You could argue the same for any piece of legislation. What are laws if not the imposition of the will of the majority? There's always a minority that disagrees with every law. You're the one who started out by being insulting, so if you don't like it, then try and refrain from the provocative, confrontational comments, eh? Your last little dig was an off-the-cuff comment about me not having read your post, when clearly I've taken a great deal of time and care to pay attention to every point. Arguing that someone hasn't read your comments just because they disagree with them makes you an arrogant shithead. Haven't got much tolerance for those You're funny. Every real hippy I ever met was opposed to animal cruelty. Your idea of tolerance and open-mindedness is infantile in its simplicity and seems to require an acceptance of animal abuse. According to this philosophy, opposing racism would be intolerant and closed-minded. Perhaps we should have been tolerant and open-minded towards the nazis? A poster campaign might have been a better way to liberate Europe, possibly? I wonder why you're on the hip forums yourself? Oh hang on, it's just to promote your parties, isn't it? How radical and forward-thinking of you. Intolerance and closed-mindedness are typically empty accusations that start getting hurled around as soon as someone has an argument that's too week to defend rationally. Speaking of which.... Not really. I have a perfectly rational hatred for people who support the abuse of animals. It's odd that, isn't it? Disliking people who cause pain and suffering. How unreasonable of me. I didn't contradict myself at all, if you were paying attention. The argument is that the fox population self-regulates through the varying of the rate of reproduction according to the available food supply. It's really not that complicated. Let me educate you further: So you don't believe that bear-bating should've been banned then? Or cock fighting? What about bull fights? And what about general animal welfare legislation? Maybe we should be free to set fire to cats for our entertainment? Such an argument has no moral or intellectual credibility. You're right in one respect though. It is entirely beside the point. Fox hunting is a sport which is practiced for entertainment, so a ban should really have nothing to do with any argument over pest control. Rubbish. As we've already established, fox hunting is useless as a form of population control. It's funny how, in the days before a ban was a realistic possibility, the hunt never mentioned anything about this alleged aspect of their 'sport'. In those days, I don't ever remember a single hunter ever arguing anything other than "it's a sport and we do it for fun". The 'argument' about pest control is simply a last grasp at credibility for an outdated and barbaric bunch of sadists who enjoy killing for pleasure. I wonder why you are on the hip forums? Surely a big part of being a hippy community is about opposing cruelty in all its forms.
That's because you're a troll who frequently contradicts yourself and so nobody takes you seriously anymore.
"Boggis and Bunce and Bean, one fat one short one lean,these horrible crooks, so different in looks, were nonetheless equally mean."
I think it needs rewritting....with an armed revolutionary Mr.Fox bent on revenge for hundreds of years of oppression!:$
Dunno if they still make it, but there used to be this great sabs t-shirt with a fox dressed up in combats, looking pretty nasty. The caption was "Hunt Sabs - Help The Fox Fight Back", and the fox was tapping this baseball bat with the word "REVENGE" written down the side of it. Ever seen it, mr anarcho t-shirt dude?
This is fucking mad as a bag of squirrels!!! Five deerhunters killed in shootout Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Tuesday November 23, 2004 The Guardian A deerhunter went on a rampage in north-western Wisconsin, shooting dead five people and wounding three others, apparently in a dispute over a hunting spot on the opening day of the US deerhunting season. Last night two of the wounded were critically ill in hospital. Police officials said yesterday that the carnage had erupted after hunters returned to their cabin and saw an unknown gunman in what they considered their tree stand, or hide. Although it was unclear who opened fire first, police said the hunters had been wounded and radioed to friends a quarter of a mile away for help. When the friends came, they were also shot. A 36-year-old man was arrested Sunday afternoon when he came out of the woods after the shootings. He was named as Chai Vang, from St Paul, Minnesota. The victims were part of a larger group hunting near a rural cabin on private land in Sawyer County in northwestern Wisconsin. One hunter spotted someone in their tree stand, and he and several others approached the man and asked him to leave, said Sawyer County Sheriff James Meier. The man allegedly got down and was walking away, when "for some apparent reason he turned and opened fire," he said. One hunter radioed for help, and more people were shot as they arrived on all-terrain vehicles to rescue the first group, authorities said. Someone wrote down the suspect's hunting licence number, which hunters wear on their clothing, by tracing it on a dirty vehicle. Early reports said the eight dead and wounded had only one gun between them. Bodies were strewn for 100 metres. The dead include a woman, and a father and his 20-year-old son. All were from north-west Wisconsin. The suspect was arrested when he emerged from the woods and a Department of Natural Resources officer recognised the deer licence number on his back from a description given by one of the victims. Wisconsin issued more than 600,000 licences for the nine-day season this year. Shooting deer is a family affair, and often enthusiasts have been hunting together for years. Using another hunter's stand is viewed as a serious breach of etiquette.
UK fox hunters 'not welcome in Ireland' :H http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,2763,1356218,00.html
Again, you failed to read what I said. Firstly I AM OPPOSED to all animal cruelty, I just believe everyone else should have the freedom to make up their own mind about such issues. There is no proof that fox hunting is cruel to animals because each fox kills many other animals, so you save more animals than you kill when you kill a fox, many of them farm animals. It must be up to the individual to decide whether this is justified or not. Whether you have fun doing it or not is irrelevant, as is the class of the people doing it. The only issue is whether it han be proved to be cruel, and it can't, you can argue it either way. I also said that it is acceptable to legislate against someone who is proven to be actively harming you or another person. This includes Nazis and racists IF they harm other people because of their views. If they don't harm others because of their views you can only attempt to educate them. The Nazis whole policy was about the majority outlawing any minority who were different from them. See any parallel here? Am I promoting a party now? I wasn't aware that one was planned! I am promoting tolerance and understanding. Nothing more. I don't often write anything here but saw a lot of intolerance and hate in this topic (mostly from you) and knew a fair bit about the subject while being pretty neutral in my viewpoint, so thought it my duty to bring some common sense to the debate. Did you write that quoted piece yourself, pull it from a propaganda leaflet, or find it in a reputable independant scientific journal? A quote without a source is worthless and should be ignored. Journal name, page, date and author please. Is the article complete or have you only quoted part of it? No, I think that banning all of those sports can be justified because they all involve harming a creature which WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE HARMED and which would generally speaking not cause any harm to any other animal. The difference with fox hunting is that a fixed number of foxes MUST be killed each year to maintain the equilibrium. You may have an alternative opinion, but it IS NOT PROVEN. Even if foxes could maintain the correct population (which they can't - self regulation occurs at too high a population level for an intensively farmed country like the uk as I previously explained), fox hunting could also be justified on the basis that it is a 'lesser evil' because each fox kills many other animals. The point is, whether fox hunting is cruel or not is a matter of opinion, NOT a proven fact. It can reasonably and logically be argued that either side is right. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not fox hunting is cruel because it is so debatable, but I would never do it myself. The facts are available so I think it is also fair to let other people make up their own mind about hunting. If they feel it to be wrong they will be punished with guilt or stop doing it! If they feel it to be OK, their opinion is equally as valid as anyone elses, providing they have done their research. My personal belief is that we should live as natural a life as possible and allow other species to do the same. This would naturally include hunting wild animals for food. Sadly the world, and the UK in particular, is so over-populated by humans that there is no longer room for any of us to live in a natural way.
It would appear that whenever I fail to agree with you or interpret the facts differently to you I've "failed to read what you said". That's a bit childish, don't you think? That's the most fatuous statement I've ever heard. That's like saying "I'm opposed to all forms of the abuse of women, but I believe everyone should have the freedom to make their own minds up about whether they rape someone". Of course not. Hunting an animal across the countryside with a pack of dogs until its exhausted and then tearing it to shreds is clearly open to personal interpretation. Perhaps we should kill all animals then in case they eat one another? Honestly, you're scraping the barrel a bit here! Utter drivel. Would you therefore argue that farmers should be able to kill their cattle for fun? Would it be OK for them to organise cow-torturing parties? Whether or not people have 'fun' abusing animals is entirely central to the debate. If we have any desire to live in a civilised, humane society, it's in everyone's interest that we don't promote or tolerate a culture where abusing other living creatures for pleasure is considered acceptable. Your failure to understand this point betrays the moral void at the heart of your argument. Again, rubbish. If hunting was a working class activity, it would already be banned. On that basis alone, class becomes an issue. It's rather sad that you should require 'proof' that chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion and then ripping it apart with a pack of dogs is 'cruel'. Perhaps you'd care to subject yourself to the same treatment sometime? I'm sure you'd find the chase exhilarating and rewarding. Not cruel at all. ... but not another animal? If you exclude animals from any form of legislation, then we'd also have no laws protecting farm animals and domestic pets. Either you accept the principle that we have a moral obligation to protect animals and should legislate accordingly, or you don't. Actually, the nazis 'whole policy' was about cruelty, killing and an utter disregard for life. See any parallel here? No, for once your not. Keep it up, and you might yet be in a position to question the reasons of others for posting here. Actually, there is something more. You're defending cruelty and barbarity. Guilty as charged. I freely admit to an intolerance and hared for people who derive pleasure from killing animals for fun. LOL. Well, it's a matter of opinion whether you know anything about the subject. And your viewpoint is clearly not 'neutral'. How noble of you. Rather than bring any 'common sense' (old tory party slogan) to the debate, you decided to inflame it further by choosing to attack me personally. You're quite welcome to do so, but to attempt to plant your flag on the moral high ground is a little hypocritical. Foxes would NOT OTHERWISE BE HARMED. Unless of course you're still spouting drivel about population control. Oh come on, surely you can't be serious?!? We can only protect animals if they're pacifists?!? Genius! Firstly, my opinion IS PROVEN by the facts in front of you. The overall effect of hunting on the fox population is negligible. If foxes were prone to breeding out of control, we'd already be overrun. Secondly, your opinion that fox hunting is necessary to control the population is NOT PROVEN. In fact worse than that, it's simply a fantasy invented to bolster the defence of a cruel, barbaric and outdated 'sport'. Denying reality won't make it go away. If fox hunting is necessary to control fox numbers (which it isn't), then why aren't foxes already out of control in area where no hunting occurs? Added to which, as has already been established, fox hunting has a tiny impact on overall numbers, and so has no worth as a means of population control, were such an objective necessary (which it isn't). No, it's not debatable at all. If you don't think it's cruel, then I suggest you volunteer to be hunted by a pack of dogs and see how long you hold to the same opinion for. Which they have. They've then elected a government with a manifesto commitment to ban hunting, which that government has duly done. Oh please! You're too funny! Stop already! Are you serious? Perhaps we should hope that murderers, paedophiles and racists will be wracked with guilt and desist from their foul deeds! Who needs laws when we have conscience, eh? Because humans have an excellent record of acting morally without compunction, eh? What, so do you think they should have to pass a test? "Oooh, 90%! You clearly understand the arguments on both sides, so you can now go hunt!". Your argument is idiotic. Humans have consistently failed to act morally without the need for legislative intervention. In no other walk of life have we relied upon conscience to curtail abusive and cruel activities. The fact that you think we should now rely on remorse to curtail hunting is another indicator of you lack of compassion for non-human life. Not necessarily. We're quite capable of surviving on a vegetarian diet. And if we were living 'naturally', we certainly wouldn't be hunting foxes for fun.
Your whole argument still rests on your quoted article. I see you have ignored my request for your source so I assume you actually wrote the articleyourself because you couldn't back up your argument with any facts.
