Faux fur has been proven to negatively impact the environment, and many claim that real fur produced today, which contains preservative chemicals to prevent decay, is just as environmentally toxic. Vintage fur, however, presents no issue for the environment because of its naturally organic qualities, which further supports the growing desire for vintage fur in the fashion industry. Buying second-hand allows consumers to be environmentally conscience, since real fur is an entirely organic product without the aforementioned preservatives and materials, while avoiding the moral depravity of buying from cruel fur farms today. The environment is not directly impacted by the vintage fur option, so it is essential for consumers to prioritize it when buying accessories.
Faux fur may be negatively impacting the environment, but vintage fur was still harvested inhumanely from animals, no matter how long ago it was. The contest is not between vintage fur and faux fur, but between being environmentally conscious and acting humanely toward animals. It depends on the individual's preference and what they believe acts as the lesser of two evils. Vintage fur, in some contexts, is not always preferable to faux fur.
[P1] Faux fur and much of the fur produced today are detrimental to the environment. [P2] Vintage fur is usually produced without environmentally harmful chemicals or plastics. [P3] Therefore, vintage fur should be chosen over faux fur.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Vintage fur was also made incredibly inhumanely - no matter how long ago it was produced. [Rejecting P3] Faux fur should not be presented as an automatic moral pejorative because both faux fur and vintage fur have conceivable costs and benefits when compared to one another.