I haven't really been following this thread but here's an interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1315845,00.html
I did bother to read it, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care whether it is a good form of control in terms of efficiency, all I'm bothered about is whether it is 'cruel' in comparison to other methods. And EVERY government enquiry has concluded it is "no more cruel". Yet other methods of population control are not banned? So is this really a decision driven solely by concern for the foxes? Well if you'd bothered to read my post, you might've noticed that I was going forward with the proposition that hunting was banned and that animals could only be legally killed for food, scientific research or clothing. Well, thats probably the most infantile and simplistic way to avoid a valid point. The real issue is not whether we want to endorse an activity that takes pleasure in the hunting and killing of a creature for sport. If that is the issue, then why is fishing still allowed? No, the real issue is why THIS particular sport has been banned. Morally it is no different to owning a cat to hunt mice. If it is different, please explain why. And fishing isn't banned because.....? Lets face it, fox hunting has been banned not for animal rights reasons, but for class war reasons. IMHO thats a pretty weak argument. Spirituality informs our behaviour? What spirituality? Are you arguing for the existence of the soul too? What we see as acceptable behaviour is learned. If my father smacked my mother about, I might grow up to see that as how women should be treated. Clearly that is not acceptable behaviour, but that is what happens. Children from violent homes are far more likely to grow up and become violent themselves. Spirituality has no impact on this whatsoever.
Let me get this straight. You're wheeling out the population control argument to justify fox hunting, and yet you believe that it's more relevant to discuss pussy cats hunting mice than it is to discuss whether or not fox hunting's actually an effective from of population control? That's a curious set of priorities you have there. If fox hunting doesn't work as a form of population control, then what's really irrelevant is wasting time comparing it to other methods. If it doesn't work, then either it's not needed, or else farmers are already practicing another form of population control. You're missing the point. The distinction that's being drawn is whether killing animals for sport should be allowed. The examples you're citing are all instances of killing for some purpose other than entertainment. LOl, well if you think comparing a keeping a cat to hunt mice is in any way similar to hunting an animal to exhaustion before watching it get ripped apart by a pack of hounds, then who am I to argue, eh? Let me indulge you this once. A cat hunting mice is not, last time I checked, a spectator sport. Nor do people generally follow their cats around seeking to be entertained by the slaughter. Oh, and cats hunting mice actually reduces the mouse population, whereas hunting has been shown to be an entirely ineffective form of population control. Unless you're talking about Tom and Jerry? Excellent point! I think fishing should be banned too LOL! It wasn't intended as an argument. It was intended as an opinion. I'm not arguing for anything. But yes, I do believe we have souls, if that's your question. I agree. We learn our behaviour from our environment. Our understanding of right and wrong is slightly more complex, however. That's your opinion. My opinion is that it informs our understanding of morality.
I'm sick of reading some of this pro-hunting muppett tossery! Using the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons views is fucking ridiculous! It's in there bloody financial interest to keep hunting going. Why not take a look at the RSPCA fucking links I've posted. Bottom line is that fox-hunting does nothing to control the population of foxes and it's debatable whether they even NEED controlling! Irresponsible dog owners cause more bloody damage! It's just blood lust by a load of bloodthirsty twats! And the class thing? That is not the reason fox-hunting is being band...BUT IT FUCKING WELL SHOULD BE!!!
I think this mostly facinating debate about whether morality is spiritual or cultural in origin has pretty much come to its end; we're never going to agree so I'm happy to leave most of it where it is. Just a couple of clear-up points. Just as biological evolution relies upon two processes working in tandem (random mutation and natural selection) I would suggest this hypothesis relies upon a complex interrelationship of the two "strands". Just as with biological evolution, neither process is capable of explaining the phenomenon until you understand how they work together. The endpoint of my case is that humans are complex biochemical machines. That if we had a vastly more advanced and refined technology we could build a machine which demonstrated the same characteristics and behaviours that we do, including our belief in our own free will and ability to make moral judgements. I don't believe mechanistic necessarily means deterministic given our development of self-awareness and the ability to choose that it apparently gives us. But to me it makes no difference whether this choice is ultimately an illusion or not; all we know is what our senses and our minds tell us. If I'm actually a character in a pre-scripted computer game, that makes no difference to the thinking I apparently consciously choose to put in and the morals I apparently choose to hold. Given this uncrossable gap in our understanding I'm happy to fall back on cogito ergo sum and stop there. The rest is just hypothetical. It makes my morality no less real to me. This interpretation of Occam's razor as the simplest explanation being preferred is a derivation of the original wording about not positing theories beyond what is necessary. As such I believe that the invocation of an invisible spiritual realm which somehow empathically informs us through an unknown, extra-physical process is an assumption which lacks the simplicity of a purely physical explanation for these phenomena. Another restatement of the law is from Isaac Asimov: "We must drive a sword through any hypothesis that is not strictly necessary". The materialist hypothesis is the extension of an idea which already explains much of the universe in a provable way. We know that much of what goes on in the universe happens according to physical mechanisms. It's perfectly reasonable and in keeping with Occam to make the assumption that the rest of it, which we don't yet understand, also works according to as yet unknown physical mechanisms. The spiritual hypothesis is the invocation of a further "entity" or set of assumptions which are not strictly necessary and for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. As such this hypothesis violates Occam's law. I suspect you will take issue with this. Indeed. I believe the universe is a cold, lonely, empty and meaningless place. I see nothing in it which makes me believe otherwise.
Like I said, I understand your hypothesis. It just seemed as though you'd use the alternate strands as fall-back positions once the other had failed to support your theory. Sorta like: Theory A is correct. No, it can't be because of X Ah, but that's because of theory B. But theory B doesn't make sense because of Y. Ah yes, but then you'll find that's because of theory A. But that can't be correct, because of X...... Repeat ad infinitum. I'm not suggesting that this approach is deliberate on your part. Indeed, I think it's largely inevitable. You're postulating the existence of two mechanisms that are complex beyond your understanding, making your position hopelessly entangled. Ah, but how would you know whether it was conscious? The very nature of consciousness is that it's a subjective experience. In fact, this raises an interesting point. If consciousness is entirely physical, we should be able to create a test to determine whether it's present in a machine or not. In the absence of any test of that nature, I would suggest that our understanding of consciousness is so minuscule as to make it ridiculous to suggest that we can possibly say with any certainty that it could ever be reproduced by a machine. It makes every difference to me. For example, if my morality is entirely subjective, then I need have no concern for any ephemeral moral consequences attached to my actions. For example: I'm away on holiday. I meet a stunningly attractive girl who wants to offer me uncomplicated commitment-free sex. There's no chance I'll ever see her again, and thus no chance my girlfriend will ever find out. If my sense of right and wrong - my empathy for others - is an absolute, then I would not betray my girlfriend by sleeping with the other girl. If my morality was entirely subjective, then I'd way up the consequences of my actions against the potential reward. Why shouldn't I do it? Who'd suffer? In a mechanical universe, I'd make the judgement that there were no losers, grab the sex and run. In a universe where my morality is informed by something beyond the physical, I'd be faithful. Furthermore, while you may consider it inconsequential from a personal perspective whether free will is or isn't illusory, from a perspective of the wider debate on crime, punishment and responsibility, it's absolutely crucial. Many people hold the opinion that the judicial system should punish offenders, not simply as a deterrent, but as a moral principle. If all our actions are predetermined, then what possible purpose can punishment serve? Many areas of our morality are critically dependent on our understanding of free will. What, the simplicity of an explanation that posits the existence of an unknown and inexplicable physical process, which falls back on vague terminology such as "abstraction" in order to explain a process that is, in fact, so far beyond anything that we understand in the physical universe that we don't even have the language to discuss it? The processes behind your "theory" are just as invisible and unprovable as my own. There's a huge flaw in this logic. If the nature of spirituality was indeed non-physical and unquantifiable, and if we assume for a moment that it's real, then the process of your reasoning would forever ignore it. That's the equivalent of flat-Earthism. If we don't understand spirituality, and it actually exists, your interpretation of Occam would forever preclude any understanding of it, because we'd forever overlook it in favour of an existing physical model. Furthermore, I don't think you can reasonably invoke Occam in your favour in that context until you can adequately explain consciousness in physical terms. Currently, we have no framework for so doing. In the absence of a physical model for consciousness, it seems to me equally reasonable to suggest an alternative - a line of logic that is entirely in keeping with Occam's Razor. With all due respect, that's bollocks. There's equally no evidence to suggest any physical explanation of consciousness. IN fact, given the absolute failure of physics to suggest any viable explanation for consciousness, I would suggest Occam actually leans slightly in favour of spirituality. Consciousness is the gap in your reasoning. In fairness, it's quite common for materialists to bury their heads in the sand on this point, because it's an unanswerable challenge to the physical model of the universe. I'll reiterate this point again: it is just as much a leap of faith to believe that physics can ever explain consciousness as it is to believe that it's a product of spirit. You suggest a possible explanation for consciousness that's derived from a mechanistic universe, but the gap between your theory and the end result is such an empty gulf that it relegates your logic to guesswork. Thank you and good night.
Like a lot of people, I haven't managed to read all of the threads up to this point. But I think it's very easy for people that live in cities, with no connection to a hunt at all, to judge. I personally would never dream of hunting, but I think the cruelness of the sport has been exagerated by the media; we are all influenced, however much we like to deny it, by the media, and properganda, that surrounds us every day. Hunting is definately not a class thing; admittedly most the people that actually ride the horses are usually rich, mainly because to keep a horse is so expensive. But those handling the dogs, ect, are not posh at all, and are no less involved in the hunt. It brings seperate "classes" together; not everyone in the countryside is posh like a lot of people would like to think. Like I said earlier, I hate the idea of chasing a fox; i'm a vegeterian. But I also hate the idea of eating dogs, like they do in other countries; surely people have the right to decide that for themselves? So many rules, so many barriers. Couldn't you become slightly more accepting of other people's lives and cultures? A lot of people here refere to people that hunt as "evil" or "bloodthirsty". The people I know that hunt would never dream of calling another human, or even animal, those names. They are also usually very caring and experienced with animals; one woman who hunts is strongly against any form of pet in a cage, that means hamsters, fish, rabbits. She's dedicated her life to caring for retired, disabled horses and even works at a riding school for disabled children. She cant understand how people can have a pet fish swimming in circles in it's tank, bred to have no dorsel fin to make it more "beatiful" then complain about fox hunting. There is a lot of anger is in this thread coming from people that obviously assume they're highly moral. Just an observation. Wouldn't all the time and effort debating about whether to ban it or not be better spent looking after the thousands of abandoned domestic animals, those we have bred to depend on us then drop them out the car window and expect them to survive? So much cruelty goes on in the world and our country, yet nothing else gets this much attention. All I ask is for people to get some perspective. Take the anger from yourselves and turn into something more productive.
Ummm... I don't live in a city, and I do have a connection with hunting - well, sabbing LOL!!! That's priceless!!!! So it brings the classes together by having the working class serving the upper class? Is that your argument? Ummmm.... nope. Or maybe I should also be accepting and understanding of cultures where it's ok to rape little girls? Y'know, I always found the practice in Thailand of selling children into sexual slavery to be unpleasant, but now I see it in a whole different light. Obviously this is just me being intolerant of other cultures. Oh bless. Obviously calling someone names is much worse than hunting an animal to the point of exhaustion and watching as it has its throat ripped out by a pack of dogs. Yes, and Hitler was a vegetarian and also quite pleasant if you met him socially apparently. What's your point? I know. Strange, isn't it? Can't imagine why cruelty should make someone angry. Very odd indeed. That's very judgemental and ill-informed of you. I spent many years involved in helping at animal sanctuaries and other forms of assisting with mistreated animals. Not to mention sabbing. There's also a large number of people on these boards involved in all sorts of direct action. Might I make an alternate suggestion? Why don't you take the chip off your shoulder and do something more positive yourself? It seems to me you have an awful lot of anger towards those opposed to hunting
I disagree; just like biological evolution, both processes are in fact quite simple to understand. It's their interrelationship which produces complex results. This is another interesting difference of opinion; you seem to be tied to a requirement for absolutes. My preparedness for absolutely everything I believe to be wrong precludes me from ever believing anything to be true. Absolutes to me are meaningless and unapproachable. What matter if our principles are "true" or not or whether they serve a purpose? There's no such thing as truth, and there's no such thing as purpose. It's all just an interesting slideshow. Life might as well be a game. Moral principles are arbitrary. Crime and punishment are just sandcastles on the beach we haven chosen to call civilisation... I quite agree! They are, however, in line with our understanding of the known universe. I can't even begin to explain the process of quantum entanglement, but I'm going to exhaust the possibilities of the known universe in explaining the phenomenon before I choose to decide that it might all be caused by a giant turtle called Steve.
As I've said before, once we accept this notion, then I may as well go out and murder and rape at will, in the full knowledge that what I'm doing can not be considered to be wrong in any absolute sense. I find it curious that you should take issue with me being tied to absolutes though, when the laws of the materialistic universe that you cling to are founded on absolutes. A planet of a given mass will circle around a sun of a given mass at an entirely determinable velocity. No room for manoeuvre. Absolute. Ah, but if you pursue that path, you'll never look for an alternative. In fact, it's incredibly closed minded. Again, to repeat myself, if you assume that spirituality is real for a moment, someone following your philosophy would be too busy spending infinity trying to exhaust the possibilities of the physical universe to ever notice the alternatives. You have every right to your opinion, but it's no more or less rational than my own. Neither of us can unequivocally prove our case. We simply see the universe in two different ways. I do object though to being repeatedly told that my own line of reasoning is less valid than your own. So I hope you step in Steve's doo doo
Interesting... I don't necessarily believe the universe is real though ... it might all be an elaborate fiction. The only absolute is the fact that I exist. At least I think I do. I understand but disagree. There is always room for alternatives. I'm just talking about a working hypothesis, which it seems reasonable to believe for the moment, but which is always subject to change. I've robustly argued the case for this working hypothesis without ever believing a word of it to be unequivocally true or excluding other possible explanations. Hopefully you've been doing the same! I hope I've never given that impression. Not less valid, just starting from a totally different core assumption. Must go and feed Steve.
Oooh! We agree! We agree! I'm not convinced the universe exists either. I'm also not convinced that I exist in an individual sense. Absolutely! I respect your reasoning, but disagree with it. I don't, however, regard my case as any more or less proven than your own. I obviously lean towards my own theory, but accept that whether one believes it to be stronger or weaker than your own is largely a subjective position. I think we're discussing a subject that's currently beyond anyone's understanding, and to make any assumption about the nature of that subject would be a huge arrogance. I've received that impression. Whether it was something that you gave or I took is the subject for a whole new thread I think the misunderstanding comes from the way you frame your arguments. You tend to present your reasoning as unquestionable fact, presumably because you have such a great faith (sorry about the 'f' word!) in the logical process. It could just be the way I'm reading it though Watch out for the.... oooh, messy!
sorry to say dis to any 1 hoo likes hunting but FUK U WAT DID A FOX DO TO DESERV DAT HOW WOULD U LIKE IT IF SOME 1 SET FIRE TO UR HOUSE TILL U CAME OUT DEN LAUGHED AND SHOT U FOR NO RESON AND DIDNT EVEN MAKE A PROPHET OUT OF IT
Ow Dat Weird I Dnt Tink Der Is A World Either It Just Me And Some1 Playin A Game Or Summit And Im Da Only Real 1
I'm sorry if this sounds rude and patronising but....you need to get out into the real world. Your post has absolutely no bearing on the reality of either the cruelty issue or the class issue in the countryside (not that the countryside and the cities class issues are any different). I can only summise you either do actually hunt or you're listening to a lot of misinformation from a lot of very misinformed people. With respect.
I read a letter today.. What is best for the fox in the long term? In scotland , since hunting was banned , relative figures show many more foxes have died through sanctioned methods . Thes include using horses to chase foxes towards waiting rifles , as this is the required pest control. In south africa , where hunting on private farms is allowed , many millions of acres of unspoilt land have been preserved . Farmers are able to host visiting hunters, ensuring the land remains economicaly viable .If hunting was banned , the country would be ploughed up and crops planted - and the animals would be slaughtered or chased away to compete in already overcrowded areas , resulting in the death of thousands. I beleive that those supporting a ban have short sighted arguement based on emotion, backed by pictures of bloodied dismembered foxes. In a few months , they will be able to views the intact bodies of thousands of dead foxes in neat rows. ryan skinner SW17 I agree with him ... foxes are killed in one form or another thats just a fact .. i don't buy into the anti hunt thing , but i don't much buy into anything anti .. but thats just me. are DoktorAtomik and showmet talking about fox hunting or life the universe and everything ???
You could say the same about people. Doesn't make murder right, does it? I'm not anti hunting. I'm pro compassion. Oh, and I'm not really interested in getting even more sidetracked into a debate on South African land issues.....
Interesting. You don't 'buy into' anything 'anti' but you're 'buying into' something 'pro'. Is this a standard philosophy of yours? Following this theory you're not 'anti-abortion' but you're 'pro-life'? If the situation were reversed and fox hunting is already outlawed, would you then not support the group of people who want to legalise hunting because they were 'anti hunt ban'? It's all semanitcs. In fact it's a completely empty statement. Are you anti-rape? Anti-terrorism? Anti-torture? Hmmm, probably not, thinking about your previous posts. You support fox hunting because the foxes die anyway so what the hell! How very compassionate of you. Are you interested in facts at all ? Does it not make a difference that fox hunting is incredibly inefficient? I think probably not. I think you do basically lack any morality and base your opinions on whatever suits your mood at the time. Sorry to get personal but to enter into a thread that's 16 pages long and to insult people by implying that they're simply 'buying into' the anti-hunt argument is just plain rude.
i posted before hear.. hells bells ... i should realy watch what i type..i am sorry .. no its not a standard philosphy of mine ... i don't always think before i speak ... because generaly what i say never gets pick upon..so i am sometimes lazy..
