Beware UGG boot possible scam

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

Its very interesting how certain posters on here are trying to make out that PETA are an organisation who regularly conduct cruelty towards animals. I find this behavior slightly sick and I would question the motivations of such posters.

Obviously any animal charity will have to on occasion euthanize animals and PETA admit this

http://www.peta.org/blog/euthanize/

Any organisation that stands up for animal rights will always be vulnerable to a smear campaign from organisations or people that have a vested interest in products created at the expense of other living things e.g. people who like to wear UGGS

We wouldn't even be discussing Peta if you hadn't taken the thread so far off-topic.

Any organisation who tells people not to wear wool then kills stray animals brought to them is sick. Not the people who criticise their actions.

I cannot understand why you continue to insist that sheep are slaughtered to make boots, instead of for meat.

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

We wouldn't even be discussing Peta if you hadn't taken the thread so far off-topic.

Any organisation who tells people not to wear wool then kills stray animals brought to them is sick. Not the people who criticise their actions.

I cannot understand why you continue to insist that sheep are slaughtered to make boots, instead of for meat.

Have I taken the thread off topic? All I posted was that you shouldn't really wear UGG's. As this thread is about UGG's it seems to be on topic. Must I remind you that this thread appears to have been reviewed by the MSE admin team and only your thread was deleted (I assume because it was seen as being off topic).

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

Have I taken the thread off topic? All I posted was that you shouldn't really wear UGG's. As this thread is about UGG's it seems to be on topic. Must I remind you that this thread appears to have been reviewed by the MSE admin team and only your thread was deleted (I assume because it was seen as being off topic).

Not on topic at all (imho).
The thread was about a fake website that sells UGGs.

You decided to throw in a spurious allegation - that has been pointed out to be wrong - about the origin of the sheepskin used to make said boots.

So posting that 'you shouldn't wear UGGs' is a bit of a ted herring (not to mention completely wrong).

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

You decided to throw in a spurious allegation - that has been pointed out to be wrong - about the origin of the sheepskin used to make said boots.
).

It's not been pointed out to be wrong. A small number of posters who advocate the killing of sheep to allow you to own/wear expensive boots is not pointing out that PETA's(not mine) accusation is wrong.

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's not been pointed out to be wrong. A small number of posters who advocate the killing of sheep to allow you to own/wear expensive boots is not pointing out that PETA's(not mine) accusation is wrong.

You've missed my point.
The UGG website clearly states that they only use skins that are a by product of meat.

I don't know how many times I have to make that point.

So blame the killing of the sheep on the people who wish to eat lamb (maybe that includes you?), not on the people who wear UGGs.

And yes, I do believe Peta's accusation is wrong, based on the articles I've read.

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

You've missed my point.
The UGG website clearly states that they only use skins that are a by product of meat.

I don't know how many times I have to make that point.

So blame the killing of the sheep on the people who wish to eat lamb (maybe that includes you?), not on the people who wear UGGs.

And yes, I do believe Peta's accusation is wrong, based on the articles I've read.

yes the people making the boot are an impartial source.

That's me convinced

Pollycat

JReacher1 wrote: »

yes the people making the boot are an impartial source.

That's me convinced

Good! :T
Then maybe the thread can die a natural death or get back on topic - which is fake websites selling UGGs, not your crusade against so-called animal cruelty.

JReacher1

Pollycat wrote: »

Good! :T
Then maybe the thread can die a natural death or get back on topic - which is fake websites selling UGGs, not your crusade against so-called animal cruelty.

Not my crusade PETA's.... :wall::wall::wall:

MothballsWallet

Pollycat wrote: »

Mothballswallet
Why are you trying to make Peta out to be an evil organisation? :rotfl:

FTR, UGG state on their website that they don't use sheepskin unless it's a by product of meat.

So all this "you shouldn't wear UGGs because it's cruel" and "you don't need to kill animals to keep your feet warm" silliness is clearly just an attempt to derail a useful thread for some reason.

But thanks to jreacher1 for bringing Peta into the discussion, I (and hollydays) have certainly learned a few things about that organisation.

Not necessarily evil, but it does fit - as does hypocritical.

shaun_from_Africa

JReacher1 wrote: »

Obviously any animal charity will have to on occasion euthanize animals and PETA admit this

"On occasion" would be fair enough. However, this isn't always the case with PETA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/at-petas-shelter-most-animals-are-put-down-peta-calls-them-mercy-killings/2015/03/12/e84e9af2-c8fa-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html

But that same facility also euthanized more than 80 percent of the animals in its care last year, a rate so shockingly high that Virginia lawmakers passed a bill in February — nearly unanimously — to define a private animal shelter as a place where the primary mission is to find permanent homes for animals in this life, not send them on to the next.