This is an honest question, so please don't flame me. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky, I would really like to know the answer to this.
What is it about fur that makes it so much more offensive to many people than meat or leather?
I have never heard of animal rights activists throwing red paint over people's leather shoes or staking out the opening of a new McDonalds. If it is the killing of animals the activists object to, the meat and leather industries are a far more logical target, with a death toll in the tens of millions rather than thousands like the fur industry. I also understand that fur-producing animals are farmed, rather than taken from the wild.
I repeat; I understand that some people have intense moral objections to fur and I respect their beliefs. I am just interested to learn the reasons behind them.
In my experience, most people who take issue with fur also take issue with leather and meat and the like.
In my opinion, the focus on fur is 2 fold (my apologies if I'm butchering someone else's argument...I have to confess, I hunt, I eat meat, and I"m not completely objective here) :
1-fur = easier target. If I'm going to throw red paint (btw, I'm not inclined to
) I'm more likely to aim for the lady wearing fur than I am to aim for the biker wearing leather.
2-fur = no other uses for the animal. Some people feel that if an animal must die (for meat, for disease, for any reason) we should make use of it. Animals used for fur are killed for their pelts and often very little uses is made of the rest of the animal (the remainder of the carcass is discarded), so it can seen as more of a "senseless killing just for the fur".
(whereas butchering a cow leads to meat, leather, etc. the carcass isn't wasted, the death serves more of a 'purpose')
(the fact that it has made the news (again) that animals westerners think of as pets (like dogs and cats) are often used for fur does add another element as well)