Atchetchyun
20-10-2004, 05:07
I haven't seen recent threads of this sort, but since the forum description states that this is the place to get spoilers about issues, I will ask...
I have the issue "Hackles Raised Over Fur Clothes Debate", and don't really understand the second choice.
I am no advocate of animal rights, and by me animals can be raised as cruel as the companies reputation can put up with. :D
So normally that would make me vote for the second option. "It's the people's choice what they wear. I don't think it's fair that the majority of the public should be deprived of fur clothes because some people are a bit queasy." sounds about right to me. But what about "In fact, if the government would allow us to stock rarer animals"? (Btw. there is a typo here ;-) ) I am smelling an "@@animal hunted to extinction" message.
By me the companies can stock animals as rare as they want to, but they have to replentish those they caught in the wild. In real live rearing animals for their fur is one of the best ways to ensure they do NOT go extinct...
So how does nationstates handle that?
I have the issue "Hackles Raised Over Fur Clothes Debate", and don't really understand the second choice.
I am no advocate of animal rights, and by me animals can be raised as cruel as the companies reputation can put up with. :D
So normally that would make me vote for the second option. "It's the people's choice what they wear. I don't think it's fair that the majority of the public should be deprived of fur clothes because some people are a bit queasy." sounds about right to me. But what about "In fact, if the government would allow us to stock rarer animals"? (Btw. there is a typo here ;-) ) I am smelling an "@@animal hunted to extinction" message.
By me the companies can stock animals as rare as they want to, but they have to replentish those they caught in the wild. In real live rearing animals for their fur is one of the best ways to ensure they do NOT go extinct...
So how does nationstates handle that?