisy.

As an example, I have a neighbor, basically a nice lady, who has been, by her definition, a committed Vegan for a decade. I don't monitor her diet, but, I assume she's faithful and she does not wear or use leather goods. OK.

However, very recently, this animal loving lady, trapped in her yard and took to a local kill shelter, a neighbors Cat, that she said was always in her yard, garden, etc, being a nuisance. Her next door neighbor saw her take the Cat in her car, told the owner, who was able to go get her Cat back.

Should the owner be responsible for her Cat; of course. But WHOA, what happened to this woman's passionate animal right activasy, when an Animal irritated her by getting in her Petunia's?? It's immoral to eat animal flesh, but, it's OK, to take someone's pet to a shelter, knowing it could be destroyed, if it's an annoyance to you?? Pretty strange animal supported, Me thinks!

Shaking my head in wonderment. What a witch... Glad your other neighbor got her cat back... and sincerely hope someone pointed out this woman's hypocrisy. Personally, I adore cats so I don't like for them to wander, but if they are permitted outside on their own, which I also don't like, they are wanderers by nature. If she would take this action based on being 'irritated' it sounds to me like she's one of the many people that needs to learn we all have share space with lots of things and people that irritate us... I'm sure her action did wonders for neighbor relations. Who knows, maybe her rotten attitude is dietary... Maybe she needs a little red meat...

[Goldengate8361]

On 6/27/2014 Q4u said:

This never, ever ceases to amaze me. The OP is WRONG. The poster who defined it as the reverse side of the hide is correct, and it's nothing new.

Leather workers in Latin countries do wallets and all kinds of leather goods with haircalf. It's taken awhile for haircalf to catch on mainstream with high end designers, but it has caught on in the last few years far more than it ever has.

Also.... unfortunately (depending on how you feel about it) the cow was slaughtered for its meat, one of the by-products is the hide (among other things). How can we justify leaving and wasting anything from the killing? The Indians would slaughter the Buffalo for it's meat and then use every scrap and sinew of the animal in appreciation of its life. We (as a culture) slaughter cows for their meat. How can we in good conscience not use the by products for useful items?

Btw ,I'm not a fan of haircalf at all.

But I am in sync with the Indians.

I totally agree with you! It's great to see this point made so eloquently.