# Ralph Lauren Capitulates to PETA!



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

My wife just showed me an item in a recent newspaper that Ralph Lauren, after discussions with PETA, no longer would be using fur in his apparel. As my wife announced it, "Ralph Lauren wouldn't be killing animals for clothing anymore." "Oh," I replied, "So he won't be selling shoes made of leather anymore?" She said she didn't think it went that far. "#*!%ing hypocrite!" was my reply, which displeased her greatly since she is a big fan of Ralph.

I think it was Emerson who said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Nonetheless, it does seem monumentally hypocritical to appease these deluded, vicious fanatics with a capitulation that will cause him relatively loss to his bottom line while continuing to flog other products made from the hides of butchered, flayed animals.

On reflection, I would almost rather live under the rule of Al-Quaeda than PETA on the grounds that I could more readily forego pork, booze and porn under the former than all meat, leather and having to give up all companion animals, as would be the case if the latter group of crazies got their way. 

I own quite a few RL sports shirts, mostly gifts from my wife, that have that stupid polo player on them. They will now be something of an embarrassment to me. I think few if any Americans would wish to give their trade to any business that cozied up to Al-Quaeda, and I feel much same way about Ralph and his deal with PETA!


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I think it was Emerson who said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."


I believe he said "A _foolish_ consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."


----------



## AZTEC (May 11, 2005)

and JLibourel your views have certainly been consistent.

AZTEC


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Perhaps you could start a boutique business. Kill the little rodents yourself and sew them onto the collars of RL coats.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Socrates asserted that the principle of non-contradiction undergirds the practice of philosophy and all genuinue knowledge. I'm with Socrates.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Jan, 

Best of luck to you. Until PETA teaches the animals to fire guns back at us, I figure we have the upper hand!! LOL


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Just so we're clear on what Emerson said:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm all for minimising suffering in an imperfect world. PETA can take things too far at times, but I appreciate them giving voice to the voiceless. 

Colour me inconsistent: I haven't given up my leather shoes, but I haven't eaten meat since 1993. 

I can live with that.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

manton said:


> Socrates asserted that the principle of non-contradiction undergirds the practice of philosophy and all genuinue knowledge. I'm with Socrates.


Socrates _asserted_ something?

I thought it was all already within people and he simply drew it out of them like the slave's doing geometry...


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

I want a coat made of the finest hobgoblin.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

RL capitulates to a fringe group with Advertising Dollars. And what, do tell, makes you in the least bit surprised about that?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Cantabrigian said:


> Socrates _asserted_ something?
> 
> I thought it was all already within people and he simply drew it out of them like the slave's doing geometry...


He asserted many, many things. Or at least the character written by Plato known as "Socrates" did. How many of them he actually meant is another matter. However, his #1 dialectal tool for refuting his interlocutors was to show that they had contradicted themselves somehow, and that therefore their claims could not be true. See especially the _Theatetus_ ("What is knowledge?") on the principle of non-contradiction.

Emerson's quote is witty in its way, but at bottom it is false.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

^ Socratic dialogue (adapted a little) is also used heavily in some types of psychotherapy. I find it a very powerful technique to help someone derive insight into their beliefs and actions.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

manton said:


> He asserted many, many things. Or at least the character written by Plato known as "Socrates" did. How many of them he actually meant is another matter. However, his #1 dialectal tool for refuting his interlocutors was to show that they had contradicted themselves somehow, and that therefore their claims could not be true. See especially the _Theatetus_ ("What is knowledge?") on the principle of non-contradiction.
> 
> Emerson's quote is witty in its way, but at bottom it is false.


Sorry, I guess my joking tone wasn't quite as clear as I had thought. Should have included a smiley...

I don't honestly dispute that Socrates made many assertions - many incorrect assertions and some rather arrogant ones - but assertions all the same.

I don't think he quite came up with the principle of non-contradiction but you are correct, he did believe in it.

Speaking of axioms of deductive logic, I'll never forget the time I heard a professor mention that one of the few groups to challenge the basic tenents of formal logic was/is feminist philosophers. Given the 'political' environment of the class I didn't feel like it would be appropriate to laugh out loud at that one but certainly wish I could have. I mentioned that one to my wife and for some reason she didn't find it quite as funny. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Whenever I encounter something that Socrates says in a Platonic dialogue that is clearly wrong, I assume he did not mean it but had an ulterior motive. For instance, the phony arugment in the _Republic_ that physicians are the least likely people to know how to harm someone's health.

If he didn't come up with the principle of non-contradiction, I would be hard pressed to say who did. None of the pre-Socratics (to the extent that we even have access to their thought) just don't go into it in the same way.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

manton said:


> Whenever I encounter something that Socrates says in a Platonic dialogue that is clearly wrong, I assume he did not mean it but had an ulterior motive. For instance, the phony arugment in the _Republic_ that physicians are the least likely people to know how to harm someone's health.
> 
> If he didn't come up with the principle of non-contradiction, I would be hard pressed to say who did. None of the pre-Socratics (to the extent that we even have access to their thought) just don't go into it in the same way.


I must admit that I've spent very little time with Socrates/Plato, perhaps I should revisit some of that material. (after _The Suit_ - of course)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any pre-Socratic fragments that specifically address non-contradiction in general or as a principle but it is very much there as a foundational principle in pre-Socratic writings and in their version of academic discussions.

You can point to instances where they clearly believed that something cannot be one thing and its opposite: to draw on the most trite of examples, Zeno acknowledges that something cannot be both infite and finite (compleatable being equivalent to finite).

And the arguments as to whether things change or do not change or their being infinite or many or one Thing all show an understanding that you just can't have it as 'A' and 'not A' at the same time.

But yea... so anyone seen those PETA posters...

Yea...


----------



## BoX (Mar 29, 2006)

I once read an article that said that if we all gave up eating meat that more animals, mostly rodents, would be killed during the agricultural process harvesting our food then the livestock we eat now.

So eat a hamburger and save the lives of 5 or 6 field mice!

BoX


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Holdfast said:


> I want a coat made of the finest hobgoblin.


Well played!


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

If we are not meant to eat animals why are they made of meat!!


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Forgive my ignorance, but what is PETA?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm probably missing the obvious in asking this question but, what does RL produce or sell, other than shoes and belts that incorporate or are made entirely of animal hide or fur? Pray tell, what did he give up , other than his dignity, to PETA?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Just wondering...*

Would not all this talk of the Greeks fit better on the Trad Forum? Maybe we need a new allegory, the Allegory of the Trad Forum where all other clothes are merely shadows on a darkly panelled sitting room wall?

Gentlemen, please, that was tongue in cheek.

Warmest regards


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> I'm probably missing the obvious in asking this question but, what does RL produce or sell, other than shoes and belts that incorporate or are made entirely of animal hide or fur? Pray tell, what did he give up , other than his dignity, to PETA?


I think a number of women's jackets had fur trims--I presume collars, cuffs, that sort of thing. He announced that as a show of goodwill he was going to donate them to some sort of charity to clothe the poor, I presume.

Fashion TC: PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They garner much support from pet owners and other animal lovers who merely believe that they are for more humane treatment of animals, as presumably any decent person is. However, their true agenda is dementedly radical: They are for the complete abolition of any human use of animals. This includes ending the consumption of meat, fish (and all seafood) and fowl, as well as dairy products. Although they are vociferous in their efforts to ban the use of fur for apparel, their philosophy also calls for ultimately ending the wearing of wool and any other animal-based fibers and, of course, leather. They also would end the practice of keeping all domestic animals as exploitative. Their "spay and neuter" campaigns for animals like dogs and cats, if consistently carried out, would result in the extinction of these species in 15 years or so. So successful have these campaigns been that a number of animal shelters are now importing dogs from Third World countries so that they can have adoptable dogs at their shelters. (Many shelter people have a vehement antipathy to breeders and fanciers of purebred dogs. Case in point: I once found a sweet female Doberman running stray in the streets and took her to our local animal shelter. When I asked if they worked with breed rescue groups, figuring I could alert Doberman rescue, I was told very vehemently that they did not, with the implication that this was a sort of canine "racism.") They are even opposed to a practice as innocuous as keeping tropical fish! Needless to say, PETA is violently opposed to using animals for any kind of medical and lab research, and people of this mindset (I don't think they have been legally traced to PETA) have been involved in stealing animals from labs or setting them loose and other acts of criminal vandalism. For this reason, law enforcement regards these animal fanatics as terrorist groups.


----------



## tweedchap (Sep 13, 2005)

Fashion TC said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what is PETA?


People Eating Tasty Animals


----------



## tweedchap (Sep 13, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Their "spay and neuter" campaigns for animals like dogs and cats, if consistently carried out, would result in the extinction of these species in 15 years or so. So successful have these campaigns been that a number of animal shelters are now importing dogs from Third World countries so that they can have adoptable dogs at their shelters.


I *very* much doubt that this is true, both from my experience with many animal shelters in many areas of the US, and given the vast numbers of animals in such shelters in the US. But if there is evidence of this I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Having said that, there is much to criticise in PETA's agenda, and I think that JLibourel does a good job of doing so.

Incidentally, I have absolutely no objection to the *humane* killing of animals, for either food or fashion, but much of the treatment of commercial animals strikes me as needlessly cruel.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

You mean about importing dogs from Third World countries for adoption? No, this is definitely true. There was a lengthy article about it in Dog World magazine, and it is common knowledge in many dog circles. Although many dogs still get killed in "shelters," they are obviously dogs nobody wants. What people want are little dogs and puppies, and these are what are imported from the Third World. Puerto Rico and Taiwan seem to be the favorite sources of dogs for adoption. (It may be unfair, I grant, to characterize these places as "Third World"--obviously they are a on a much higher level than, say, Liberia or Darfur!) I think some are coming up from Mexico as well. I know that radio pet show host Warren Eckstein has mentioned his being involved in rescuing dogs from Mexico for American adoption.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I've lost track of the activist organizations and friends alienated from myself over PETA and lately ELF. The cynical and Machaivellian will say " The enemy of my enemy is my friend" or " The extreme groups make dealing with us more mainstream and palatable to our opponents, legislature and the public at large." Usually I am then introduced to some anemic vegan- wiccan named Star Angel Warrior who denounces my cowboy boots and is convinced I'm a F.B.I. plant/ agitator (the most famous of whom routinely showed up at different groups unchallenged because ' we are non violent' - at least until I had a friendly talk behind a rock with him.) because I am older, have short hair and dress funny. I wouldn't mind so much, except they didn't buy Julia Butterfly's sleeping bag, Join with Edward Abbey at the legendary symbolic 'cracking' of Glen Canyon dam or ship out with Sea Shepherd. Of course you also have a stream of celebrities juggling their social commitment to His Holyness the Dalai Lama, saving wolves et al who jet in for the protest in a private jet contributing to global warming. I have a list of corporations I won't deal with over human rights or environmental issues. I guess those that wrinkle under heat from PETA can join them too.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

jstaylor said:


> People Eating Tasty Animals


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Holdfast said:


> I want a coat made of the finest hobgoblin.


full canvas, surgeon cuffs, and rolling lapels of course!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

manton said:


> He asserted many, many things. Or at least the character written by Plato known as "Socrates" did. How many of them he actually meant is another matter. However, his #1 dialectal tool for refuting his interlocutors was to show that they had contradicted themselves somehow, and that therefore their claims could not be true. See especially the _Theatetus_ ("What is knowledge?") on the principle of non-contradiction.
> 
> Emerson's quote is witty in its way, but at bottom it is false.


I was unfamiliar with the Emerson quotation but reading it I could see why Nietzsche liked him so much. To dismiss it as 'false' is surely a bit harsh? I could see Nietzsche defending Emerson to the hilt over this one.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Sator said:


> I was unfamiliar with the Emerson quotation but reading it I could see why Nietzsche liked him so much. To dismiss it as 'false' is surely a bit harsh? I could see Nietzsche defending Emerson to the hilt over this one.


Nietzsche loved the quote, and loved Emerson. But of course he also hated Socrates. I do think the quote is false, or represents a false idea. A thing cannot be, and be not, at the same time. I appreciate Nietzsche's appreciation of apparent contradictions. I just think that Socrates appreciated those as well. The kind of contradictions Socrates objected to were the ones that were not merely apparent but irreducibly real.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

As much as I would like to enter this discussion (I have a rather different take on the quote and on _Self-Reliance_), I do think this thread is venturing fairly far into Interchange territory so I will refrain.

_Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist._


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

medwards said:


> As much as I would like to enter this discussion (I have a rather different take on the quote and on _Self-Reliance_), I do think this thread is venturing fairly far into Interchange territory so I will refrain.


Isn't the Interchange where we call sitting and recently retired politicians conspiratorial mass murderers and drug runners? Here we are talking about Socrates! That's different!


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Now I'm convinced this really is an Interchange discussion! :icon_smile_big:

We are now free to discuss Socrates, Emerson, Nietzsche, PETA, hobgoblins, arming cows, retired politicians, drug runners, and the occasional mass murder (of men and/or animals).

This thread -- originally posted in the Fashion Forum -- now resides in The Interchange.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

I take it Socrates didn't wear fur.

Nietzche didn't wear Ralph Lauren.

And Emerson didn't post on the Fashion Forum. :devil:


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Figured this might end up on the Interchange!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Nietzche didn't wear Ralph Lauren.


Those that knew Nietzsche always remarked that he manner of dress was always highly dandified in the manner of an English country gentleman. Ralph Lauren would have approved.

So you see I must protest - this discussion is highly relevant to matters of menswear. :teacha:


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

OK - Various furs from assorted tubular and utterly uncharming rodents are bad but leather and lambsuede is OK?

FWIW - Lambs are really cute, not many minks runnin around in the petting zoo. Hamburger meat is pretty cute too in the springtime chasing after the momma burgers. 

Is there a specific distinction that fur left on the skin is bad and fur scraped off is somehow more ethical?

Hmmmm... I don't get it.

PETRL chapters should spring up in defense of Ralph's tasteful use of fur.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My personal ethics dictate animal products come from non endangered resources, ie sharks vs domesticated cattle for leather, animals given a modicum of a decent life before slaughter, ie free range buffalo and longhorn meat instead of veal and finally from ethical producers, again, supporting the reestablishment of commercialy viable buffalo herds helps native americans and encourages restoration of our once near mythical sea of prairie grasslands vs the big meat companies who eliminated american jobs for cheaper illegal immigrant labour. I do care about horses slaughtered under the present system, though I could intellectually accept it if done correctly. I do not worry if David and Noina talk to their silkworms and play classic thai music to make them happy while being exploited.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Perhaps you could start a boutique business. Kill the little rodents yourself and sew them onto the collars of RL coats.


Then ELF would be firebombing your store. Kind of not worth the point. I'm glad I'm not a big fan of Mr. Lauren, because knowing he gave into the pressure of being "P.C." is going to prevent me from sleeping at night. =)


----------

