It started off with me supporting the right of pro-hunt campaigners to demonstrate peacefully without molestation, even though I adamantly disagree with their views. Somehow we managed to end up concluding that the universe doesn't actually exist at all...
I think i will read both of your posts (above) now... see how i am not realy here and not realy typing this ... what a pleasant concept to think about on a Sunday
Yes. I don't care whether it is efficient or even necessary. It has supposedly been banned because it is cruel. However there are equally cruel methods that are not banned, and there are other more cruel practices that are perfectly legal. (Halal / Kosher butchery for one). So in essence, you are saying it has been banned because it was a sport and not for animal rights reasons? So it is "enjoyment" that is being banned. I've never gone on a hunt, I would never go on a hunt and I don't know anyone who has or does. But I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy around this issue. Shooting foxes is equally cruel (according to EVERY government enquiry) but is not banned. Why is that? And a human owning a cat to hunt a mouse is equally cruel. What does having an audience do to enhance the foxes suffering? Nothing. It is irrelevant. IF we are talking about preventing cruelty to animals, then please explain why hounds hunting foxes is bad, but cats hunting mice is not. This has not been banned for any reasons to do with the welfare of the fox. Again I've never fished and don't see the attraction of it. It is a question of priority though. If the government was truly interested in animal welfare it would have tackled Halal/Kosher butchery, live animal exports, some intensive farming methods, etc. Fox hunting is a very low level activity that affects far few animals than the previously mentioned practices. Yet why has that had priority? Are you honestly trying to say this had NOTHING to do with the type of people who typically hunt?
squiffy halal/kosher buchery is something that i disagree with in this country .. i think its something that should be talked about ..
I can't see it happening though Matthew, even though it is undeniably cruel, has much more humane alternatives, and affects far more animals than fox hunting.
But the question of whether it's efficient or necessary is surely intrinsic to the question of whether it's cruel. For example, if you cut someone's legs off, the action would be cruel if it was just done for your own entertainment. If you did it because they had gangrene and would otherwise die, then the action would not be cruel.... it would be necessary. Thus whether fox hunting is "efficient and necessary" is inextricably linked to whether it's cruel. I'd like to see those banned too, so I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't aware the point of the discussion was 'why it's been banned'. Frankly, I'm not really interested. The government can ban it because they think it's a noise nuisance for all I care, so long as it gets banned. As I've already said until I'm blue in the face, it all comes down to what you consider to be acceptable in an allegedly civilised society. It's about the standards that you want to set, and the kind of behaviour you want to encourage or discourage. For me, it's as simple as this: do I consider killing for entertainment to be acceptable in the kind of society that I'd like to live in? The answer to that question is a clear "no". You seem to be confusing two issues here though. Perceived hypocrisy on the part of the government has nothing to do with the objective debate on whether fox hunting is acceptable or not. That's a debate about the government, not about fox hunting. I really couldn't care less why they ban it or even if they're being hypocritical. So long as it gets banned, I'm happy. You seem to have a ridiculous fixation with mice. I've already addressed this point. It's really simple: there's a clear and demonstrable need to control mice if they're eating your food, and cats are very good at controlling the mice population. Hunts, on the other hand, are not about controlling the fox population - their providing entertainment. If you can't see the difference between killing for necessity and killing for entertainment then there really isn't much I can do for you. Bullshit. Following this line of reasoning, there'd be no reason for America not to televise executions and even invite live audiences to watch people being killed. Or they could even record footage in war zones and sell it to help fund the military. Because if the action can be justified, then it doesn't matter if people are entertained by it, right? Maybe we should sell footage of abortions as well. Again though, hunting doesn't work as a form of population control, so there's really no comparison between that and other activities. You can only compare like with like, and hunting has nothing to do with culling. Well like I said, I'm not interested in defending the government. I don't really care why their doing it. But no, I don't believe it's a class issue. I'm sure there's an element of that, but I imagine if cock fighting or bear baiting were still legal they'd also be trying to ban those 'sports'. There's also a considerable number of Tory MPs opposed to fox hunting. In fact, in the last Conservative parliament, there was a cross-party majority in favour of a hunting ban. Your argument in relation to other unsavoury practices is an argument for those activities being banned as well.... not an argument against a ban on hunting.
Efficiency and necessity is not at all related to whether it is cruel IMHO. Equally cruel and necessary (according to HM Gov) practices are still allowable. To only ban one method is hypocritical. The point is to illustrate the hypocrisy in why fox hunting has had the priority in parliamentary time. In fact not just priority - it has been allowed to totally overrule the normal parliamentary processes. I wasn't aware the point of the discussion was spirituality vs morality, yet I haven't seen you objecting to and participating in those posts. IMHO discussing the "why" is much more on topic. Again this just illustrates the hypocrisy of what has happened. Shooting is still allowed, and just as much a 'sport' as hunting with hounds. I appreciate the point for you is all about the end result. The point for me is that this demonstrates what is wrong with our political system. Fair enough, fox hunting is an issue to tackle. But more important than some of the other things I've mentioned? I don't think so. And to have our parliamentary processes seriously abused to push it through? It makes a mockery of politics. I disagree. The hypocrisy of the government has everything to do with them banning fox hunting. If animal rights is the issue, then lets prioritise the issues and tackle them accordingly. There is no real basis for elevating fox hunting over Halal / Kosher butchery et al. It may be simple to you, but I'm looking at it on the basis of relative cruelty and also consistency. I agree that mice are pests. So are foxes - although I recognise that in some areas fox populations are interfered with to ensure enough are available for hunting. However in some areas they ARE a pest and do need to be controlled. So on the 'pest' and 'necessity' tests they are equal (IMHO of course). What about cruelty? Well hunting with hounds is no more cruel than other methods of fox population control. As for mice? I'd imagine that a cat toying with a mouse before finally killing it is pretty cruel for the mouse. There are more humane methods available that could be used to control mice populations. The only difference is 'entertainment'. IMHO that is an irrelevance. It doesn't do anything to make the fox suffer more. I would humbly submit that the killing of humans for 'entertainment' is a world away from the killing of animals. And lets not forget that killing animals through methods such as fishing and shooting remains perfectly legal. It does work as a form of population control, although I admit there are more efficient methods and that it is not 'required' in all areas where hunting is practiced. But so what? It IS required in some areas, and foxes are just as much a pest as mice. In fact the economic impact of mice as pests has never (as far as I can find from Google) been measured, with the de facto assumption that it cannot be a problem. Meanwhile there have been many reports looking at the impact of the pest that is the fox. Some progress - at least you admit there is an element of class involved. IMHO it is far more than just an element. On economic, animal rights and almost every other impartial test you can come up with, this is not the right animal rights issue for parliament to be spending time on. It is an argument against hunting being the priority for our parliament. There are much more important issues that they should be dealing with first.
Yes... to ban hunting is only dealing with one of the many things that are wrong in our society... but its a start. Yes, there are arguably more important issues... but still.... this is important and I'm glad its banned intellectual debate aside.... do you want fox hunting back?
Well I just demonstrated exactly how necessity relates to cruelty. If you don't believe it is, then you need to provide a counter-argument - not just deny it. I agree there are other practices that are equally cruel and unnecessary, but that just means they too should be banned - not that hunting should be allowed. *shrug* I couldn't care less. Take it up with the Labour party. I'm debating fox hunting. I'm not debating the worth of the Labour government. Uhhh... huh? Didn't say it wasn't on topic. It's just not of interest to me. Debate it by all means with someone who cares. I don't. You seems a trifle fixated on hypocrisy. This is an argument against the Labour government - not an argument for hunting being allowed. I'm not a hypocrite - I'd ban 'em all. That's fine. I just think it's a shame to confuse that with the hunting issue. You can argue that politicians are corrupt and I'll agree with you all the way. That's a subjective matter of opinion. I actually think it is pretty important, simply because it's high profile. It's adopted a symbolic importance beyond it's absolute importance. Uhh, not quite sure how the Parliamentary process has been abused, except by the House of Lords thwarting it by trying to block the legislation. The Labour party has been elected twice on a manifesto commitment to ban hunting. A majority of the British people want a ban. There's a massive majority in the House of Commons in favour of a ban. Not to ban hunting would be to make a mockery of democracy. Again though, this is not an argument against hunting being banned, it's simply an argument with the priorities of government. That's a much wider debate than fox hunting, and so therefore serves only to confuse the issue. The flaw in this argument is that hunting doesn't actually work as a form of population control. So you think televising executions would be ok? The principle is exactly the same. An enjoyment derived from the suffering of another living creature is a sick pleasure. So I ask again: should executions be televised? Well I strongly disagree, but if we argue this point further it'll just end up with us trading third hand information. So it comes down to opinion. Not at all. In order to admit something, there has to be an implication of guilt. I've never denied there's a class issue here, nor do I care if there is. Firstly, the "right issues for Parliament to be spending time on" are the governments manifesto pledges, on the basis of which they were elected. Love it or loathe it, that's democracy. This government was elected with a commitment to ban hunting. If you think that's a waste of time, then the electorate are equally culpable. But it's a valid use of parliamentary time under the circumstances. Secondly, it wouldn't be 'wasting' a fraction of the time that it is if it wasn't for the filibustering practices of the opposition lobby. If the bill was allowed fair passage, it would've been law years ago. So if any time's being 'wasted', blame the hunt lobby. So what animal rights issue is more important? Once those issues have been addressed you'd be happy to see hunting banned then? An opinion I entirely accept. Personally, I think it is a perfectly good use of parliamentary time, but then that just comes down to personal priorities.
I agree. I know you were slightly tongue in cheek but in this instance I dont care about the political dance behind the act... the fact fox hunting is banned now is the the important thing... it paves the way for other cruel and outdated animal cruelty issues to be dealt with.
Right sorry about the lateness of my reply, BT internet and Bill Gates are in league to piss as many people off as possible. Given the minimal impact that fox hunting has on the overall fox population, the answer is a clear "no". Whether it needs replacing or not, in the areas where the hunts are active, if the hunts are stopped, other methods of control will be used to compensate for the foxes that the hunt would have culled. More to the point, why do you find it so remarkable that being hunted to exhaustion and ripped apart by a pack of dogs should be a fairly unpleasant and painful experience? I dare say it isn’t pleasant, but not many deaths are painless. The question in this instance is whether the level of cruelty is more substantial than other methods, and as I’ve already described, I don’t think that it is. Rather, I would see being “ripped apart” quite a quick and painless death. I think your argument here is a very emotive one, and by this argument you must also ban shooting, snaring and poisoning. Hunts have been known to breed foxes. Producing more foxes is hardly culling, is it? No your correct it’s not, however again I would question how widespread this act is, there are perhaps a small number of isolated cases. £5,200/year just to keep a horse. Perhaps for the top-end full livery yards. For a DIY livery your looking at £25 a week as expensive. You can quite easily keep a horse (admittedly on a shoe-string) for £100 ish a month, excluding vets bills and insurance. As I’ve said you perhaps would have to, to a degree, skrimp on other areas of your life, but its within the scope of the average. Drag hunting True, good point, however I’m not so sure that land-owners or big estates would allow drag-hunting to the same degree as fox hunting. But your quite right drag hunting would be a suitable alternative for the most-part of hunters who do it for a good ride. Doesn’t do much for the other parties who loose out due to a ban, for example, small business, the thousands who are in employment as a direct consequence of hunting. I can tell you that from direct, personal experience. I could say the same, having lived for most of my life in hunting country, and having seen no evidence of hunts roaming wildly across the countryside and peoples gardens. The central issue is whether we want to endorse an activity that involves killing for pleasure in a supposedly civilised society.# I agree, this is the king-pin issue here, and one I don’t think we will agree on. Firstly I would say that, we are not endorsing an activity by not banning it. Secondly, people have very different morals in this society (agreed that doesn’t mean that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to an unlimited degree), why is it that some peoples morals take precedence over others. Ill explain that because it sounds really bad, it doesn’t express what i want it to and your probably sat there seething with rage. If I kill a person, that is (understatement here) infringing on their rights, and whatever my morals etc, everyone has equal rights, so that is wrong. However killing a fox does not infringe on any ones rights and only contradicts other peoples morals in a detached way. But we are not the only species on earth and I do feel that we should not cause unnecessary cruelty to other species. I don’t feel hunting with hounds is crueller than other methods, and I feel it necessary to cull some foxes. Not seeing it as greatly cruel combined with my belief that people should be able to make up their own minds on moral issues like this means that I am against the ban. God I hope that made sense in English and not just in the crazy language in my head. Lastly, for those people who think that everyone who doesn’t want to ban hunting immediately is a “bloodthirsty twat,” its simply not true. I don’t kick dogs for fun, or go around with a BB gun so I can shoot ducks with it for a laugh. I think perhaps too many people are looking at this in a predominantly emotive way, and im not misinformed just because I disagree with other people.
Rubbish. That presupposes that hunting has a significant role in population control in the first instance. Given that it doesn't, it wouldn't need replacing. If culling is already being practiced, it will carry on regardless at the same level. Just to clear this point up, here's a summary of a very detailed study that conclusively proved that fox hunting plays no role in population control: No, the question is not related in any way to 'other methods', because hunting is not a form of population control. And if you think being ripped apart by a pack of dogs is painless, I suggest you try it sometime. Yes! Absolutely! It's called compassion. That doesn't stop it being informed by facts. Yes, this is usually the answer that the pro-hunt lobby wheels out whenever any unsavoury facts about their 'sport' emerge. Oh face it, you're making an unrealistic argument if you think that hunting is a working or even middle class activity. It's beyond the financial range of most people, and it's a 'sport' that's predominantly the reserve of the upper class. I've met these guys. I know who hunts from first hand experience. Bollocks. The upper class own the big estates. Given that exactly the same resources would be required as for fox hunting, why would people still lose their jobs? You're just replacing a the fox with a drag. Added to which, employment concerns are no reason for perpetuating barbarism. I can see it now... end of the WWII.... "hang on guys, not sure about shutting down these concentration camps. Might have a negative impact on jobs. How about a system of licensing?". Then you'd be fairly unique. I've seen this sort of practice in many parts of the country, so if it's something you've not experienced, consider yourself lucky. Utter rubbish. You know very well that if a ban is not passed at this stage, we're saying hunting is socially acceptable. Oh come on, that's really a no-brainer. It's how democracy works. The will of the majority. It's a fairly big infringement on the fox though, isn't it? If you accept any notion that the welfare of animals should be protected (and I'm assuming you do, since I don't imagine you're suggesting people should be allowed to torture cats for fun), then the welfare of the fox is a valid area for legislative intervention. Well, if you think that being hunted to exhaustion and ripped apart by a pack of dogs isn't cruel, then we obviously live on different planets. And people are allowed to make up their own minds on moral issues. They've done so and voted in a government that has a manifest commitment to banning hunting. If you mean that individuals should be left alone by governments and allowed to govern their own moral conduct - that's called anarchy. The whole point of a governed society is that the conduct of people is subject to the limitations of the law. If people are left alone to make up their own minds on moral issues such as hunting, why shouldn't the same apply to bear baiting, cock fighting, generally torturing animals for fun? As I said, it comes down to whether you think hunting an animal to exhaustion and then watching it get ripped apart by dogs is the sort of activity that should be permitted in a civilised society.
Rubbish. That presupposes that hunting has a significant role in population control in the first instance. No it doesn’t, regardless of whether it is or it isn’t a population control, if it is seen as such it will be replaced as such. very detailed study that conclusively proved that fox hunting plays no role in population control Could you give me some more information / links to this study. As it has been posted, I would hardly describe it as conclusive proof. One study, from one situation is very rarely conclusive. This study is not in a consistent situation, ie the foot and mouth provides an anomalous variable. That study could equally conclude the point I made that fox hunting is replaced by other methods. And if you think being ripped apart by a pack of dogs is painless, I suggest you try it sometime. I havn’t expressed myself very well here. What I meant to say was that comparatively this is quick and painless death. If there is a pack of hounds on one fox, there won’t be a lot left after ten or twenty seconds, my point is that it will be very quick and suffering will be limited due to this. It's called compassion So, what, I’m uncompassionate because I don’t think hunting should be banned? Yes you may be being compassionate in your argument, do you also advocate banning all forms of hunting and population control? That would indeed be compassionate from our perspective, but by the way humans live in this country it is impossible. I feel that it would be better for us to change our way of living, but that, at present is not feasible, people simply would not. Yes, this is usually the answer that the pro-hunt lobby wheels out whenever any unsavoury facts about their 'sport' emerge. Ok, which hunts in particular do this, what is your source. Besides I am not greatly pro-hunting, I just don’t agree with the ban. And I’ve never called fox hunting a sport. Oh face it, you're making an unrealistic argument…I've met these guys. I know who hunts from first hand experience. No I’m not. So you’ve “met these guys” well that’s all very well and good but so have I, what’s your point. I know plenty of people who keep horses, and none who you would consider upper-class. Then you'd be fairly unique I find that very hard to believe. Besides we can’t verify either view point unless we find some better evedence. why shouldn't the same apply to bear baiting, cock fighting, generally torturing animals for fun? My viewpoint would be that fox hunting does not cause the same degree of suffering as these activities. It is a combination between allowing people to make their own choices regarding such activities and the degree of suffering being caused. As I said, it comes down to whether you think hunting an animal to exhaustion and then watching it get ripped apart by dogs is the sort of activity that should be permitted in a civilised society. What is civilised society? Perhaps we shouldn’t permit people to drive their own cars, because public transport is better for the environment. And protest, that causes people problems, perhaps we shouldn’t allow people to protest. We shouldn’t allow people to express views that could offend anybody either, so perhaps we shouldn’t allow some people to stand for elections, because their views might offend. Should we really be questioning our leaders in a civilised society? This being a civilised society, we should look smart, so men having long hair should be banned, and they should be clean shaven at all times. I don’t think we should have to live in a society where our morals etc are dictated to this degree. Its as I’ve just explained my point is that it is a combination between allowing people to make their own choices and the degree of suffering.
Lol, only if you buy into the myth that anyone involved honestly believes it's a form of population control in the first place! What do you thinks gonna happen? Farmer gets up the first morning of the hunt ban thinking "ooh, they've banned hunting today. Might be a couple of extra foxes in the woods. Best get out and shoot 'em". Not realistic. You've got access to the internet. Look it up. Don't expect me to waste my time furnishing you with information that you'll choose not to believe anyway. Indeed. But then the argument that hunting is about population control is only propaganda from the hunt in the first instance, so hardly worthy of being treated seriously. I would suggest the burden of proof should lie with the hunt. If they want to go butchering animals for fun, then they should need to prove that their activity serves a useful purpose. Or to put it another way, "I don't want to believe it so it can't be true". What the fuck?!? How do you arrive at such a bizarre conclusion?!? Compared to what, exactly? And let's not forget that while the hunt may be having a jolly spiffing time in the time preceding the actual kill, it's not a lot of fun for the fox. Or does being hunted to the point of exhaustion not count as cruel either? Perhaps the fox just thinks it's all a jolly old game until it gets ripped to shreds? Perhaps it thought the hounds were just going to say "tag, you're it!". Do me a favour. If you're going to defend hunting, at least keep your arguments realistic. Trying to argue that it isn't cruel to the fox is bullshit. If you want to argue that it's relatively less cruel than other methods, then this is disingenuous, since nobody seriously believes hunting is about population control, so it's not an "either or" choice. Yup. Got it in one. Get it through your skull - HUNTING IS NOT A FORM OF POPULATION CONTROL. Numerous sources, and at least 50 hunts. Here's an example source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/hunt/Story/0,2763,651782,00.html Reproduced here for your elucidation: I've met people from numerous hunts. They were all upper class. My point is that you were arguing that it's an activity pursued equally by all. It isn't. It's an upper class 'sport'. Or maybe it's just coincidence that the royal family hunt? Maybe it's just coincidence that the House of Lords are so fervently opposed to a ban? Maybe it's just coincidence that every person rolled out by the media to defend hunting is upper class? Hunting is an upper class activity. If you believe anything else, you're a fantasist. Not that I give two fucks though. I'd ban it whoever was involved. Find it as hard to believe as you like. I've seen hunts trespass on numerous occasions. In fact, many hunts actually employ "fence menders" who follow the hunt repairing damage to third party property when the hunt has strayed off permissive land. I see. So following your logic, cock fighting and bear baiting shouldn't have been banned, because people should've been left to make up their own minds about the morality of torturing animals? Come to think of it, they probably would still be legal if they'd been upper class activities. What a load of bollocks. If I was to repeatedly slam your head into a wall, think it'd be ok do you? Because I'd "made my own choice about the degree of suffering"? Or does this rational only apply to animals? If that's the case, then we'd repeal every bit of animal welfare legislation ever passed. Very progressive of you. People have proved themselves incapable of making reasonable moral decisions. That's why we have laws against rape and murder. And that's why we have laws to protect animals. Your argument isn't worth a piss on a bonfire. Parliament has every right to ban hunting. In fact, it has a responsibility to do so. You could debate the exact definition of this for a long, long time. But I'd suggest a really good starting point would be a society where people don't kill other creatures for shits and giggles.
It's great fun here at Cambridge. So many pro-hunt Tory boys, probably crying themselves to sleep every night now. A rare victory for progressive politics I'd say....
