furdeathpenaltypoll

posts about #furdeathpenaltypoll more →
Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

meritxell: an erotic life
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Does finding the death penalty morally OK equate with administration of the death penalty, though? I mean, I know quite a few people who don't think the death penalty is per se wrong (eg., if we knew with 100% accuracy that somebody was guilty of a crime where death is a possible sentence, it would be OK to kill them), but since the death penalty is biased and flawed in its administration, it shouldn't exist.

They're like, we're not even in a place where we can decided if the DP is good or bad because we're still at a place where it is administered unjustly.
Reply

maggiethecat
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
My guess is that most of those people had their tootsies tucked into some leather shoes. Personally, I could give a shit about any of those topics. When anyone starts throwing out "morally wrong" I just shut down. What morals? According to what tiny group that forces its morays upon an entire country?

Let's get our ovaries in a twist over world starvation, nuclear arms (and the mispronunciation of nuclear), genocide, rape, etc. I could give a shit and laugh a little when I hear the words "morally opposed" come out of anyone's mouth b/c it sounds like windbag pompous bullshit spewed from someone who likes the sound of his/her own verbal diahrea.
Reply

maggiethecat was starred maggiethecat was unstarred

PrarieMuffin
07/07/09

@maggiethecat: I think leather is more acceptable cause it's made of cows; we eat cows, and most importantly, cows aren't cute. Poor fuzzy little animals being killed for stoles, though--that's wrong.

Full disclosure: I really can't fathom the outrage I think I'm expected to have about animal rights. I'm much more concerned with making sure people treat each other well. My mother always taught me to pick my battles, and I choose people.
Reply

PrarieMuffin was starred PrarieMuffin was unstarred

Flackette Goes Retro
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
The people who oppose the birth of children outside of marriage probably also oppose abortion. So, according to their logic, if you get knocked up, you're going to be shamed either way.
Reply

Laulau
07/07/09

@Flackette Goes Retro: Yes, I'm fairly certain that's how their logic works. Plus, that would mean you had sex. (I mean, duh, they want to have sex, but only with objectionable whores before marriage. Nice girls wait.)
Reply

Laulau was starred Laulau was unstarred

lalaland13
07/07/09

@Flackette Goes Retro: They must have polled my high school. To this day, when I see someone 16 or 17 getting married, my first thought is, "Oh she's pregnant." Because that fixes it, you know. As my mom said when watching an immature tool on 16 and Pregnant, "Are they married?" And when I told her no, she said, "Well good. They don't need to be."
Reply

lalaland13 was starred lalaland13 was unstarred

SarahMC
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
I'm surprised so FEW people oppose wearing fur. I'm surprised so few oppose the death penalty as well.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: I would like to say i was surprised but I'm not. Almost every American I've ever met supported the death penalty and that includes registered otherwise liberal democrats in New York.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

rah29
07/07/09

@SarahMC: I'm doing this!: Me too, actually--I would have thought the numbers for both would be much higher. I didn't think that many states actually execute people on a regular basis, right?
Reply

rah29 was starred rah29 was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

@rah29: true but it doesn't mean that people don't think they should. I don't know - I'm simply going on personal and thus suspect experience but I have had an inordinate amount of arguments about the death penalty with Americans from a huge amount of different states. Actually the most anti-death penalty people I met lived in Texas, probably because it actually means something there as opposed to being a random concept that you can pronounce on without it affecting your life.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

SarahMC
07/07/09

@emilyanne: I feel like I'm on a different planet right now. I guess I don't leave my hippie bubble much.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

rah29
07/07/09

@emilyanne: I suppose that's true. I remember having some debates about it too when I lived in the States. The death penalty and guns are the two things about the US I just can't wrap my head around...
Reply

rah29 was starred rah29 was unstarred

le monde is rond
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
I highly suspect these results. 47% against gay relations? What did they do, ask them "quick! Which would you rather do RIGHT NOW? Wear a fur coat or have buttsecks???"
Reply

le monde is rond was starred le monde is rond was unstarred

Skellatrix
07/07/09

@le monde is rond: Meanwhile, 17% of the population would enjoy having buttsecks while wearing a fur coat.
Reply

Skellatrix was starred Skellatrix was unstarred

PrarieMuffin
07/07/09

@Skellatrix: That sounds like a fun Tuesday night to me. Where do I sign up?
Reply

PrarieMuffin was starred PrarieMuffin was unstarred

inabook
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Things these polls should make clear: Just because people think something is morally wrong, doesn't mean they think it should be illegal. I, for one, engage in plenty of behavior that I think is morally wrong, but which I do not believe should be illegal.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

@inabook: ha very good point, me too, well I used to, these days i am boring and respectable. Although I think the death penalty is both morally wrong and should be illegal.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
07/07/09

@inabook: Totally copied you below, apologies. I agree with this completely. I wish the poll question had been worded differently. I would be interested in knowing how many people think these actions/behaviors should be illegal.
Reply

curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

inabook
07/07/09

@curiousgeorgiana: Oh, I definitely agree that it would be a lot more valuable to see the numbers on people who think these should be illegal-- and even more valuable to compare those number to these numbers. I suspect that far more people find things morally wrong, than think they should be illegal.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Well the only thing I care about on that list is the death penalty which I consider state sponsored murder. I wouldn't wear fur and don't think it should be worn and would support a ban on wearing it but i can't claim that it really exercises my mind that much.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

amowls
07/07/09

@emilyanne: You would support a BAN on fur?
Reply

amowls was starred amowls was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

@amowls: a ban on the wearing of fur, yes.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

emilyanne
07/07/09

@emilyanne: meant to add why? is there something wrong with that? I just don't really see why people need to wear fur, it seems a bit redundant in the current century so I don't see what's wrong with baning people from wearing it on the grounds that it's thoroughly unnecessary to general wellbeing and there's little justification for skinning animals. But that's just my opinion. When I was younger I admit to wearing some vintage 1930s fur of my grandmothers but I feel increasingly uncomfortable about it, particularly when I see people in white fox and mink coats strutting around, it's just rather unnecessary.
Reply

emilyanne was starred emilyanne was unstarred

lalaland13
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
But what if my fetus is wearing a fur coat and is gay? Then can I abort it?
Reply

lalaland13 was starred lalaland13 was unstarred

victoriasauce
07/07/09

@lalaland13: Only if it's unmarried and likes to gamble.
Reply

victoriasauce was starred victoriasauce was unstarred

AmericanSplendor
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Woah, woah, woah! I just read the paper. This numbers are most likely off.

Why?:

-Telephone interviews. Some people don't have phones.

-The question was worded in a biased way, IMO. "personally believe, in general" wtf is that supposed to mean?

-They polled a little over a thousand people, which is TINY to make generalizations about a whole population.

-They didn't give specifics as to when they called what time-zone, which makes me suspect. If they call at 6pm, yes, all the good little white collar workers will be home. No college-aged or blue collar workers will be home, so I guess we can just ignore them.

-WHAT KIND OF SAMPLING DID YOU USE, GALLUP? That can make ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
Reply

AmericanSplendor was starred AmericanSplendor was unstarred

remedios
07/07/09

@AmericanSplendor: Some people don't have phones. That has always been true, but is far less true now than ever before. Even 7 year old kids have phones now. I don't know what the percentage of people that don't have phones is, but it can't be significant. I don't know a single person without a phone, and many have more than one.
Reply

remedios was starred remedios was unstarred

SylvanSylph
07/07/09

@remedios: Yeah, but only home phones listed in the phone book get calls from surveys. So no one who only uses their cell phone (like most people under 30) was likely included.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

SylvanSylph
07/07/09

@SylvanSylph: Goodness, my grammar is reprehensible, but you get the point.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

inabook
07/07/09

@remedios: do these polling people call cell phones, or just landlines? I'm curious, because other than my parents and their friends, I don't know anyone with a landline.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

Skellatrix
07/07/09

@remedios: I was going to say that there's a big difference between the type of people who only have land line phones and those who only have a cell, but then I see that they called people on both.
Reply

Skellatrix was starred Skellatrix was unstarred

bluewine
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
So ladies, remember...no abortions, but no babies out of wedlock either!
Reply

bluewine was starred bluewine was unstarred

femputer
07/07/09

@bluewine: hmmm. what to do, what to do? oh! Suicide is considered morally acceptable by 15%....
Reply

femputer was starred femputer was unstarred

remedios
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
While this is hardly the most nuanced poll, and I don't think it gets to the true core of what people believe, it does provide a clue. And the results that animal pelts and abortion are more objectionable than death penalty is hardly that surprising. Of course, there's a serious cognitive dissonance here, as I don't believe 35% of Americans think leather shoes are "morally wrong." But ultimately: death penalty = guilty people; animals turned into pelts = innocent animals; abortion = innocent fetus/child.
Reply

remedios was starred remedios was unstarred

Laulau
07/07/09

@remedios: I did think it's funny that the only thing I had trouble believing was that quite so many Americans had a problem with fur.
Reply

Laulau was starred Laulau was unstarred

PrarieMuffin
07/07/09

@Laulau: Seriously. Where are these people? And how many of them eschew leather boots and hamburgers? Or do they just say it's morally unacceptable because it is presented in this poll, making them think that they are expected to find it amoral?
Reply

PrarieMuffin was starred PrarieMuffin was unstarred

TeacherDee
07/07/09

@Laulau:

i think lotsa people said they're against fur because it's easy to be against. most people simply do not have the disposable income required to wear 1000 dead minks. it's easy to make that "even IF i could, i never would" leap.
Reply

TeacherDee was starred TeacherDee was unstarred

SarahMC
07/07/09

@TeacherDee: But lotsa people DON'T oppose fur. That's what I found shocking because I thought fur was pretty widely reviled. Guess not.

:sad face:
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

fizzyg
07/07/09

@Laulau: Fur = showing off wealth? I think that might be part of it to the average person.
Reply

fizzyg was starred fizzyg was unstarred

remedios
07/07/09

@PrarieMuffin: I'd like to know what the difference between leather and fur is. Hamburgers I can sorta get because we've been told that we need to eat meat--I'm not saying it's accurate, just that I understand why one would think that's ok even if fur isn't. But leather--we don't need leather shoes, coats or couches any more than we need a fur coat. They all come in non-leather, and there's no real reason that I can think of that would make that leather more necessary.
Reply

remedios was starred remedios was unstarred

remedios
07/07/09

@fizzyg: I think so. And that works both ways--some will want to feel like they're part of the wealthy so would approve of it; others would want to feel they're morally superior to wealthy so would oppose of it.
Reply

remedios was starred remedios was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/07/09

@remedios: I think a good example for many (not all leathers) that though cow can be killed for meat, the pelt also can be used to make leather goods. However killing an animal in the most unspeakable way so that someone can wear its pretty fur is cruel and not necessary.

Also, the question was about fur, not leather or meat.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/07/09

@remedios: Fur coats are not necessarily a sign of wealth. Go to a church service in the middle of winter in some of the poorest parts of DC or Detroit or Cleveland and you'll see lots of fur coats. It's a more of a status symbol.

I'm against fur and I don't feel morally superior to wealth. I, however, do have a strong moral stance against killing animals unnecessarily.
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

remedios
07/07/09

@WashingMyHair: Also, the question was about fur, not leather or meat. Oh, I know. I was just inserting my own (and replying) question and answer, based on no statistical analysis whatsoever. But I believe that people would find it more acceptable to have leather than fur, and wondered why that would be.

Your point, lack of waste, might be one reason. Another (not sure whose, maybe yours as well, below) was the cuteness factor--foxes are cute in pictures; cows, not as much (though some disagree). A third, someone else also mentioned, is the need for leather shoes because of particular feet issues. While non-leather is certainly an option, when you have really bad feet and need to wear comfortable shoes, you take what you can get.
Reply

remedios was starred remedios was unstarred

WashingMyHair
07/07/09

@remedios: I wasn't directing that towards you, really just pointing that out. I see that it's not black and white, but I can see how some folks are able disassociate the two.

I also happen to think cows are cute!
Reply

WashingMyHair was starred WashingMyHair was unstarred

peperony and chease
07/07/09

@WashingMyHair: @amowls: I don't wear fur or leather, but the distinction WashingMyHair made above is worth repeating. And you're right that it could be a touch of reverse classism, in that fur really is the epitome of ignorant, out-of-touch frivolity.
Reply

peperony and chease
07/07/09

@peperony and chease: Ugh, wrong thread. I'm an idiot.
Reply

mepo - Robert Cornhole invented it
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
And here I am executioner dressed in my fur mozetta, a gay child of a single mother who aborted my twin. At least I'll have my NRA membership.
Reply

keldo
07/07/09

@mepo - Robert Cornhole invented it: Heeeee!
Reply

keldo was starred keldo was unstarred

PrarieMuffin
07/07/09

@mepo - Robert Cornhole invented it: That sounds like the beginning of a very cool movie. You should run with this.
Reply

PrarieMuffin was starred PrarieMuffin was unstarred

victoriasauce
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Opposing a baby outside of marriage? What year is this again?
Reply

victoriasauce was starred victoriasauce was unstarred

bluewine
07/07/09

@victoriasauce: That's the figure I was most surprised by, honestly. Who are these people?!
Reply

bluewine was starred bluewine was unstarred

DinaRonson : Elizabeth Cady Stanton
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
I knew I was asking for trouble when I left the house this morning wearing fur on my way to the courthouse to marry my gay lover, before going to get my abortion.
Reply

Samanthrax
07/07/09

In reply to Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty
Oh, they polled Kentucky. Cute.
Reply

Samanthrax was starred Samanthrax was unstarred

greengrey
07/07/09

@Samanthrax is Sarcastic and Joking: ARE YOU KENTUCKY SNARKING?
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

Samanthrax
07/07/09

@greengrey (raidersofthelostSTAR): It's okay, I'm allowed.
Reply

Samanthrax was starred Samanthrax was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#furdeathpenaltypoll

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Poll: Animal Pelts More Objectionable Than Death Penalty

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment