What a load of shite. After 37 pages of debate, I think my argument rests on a whole lot more than one quote. And even if it did, it'd still be a damn site more than your argument rests on! Is that the best you can do? Well I'll assume you're an ignorant prick for making assumptions that are more about provocation and confrontation than advancing a debate. My argument's been backed up with facts all the way through. Which is more than I can say for yours.
True in some cases but not all. The point is that you've stated that just because you believe something is wrong you don't have the right to stop someone from doing it, therefore, in a situation where a friend decides to murder another friend 'cos he doesn't like them, by your own reasoning you wouldn't stop them. It's complete bullshit, you're living your life on the fence because you can't be bothered to actually make a moral stand and take responsibility for the wrongs that exist in this world. Disagreeing with something but saying 'everyone has the right to choose' can only work to a certain extent and doesn't actually make you into the cool person I suspect you'd like to be. So, fox hunting is about farming? I spoke to a farmer the other day who believes that badgers do more damage than foxes, and even then he couldn't quantify his loses. Here's some figures for you: Financial loss to farmers from foxes:- 70% of all farmers did not believe the number of foxes on their farms was harmful 64% of all farmers suffered no financial loss from damage proven to have been caused by foxes 2% claimed losses of more than £100 per year (in 1974) from damage that was attributed to foxes 36% of farmers considered foxes to be useful in controlling rabbits and rodents Lamb death: 40% abortion and stillbirth 30% exposure and starvation 20% disease 5% congenital defects 5% misadventure and predation (including dogs and foxes) (4) MAFF states that on average every fifth lamb dies shortly after birth. (5) Foxes are not responsible for the majority of these deaths Sheep farmer thoughts: 70% lost no lambs to foxes 16% claimed they lost fewer than 5 lambs 14% claimed they lost more than 5 lambs 80% had no evidence that foxes took lambs (9) There's a whole lot more too, see here http://www.nfws.org.uk/pro/pests.htm And before you even think about suggesting that the stats are biased, check out all the different sources. For someone who claims to be against fox hunting, you seem to go out of your way to protect it. If, as you say, you believe people should make up their own minds, why are you arguing so strongly about the reason to not ban hunting? You haven't even acknowledged any points in the debate for the ban. There's no balance in what you've been saying, I almost believe that you're more concerned about winning an argument than the actual issue involved.
Why have you still not provided a source for that article? Clearly it was written to make a point, not as genuine scientific research, yet you are quoting it as fact!
Again you didn't read what I said. I repeat 'It is unacceptable in my view to force your own beliefs of what is right or wrong on another person unless their actions harm yourself or another person.' Murder involves harming another person and 'cos he doesn't like them' is not a justification for murder, whereas 'cos he was trying to kill me' IS a justification for murder. Am I living my life on the fence? you seem to know me very well for someone who just read a few posts on the web. If you knew anything aout me you would realise that I neither want, nor need to be 'cool', something I see as shallow and meaningless. I find just find it rather ironic that some people on here spend half their lives campaigning for greater personal freedoms and the other half trying to restrict the personal freedoms of people who have different values and beliefs. The remainder of your article was mostly well reasoned and backed up with verifiable facts. It shows that the number of farm animals killed by foxes has recently been low. It does not show whether or not the level of incidents is low BECAUSE fox numbers have been reduced by culling. A pro-hunt campaingner could pick up the same data and say 'look,foxes are not killing many farm animals - the culling must be working!' I would also like to know whether the farmers surveyed all actually farmed animals because a fox doesn't do much harm to a field of potatos! On the contrary mine seem to be the only posts which do balance the opinions of both sides in the argument, while everyone else has an extreme point of view whether hunting is right or wrong, I prefer to say that both sides are right according to their own value systems. The value systems of the anti hunt side have been explained only too well before, so I focused on the pro hunt value system as it had not been covered. I have my own opinion on whether hunting is right (I agree with you guys) but I think extremists, fundamentalists and fanatics on either side should not be allowed to prevent a reasoned and balanced debate or to oppress a minority.
That's spooky. That's exactly what I was thinking! Yeah, if we adopt the attitude that the only balanced opinion is one entirely in the middle of opposing points of view, then it becomes theoretically impossible to hold a balanced opinion that opposes fascism.
Why have you still not responded to the multitude of points that I've raised? Is your argument so vacuous that you're unable to defend it any further?
Yet again you repeat the same idiotic drivel without responding to the critique that's already been directed at this line of reasoning. If you exclude animals from any form of moral obligation on the part of humanity, then you would presumably repeal every single piece of protective legislation that's ever been passed. You'd presumably allow cock-fighting and bear-baiting? Either you accept that we have a moral obligation to legislate to prevent cruelty towards animals, or you don't. You can't reasonably argue that legislating against hunting is "forcing your views on another person" unless you're also arguing that all forms of animal welfare legislation are "forcing ones views on another person". Hmmm. Didn't seem to stop you from making sweeping accusations about me, eh? I find it rather ironic that some people here seem to confuse personal freedom with the freedom to exploit, torture and kill other forms of life. Uhhhhhh...... "In the same study, in the absence of fox control, less than 1% of lambs were found to have been killed each year by foxes" http://www.nfws.org.uk/pro/pests.htm#friend Woohoo! Look at the ego on mission! Surprised you were able to get your head through the forum door there, dude! It seems to me that you're more interested in looking only for 'facts' that support hunting. Rather than holding the balanced opinion that you claim, you're promoting an actively pro-hunting agenda. Right you are, Mr Chamberlain! Bullshit. If you believe that animals shouldn't benefit from legal protection, then you don't agree at all. Again, if you think that preventing chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion and ripping it to shreds with a pack of dogs is oppressing a minortity, then you're an idiot. By that definition, any legislation that seeks to protect animals from abuse is oppressive.
Whatever the arguments for and against fox hunting, one thing is for certain the hunting community are going to have one hell of a fight over the issue. They are determind to keep their sport at all costs. They wont go away quietly they are here to stay and have vowed to cause massive disruption for the government. For example they hace urged all private landowners to with drawn permission for pylons and other utilities which cross their land, making individual complaints about each single item on their land so as to clog up the courts. 45,000 have also signed an online pledge vowing to defy the ban when it comes into force. See their website :- http://www.countrysidealliance.org.uk/
I doubt it. It's all hot air. These are some of the most pampered people in the country. I doubt a brush with the law will appeal much in the cold light of day. Nice to see you acknowledging that it's a 'sport' now, and not 'pest control'. For a communist, you seem to accept the propaganda and intimidation tactics of the upper class very willingly. Yeah yeah yeah. Makes you wonder why they haven't done that already, eh? Yeah, and I signed a census form saying I was a Jedi Knight. Still not getting very far with levitating that x-wing though. Promoting upper class propaganda? You're a worthy example of a communist fighting the oppression of the ruling class!
Taken from latest edition of Class War. Look at that, silly inbred halfwit, trying to recruit people for the CA's illegal activities and using blackmail to boot! Upperclass pest.
And like I said before it is still a hollow victory as hunting is still legal in both the north and the south of Ireland. In the Irish post this week there was an article saying English hunters were planning to go to Ireland to continue hunting. See the article here in the Irish Post.
Yeah yeah yeah. So all the members of every hunt in the country are gonna go to Ireland every week to hunt? Gimme a break! And if they were, it certainly undermines your earlier arguments about hunting being a cross-class activity, doesn't it? Know many working class people who could afford hunting trips to Ireland every week? And again, why are you so keen to see this ban fail? You're about as communist as Maggie Thatcher's arse.
I take it you havent read my previous post Herr Baumhaus? of which I'll hunt down as it isnt there!!! But now it is..... UK fox hunters 'not welcome in Ireland' Nicola Byrne Sunday November 21, 2004 The Observer Frustrated British fox hunters will not find a refuge in Ireland after the blood sport was banned in the United Kingdom on Friday. The Hunting Association of Ireland says that the 80 hunts operating in the Republic are already oversubscribed and there is very limited potential for 'hunt tourism'. However, proponents of hunting in Ireland fear it may not be so easy to put off mainland animal rights activists, who are now expected to turn their sights on Ireland and France in a bid to achieve a Europe-wide ban. Several of the Republic's top hunts have been warned that experienced hunt saboteurs will cross the water to boost a hitherto disorganised and flagging campaign. Aggressive British tactics have led in the past to clashes with Irish farmers and hunt supporters, who had previously faced only passive local protests. This weekend, the Irish hunting association said that visiting demonstrators would encounter strong resistance. 'Let's just say that the author ities in Ireland will view these people very differently from the way they might have been treated in the UK. There will be no softly, softly approach,' said spokesman David Wilkinson. The Irish Council against Blood Sports said yesterday that overseas protesters would receive its full support. However, it called on the government to discourage English huntsmen using Ireland as a means of avoiding the ban. Its vice-president, Tony Gregory, TD, said he was preparing an anti-hunting bill for the Irish parliament and would introduce it when the UK ban came into effect. The hunting association, however, says it is confident that such a ban will never be put in place in Ireland. 'We're confident that the government recognises and will continue to recognise the importance of hunting to the rural community,' said Wilkinson. The Irish Bloodstock Agency yesterday admitted that the UK ban would hit the horse industry in Ireland. A substantial number of young horses are bred for export to the UK for hunting and point-to-point racing. The agency says that breeding these animals provides a livelihood for many farmers, who had been forced to abandon dairy and livestock because of EU quotas. Meanwhile, a few hunts in Ireland may be willing to bend their rules to allow a handful visitors from the UK. The North Galway Hunt will continue to accommodate Captain Mark Phillips, the former husband of the Princess Royal, who runs a twice-yearly hunting and cross-country clinic in Co Mayo, and the West Waterford, which hunts near the Lismore home of the Duke of Devonshire, is rumoured to be ready to extend an invitation to the Prince of Wales. </FONT>
I think the middle way should have been implemented myself thinking about it. The only reason i can find a rationale for it to be banned (the same thing with animal testing) is that i see my dog i had as a child being chased or drugged by some 'nasty' hounds or person...i would not like my dog i loved very much being treated in this way. but.... The reason i don't go on anti hunting or anti vivisection marches is because wichever way the foxes are going to be killed ..... the snares used look friggin painful and i would think kill other animals as well as the intended target wich rubs me up the wrong way...plus the other way is just shooting them..wichever way they die.. The arguement that i have read from anti hunt people is that the fox is run into sheer panic and is wripped apart by blood thirsty dogs..i have a quick flash back to my poor little dog in that situation and can see the point. But then again if the ban is in place the poor foxes are going to be caught in a painful snare and probaly die slowly or be chased by men on horses or the back of jeeps and be shot so whats the diffrence realy ??. The great medical advances that have been achieved with testing is amazing and to by all accounts the use of animals is decreasing ..hopefuly it will eventualy become redundant...I look back and see what if we had no testing on animals before computers or the other methods used that do not require animals..were would we be scientificaly and medicaly ? how many people have been saved ?. Again i still see my little dog and the love i had for it ...but. Its a strange thing that i don't think will ever sit that well in my head ....
They might also pop over to france and get some duty free while they are over there.. i heard lots of british people are going on french fox hunts as the attitude is diffrent over there..
Animal testing is not that reliable. There was the thalidamyde tradgedy for example where deformities did not show up on animal tests. Penecilin is also posionous to many animals but of great help to humans. Also chocolate contains a chemical which is poisonous to dogs but harmless to humans. The closest animals to humans are primates like monkeys and even these sometimes react differently to drug and chemical tests. The further away in the animal chain from primates the less reliable testing results become.
