Embarrsing another GDI wearing Greek Shirts

[FSUZeta]

the animals have already been destoyed and are not coming back, no matter what happens to the coats. the coats might as well be used for some good, and donating them to homeless people who are freezing on the streets seems like a good thing, but maybe your point was why have the furs in the movie in the first place, and that is a point well taken. i imagine that kim cattrall has enough star power to refuse to wear the furs without any negative outcome to her contract or paycheck.

it reminds me of a woman i saw years ago who had on a thigh-length fur coat that had all these tails hanging off it-it looked like she was being attacked by a troop of rabid squirrels. how anyone could think that looked attractive is beyond me.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

but maybe your point was why have the furs in the movie in the first place, and that is a point well taken. i imagine that kim cattrall has enough star power to refuse to wear the furs without any negative outcome to her contract or paycheck.

Yes, that was exactly my point. Her taking a stand and not wearing them at all would make a lot more of an impression on young women than donating the coats to PETA.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Yes, that was exactly my point. Her taking a stand and not wearing them at all would make a lot more of an impression on young women than donating the coats to PETA.

I wonder if she didn't know about the fur until the coats were purchased/whatever by wardrobe. By that point, wearing them and donating them would have been the best option. Wearing fake fur would still cause the same "fur is cool" effect because few people would look for a disclaimer.

Really taking a stand would be not wearing the fur at all, and face it, it IS in Samantha's character to wear it. And perhaps she doesn't have the pull to get that changed. There was a lot of in-fighting between the actresses by the end of the show, and a smart director/producer would have gotten a tight contract.

[1908Revelations]

Originally Posted by Fleur de Lis

“The only people who can be excused for wearing fur are the homeless—to keep warm during the winter,” says PETA rep Michael McGraw.

I think homeless people should get them instead of them being thrown in the trash as someone mentioned since the animal is already dead.

However, I am not animal activist and I love fur. So there would be an arse kicking in store for anyone who threw paint on me.

[honeychile]

I'm a little surprised that H-F and other paraphenalia companies arent' stricter about selling items. Whenever I've ordered pins or such from the DAR or its jeweler (Caldwell), they need the membership number AND whether or not you're earned the pin involved. Frankly, we call them Girl Scouts on speed, but when you belong to an organization, you play by their rules.

As for fur, I have one fur that's in fantastic condition, but is also about 80 years old. Those critters' great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are probably dead. I also have a faux fur that's so realistic, a furrier didn't believe me until I showed her the tags. I would be seriously ticked off if someone tried to paint my coats!

Besides, PETA isn't as ethical as they make out to be, IMHO. Opening cages to let sick animals to fend for themselves isn't ethical, it's murderous. Those poor things don't know how to take care of themselves. Also, I've heard that PETA isn't even in favor of people owning pets! Can someone confirm that?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Also, I've heard that PETA isn't even in favor of people owning pets! Can someone confirm that?

I have a chapter sister that's pretty big into PETA (dead animal pics on her Myspace and all) - and she owns a dog that she treats better than most people treat their children. So I know not ALL PETAs believe that (if any even do).

[kathykd2005]

honeychile: That way of thinking may be antithetical to their message, since they advocate humane treatment of animals. If no one owned animals, then there would be a whole lot of stray dogs and cats that would be euthanized. Now, I am not in PETA, so I don't know, but logically, I don't think that would make sense.

Sidenote: I think where people are getting that from is due to the fact that PETA is lobbying to have Michael Vick banned from ever owning pets... http://www.peta.org/mc/InTheNews/arc...ll&ID=5&page=3

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Also, I've heard that PETA isn't even in favor of people owning pets! Can someone confirm that?

A few years ago I read a news story about them trying to make it so that legally you don't own your pet, you are its guardian.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

A few years ago I read a news story about them trying to make it so that legally you don't own your pet, you are its guardian.

Technically, parents don't "own" their children, but it doesn't seem to be a deterrent from abusing them if they are that type of person. I don't get the point...

[ealymc]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Yes, that was exactly my point. Her taking a stand and not wearing them at all would make a lot more of an impression on young women than donating the coats to PETA.

Look... I'm sorry but there is NO WAY that Samantha would wear FAKE FUR! Oh, the humanity!

[SthrnZeta]

Originally Posted by ealymc

Look... I'm sorry but there is NO WAY that Samantha would wear FAKE FUR! Oh, the humanity!

Oh I totally agree with that. And her wearing fur and getting red paint thrown on her is part of the script from what I understand so maybe Kim was just getting into the part....

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

This thread is killing me!

You've been killed a lot today... Are you sure you aren't a cat?