February 21, 2005 at 11:35 #3928
Similar to the Vegetarian – Druggies poll where we established that in order to live with Vegetarianism, you have to be stoned otherwise it’s very difficult :biggrin:
The purpose of this thread is pretty straight forward so I shouldn’t have to offer an explaination and insult your intelligence.
Just a quick advertisement for going veggie. Last night, me and my family were having tea together and we brushed on my Vegetarianism. She said that it is because I don’t eat meat that I have pale skin, rings around my bloodshot eyes, constant lethargy and a dopey nature. All Dean Gallagher had to tell JC officials was that he was a veggie and he would never have been banned for coke:biggrin:February 21, 2005 at 11:56 #90597
I voted "veggie-pro-hunting" as there wasn’t a "veggie-pro choice" option.
SteveFebruary 21, 2005 at 13:57 #90598
Are you pro choice on everything unethical? I’m sure that if foxes could talk, they would all choose not to be chased up and down hills to exhaustion before being painfully disembowled in the name of fun.
Hi tdk<br>I hold very strong opinions on the issue and welcome apathetic people pointing out anything I say that’s hypocritical. It would give me something to think about and work on if need be. I’m not perfect and I won’t try to be but I will make efforts to cause as little damage to nature in the time I spend on this planet.
Anyway, does anybody know the name of that lord character on Countryfile yesterday morning because I was offended by his comments. On being asked how he thought he would cope with the anti-hunt lobby, he said with a smirk that "Britain managed 6 years of Hitler….."
After watching The Yes Men on Friday night, I thought that this toff must have been a satirical p**s
take but if he wasn’t then he really should be reprimanded and have his lordship stripped from him and shoved up his ar$e. Comparing vegetarians to Hitler just shouldn’t be done.
And that dog farmer who said that most of the hounds (and it’s safe to assume Horses will suffer as well) will be put down if foxhunting is banned.
This is a pro hunting argument. These dogs are only loved if they are used to kill for fun and are worthless if they can’t hunt. I guess they have to kill something, even their beloved horses and hounds.
I can assure you that not one of those animals will be killed in my or the anti hunt lobbys name.February 21, 2005 at 15:24 #90599
Are you pro choice on everything unethical?
Who decides that fox hunting is unethical?
I’ve got some questions for you
(1) now that foxhunting has been banned, will fewer foxes die in this country?<br>(2) Will they be killed by less painful means?
According to the program that Germaine Greer did last week, 2.5million aniumals are killed EVERY DAY to provide meat for he UK.
25,000 foxes are killed each YEAR by foxhunting.
(375,000 killed by other means)
That means, in ONE DAY, we kill as many animals for food as fox hunting would kill in a CENTURY.
(3) So, on what consistent moral basis is foxhunting being banned?
(4) Why should hunting be banned while other means of killing foxes (trapping and shooting) aren’t?
(5) If foxes aren’t going to benefit from this legislation, why introduce it?
I beleive the answer is a combination of
(1) spite against supposed toffs<br>(2) weak minded, poorly thought out, Beatrix Potter, liberal animal rights, dougheadedness.
For example, a few years ago, the city where I live used to have loads of foxes.
They used to turn up at night and rip open rubbish bags to get food.
Then they introduced wheelie bins and the foxes couldn’t get food anymore. Probably a number of them starved as a result.
Should we ban wheelie bins?
It’s the same people who wanted the wheelie bins that wanted hunting banned.
Liberals – 10 degrees to the left of centre in good times, 10 degrees to the right of centre when it affects them personally.
SteveFebruary 21, 2005 at 15:55 #90600
Give me some arguments on how murder for fun (it’s nothing else) is ethical.
(1) No. Because it isn’t a ban on hunting. It is hunting in another name. Apparently more foxes die in Scotland after the ban than before the ban. On Saturday, the death toll of 91 nearly matched the figure of 12 months ago. The hunters will use all the loopholes (defences my arse) and push the tolerance of the police as far as they can to get their fix of blood lust.
(2) Humans have no right to kill them in the first place.
(3) The moral of being nice to those smaller than you rather than torturing them for your own amusement is being as basic and as consistant as they come.
(4) Hunting isn’t being banned. Just certain methods. In another universe, I’ve been banned from marching with 1000 thugs looking for and killing Man Utd fans. Instead having all of my thugs charge the streets of Falmouth and Torquay, I can now only send a maximum of 2 thugs into the rags house – wait for him to be flushed out and then I can carry on killing – business as usual.
(5) Because New Labour will appease the social democrats and stay in power without actually having to abolish blood sports.
Personally, class / status isn’t a reason I hate foxhunting. Bullying is a reason I hate fox hunting. You can tell me all day that people of all classes love and partake in foxhunting and the two things I will tell you are <br>(1) I couldn’t give a s**t<br> – that is beside the point.<br>(2) Actually, I don’t know anybody in the council estates I frequent that goes hunting. There’s the opportunity to follow the pennine hunt on foot but nobody seems to take that opportunity around these parts.
I’m not going to dignify your last comments with a response (apart from that, and that…..)
(Edited by Kotkijet at 3:59 pm on Feb. 21, 2005)February 21, 2005 at 16:34 #90601
I’ll rephrase q1: If no hunting takes place AT ALL, will fewer foxes die in this country?
Q2: you dodged. Why?
Q3 wasn’t well put, so I’ll clarify: given that we, as a nation, kill as many animals in a day for food as would be killed in a century by fox hunting, where’s the moral consistency in banning fox hunting while leaving the right to eat meat?
Q4 didn’t get answered.
Q5: I agree. But it’s a p**s
poor reason as it’s bullying – picking on a minority.
It’s the same mentality as used by Howard and his demonisition of immigrants.
As for my 2 reasons why fox hunting is being banned, I exclude you from reason (2) as you have chosen – for animal rights reasons, I believe – to not eat meat.
SteveFebruary 21, 2005 at 18:19 #90602
(1) Fewer foxes would be killed by humans. Fewer may even be born at all considering that some are bred with the ‘sport’ in mind.
(2) I didn’t dodge. I don’t think that animals should be killed at all by humans. Be it painfully or less painful.
(3) I don’t think animals should be killed for food, sport or clothing.
(4) OK. All means of killing foxes should be abandoned.
(5) Bullying was A reason. Wasn’t the best I know.February 21, 2005 at 23:46 #90603AlchemistParticipant
- Total Posts 232
Don’t agree with the fox hunting ban, and also eat meat.<br>KeithFebruary 22, 2005 at 22:27 #90604turtleMember
- Total Posts 31
. Comparing vegetarians to Hitler just shouldn’t be done.<br>
But Kotkijet – surely Hitler was the most infamous vegetarian of Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â all time?February 23, 2005 at 12:20 #90605dave jayMember
- Total Posts 3386
I eat meat, but have never tried fox.
Hitler is the worlds best known veggie and he also used lots of drugs. Any modern day drug taking veggie should be careful. If they start to feel like dressing up should seek help immediately.February 26, 2005 at 01:38 #90606
I never knew that Hitler was a veggieFebruary 27, 2005 at 02:20 #90607
After being asked some really irrelevant questions from steve’I don’t eat animals except for fishes because they don’t have any feelings’dvg, I figured that I should give you pro hunting folk some questions of my own.
Do foxes enjoy spending the last 15 minutes of their life being chased for the amusement of a minority?
List the justifications of being a carnivore. Then list the justifications of fox hunting.
Do the foxes feel pain when the hounds tear into them?
Would you like it if your pets / beloved horses were murdered sadistically in the name of fun?
Who’s fault is it that thousands of hounds will be put down?
Were those hounds only worthy of being accessories to murder rather than being respected and treated as the most loyal friend to man should be?
Aren’t horses going to be put down for their lack of occupation?
Can’t horses enjoy a fruitful and enjoyable life as a pointer (keep PTP alive, grass roots) – rather than a tool?
Do you hate foxes?
Do you think that bullfighting is cruel?February 27, 2005 at 09:35 #90608
After being asked some really irrelevant questions from steve’I don’t eat animals except for fishes because they don’t have any feelings’dvg,
I never said that fish don’t have feelings.
Just last week, I told a fish that his sister is a hoor and he got very upset.
The reality is, you don’t know why I don’t eat meat and you don’t know why I eat fish.
My questions were designed to make the point that it’s highly unlikely that foxes will benefit from the introducion of a ban on foxhunting, so why introduce legislation that doesn’t benefit anyone/anything?
That you can’t grasp this simple notion, doesn’t make my questions irrelevant….
SteveFebruary 27, 2005 at 13:21 #90609insomniacParticipant
- Total Posts 1453
Most of us who have expressed an opinion on here regarding fox-hunting are unlikey to change that opinion, so I am loath to enter this argument now. However, I feel it worth correcting the oft repeated canard that the fox caught by hounds is alive when "ripped apart". Common sense must tell even the most vehement of antis that not all hounds catch up to the fox simultaneously. The first hound to catch the fox kills the fox as nature intended – by going for its neck and breaking it as quickly as possible. Any predator that doesn’t kill its’ prey quickly, risks injury and ultimately starvation. In practically every case, the fox is dead when the rest of the pack catch up. <br>You might still disagree with fox hunting – fine, but at least accept that a foxhound kills quickly and efficiently and that the fox is NOT ALIVE WHEN TORN APART BY THE PACK. A foxhound kills vermin more effectively than other methods (snares, gas, poison, road-kill, blood-poisoning, hypothermia, starvation).February 27, 2005 at 13:33 #90610
I’ve just thought of something.
(a first for a Sunday and a bloody shock as I didn’t get home until 3.30 this morning)
Foxes are carnivores. Where’s the sympathy for the animals they kill?
Do foxes kill their prey painlessly?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.