Should people wear fur products?

Buying vintage fur doesn't contribute to the fur industry

Question: Should people wear fur products?
Position‹3 of 3: It's okay to wear vintage fur
Argument‹2 of 2: Buying vintage fur doesn't contribute to the fur industry

The issue of buying fur lies with the current fur industry. "Vintage" fur does not contribute to the current industry because it was usually produced decades ago.

The argument

Many animal rights activists today completely disapprove of the ways the fashion industry has been harvesting real fur for coats, jackets, and other clothing pieces. However, many people within the industry and consumers of real fur claim that "vintage" fur is a safe middle ground between the activists and the desire for authentic animal fur. The basic argument is that, "Old furs don't directly contribute to the profits of modern fur farms, and they're less toxic to the environment than faux furs." The reasoning turns on where the money goes. "Fur farms" are industrial sites that collect fur from animals in infamously cruel and inhumane ways, and it is those operations, running now, that the objection is aimed at. Since vintage furs are usually from more than thirty years ago, no fur farms profit from the sale of a secondhand clothing piece: the animal died decades ago, the transaction takes place between two private parties, and nothing about it registers as demand with any producer still operating. A purchase that sends neither money nor a signal to a fur farm cannot sustain one. That is why proponents treat the distinction as decisive rather than as a technicality. The current methods of harvesting fur from animals are what concern the activists, and extensive media coverage conducted by PETA and other worldwide organizations make buying "vintage" seem like a viable alternative — one that refuses the practice being objected to without requiring the material itself to be abandoned. The focus primarily rests on what consumers can do today to stop the unnecessary cruelty conducted by these fur farms every day, and on this argument declining to buy new fur does exactly that.

Premises

[P1]Animal-rights concerns centre on the cruel methods modern fur farms use to harvest fur today. [P2] Vintage furs are typically over thirty years old, so their secondhand sale puts no profit into modern fur farms. [P3] Old furs are also said to be less environmentally toxic than faux furs, making vintage a middle ground that avoids funding present-day cruelty. [C] Therefore, buying vintage fur doesn't contribute to the fur industry, so it's okay to wear it.

Counter-arguments

There are several valid counterarguments for the idea that vintage fur is somehow better than fur in the current industry. To some within fashion, vintage fur is to blame for the renewed interest in fur because of shows like "Sex and the City" showcasing vintage fur and influencing the popularity of the fur market. Even though the fur is older and was not produced recently, why is it still okay to flounce around an animal that was brutally killed a few decades ago? Many animals rights activists claim there really is no distinction between the past and the present. Vintage fur may be "vintage," but it still has real consequences in the world, especially when displayed in the media as positive and encouraged. The concept that it is more humane to pick it out of your mother's closet than buy fur today is illogical.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Just because vintage fur is from decades ago does not make it any less inhumane. It was still harvested from animals cruelly, and flaunting it around imports a bad message to the fashion industry. [Rejecting P3] Vintage fur is not necessarily more humane than fur today.