- This topic has 83 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
I believe that living in a civilised society—which is something I am fortunate enough to do on the whole and which is a situation I am very keen on preserving— requires something more than an "I’m alright Jack" attitude to things that don’t immediately impinge on my own behaviour.
The activities of paedophiles, for instance, do not affect me directly. But that doesn’t mean I reckon it’s alright for such people to do what they wish to do without any type of societal constraint so long as it continues not to affect me.
If you (stevedvg) felt the same about meat-eating then you could try to do something about it: perhaps you do and have done. Within the law you would be entirely within your rights.
On the issue of how the ban on foxhunting will affect horseracing, I have always been firmly of the view that the sport’s leaders have done us a massive disservice by aligning horseracing so closely with foxhunting. It would arguably be no more than they deserve if the "do-gooders" (TM) turned their attentions on horseracing as a consequence.
One argument for preserving the links always seemed to be that "well, that’s just the way it’s always been". That’s not good enough. The objections to the continued links with foxhunting from within horseracing have become much greater in the last decade or so: in plenty of time for the BHB, for instance, to do the right thing. Their initial response was for Lord Wakeham (their Chairman at the time and officially prufrock’s most detested person within racing ever) to get on stage at a Countryside March in Hyde Park and state categorically that racing supported hunting, despite the fact that very many within racing quite clearly did not.
The BHB has continued Canute-like with this policy in the few years since, rather than devoting their efforts, as they should have done, to accentuating less divisive aspects of the sport. <br>
(Edited by Prufrock at 8:40 pm on Nov. 23, 2004)
Prufrock, your choice of peadophilia as a corollary for fox-hunting is both outlandish, and ill-advised.
I think I was guilty of trying to get a rise.
Apologies to any paedophiles who feel insulted by the comparison.
(That was a JOKE, just in case anyone didn’t realise it). <br>
BTW, the mention of paedophiles was a deliberate absurdum in an attempt to disprove the idea that other people can do what they like so long as they don’t bother you directly—an answer to what I saw as the implication of the remark "…and fox-hunting affects me how?".
I realise that it would be an inappropriate parallel for fox-hunting itself. Henceforth I will use your example of mistreatment of pets if attempting to draw a parallel. Thanks. ÂÂÂ
If anyone’s going to do any patronising around here, it’s surely going to be me. I have a Pee-H-Dee in it. :biggrin:
Far from it in any case, grasshopper. I think the level of debate on this and other threads continues to do credit to the great institution that is TRF.
Due to a loop hole in the Fox Hunting legislation in Scotland, foxes can still be hunted but must be shoot at the end of the hunt and not torn to pieces by the dogs at the end of it.
The Issues people are now complaining that more foxes are now being killed because of the ban.
:biggrin:  … you’ve got to laugh!!
Incidentally, my own view is that horseracing is in a good position to defend itself against accusations of cruelty should they be forthcoming (though in not quite so good a position as would have been the case had it distanced itself from hunting some time back).
However, I must admit that, having switched from primarily following jump racing to primarily following Flat racing about 7 years ago, I find myself more and more uneasy with some elements of the former code.
In particular, the regular sight of jumpers having bad falls is one that all followers of racing must feel uncomfortable (at least) about from time to time. Add to that the hunting link (from my point of view anyway) and the fact that many of our equine heroes/villains surely meet grim ends away from the course, and I’m not sure that racing should be complacent about this issue.
I’m not trying to antagonise anyone—besides anything, some of the above applies to Flat racing as well as jumps—but wonder whether others ever feel uncomfortable about the whole set-up.
I feel that racing fans (of which I am most definitely one) tend to brush such matters under the carpet, especially when dealing with people from outside the sport.
The league against cruel sports has not shut up shop and disappeared
Now they have won the hunting battle,they wil now put their efforts into either angling or shooting ban and if successfull in those campaigns,will IMO target national hunt racing
Pictures of dead and injured animals are extremely powerfull
Prufrock
If you (stevedvg) felt the same about meat-eating then you could try to do something about it
<br>Yeah.
But why would I want to?
I believe in changing people’s behaviour through education and example, rather than imposing my will on others.
We’re all minorities at some level but which of us really wants someone else controlling what we can and can’t do, particularly in areas which don’t negatively impact other people?
Steve
You are quite right in saying that education and example are the ideal ways of changing people’s behaviour. That’s the way I look at the issue of meat-eating/vegetarianism myself.
But there are presumably some types of behaviour that even you feel require a more drastic response.
We have seen a possible example this week. I think that the best way to respond to racism, such as was in evidence in Madrid, is by education and example. But I also feel that you should attempt to impose your will on people whose behaviour offends you provided you have some sort of mandate to do so.
What a lot of people who support fox-hunting or are indifferent to it don’t seem to appreciate is just how deeply offensive the pastime is to a lot of others. You don’t have to witness this behaviour at first hand all the time, you just need to know that it is going on and being tolerated or even encouraged in your society.
The crux of the issue from my point of view is that deliberate cruelty to animals is not only unacceptable for itself but it does "negatively impact" on people, some of them at least, by its very existence. Judged by the support a ban on fox-hunting has got, many others think likewise.
Anyway, what is done is done, and what will be will be. I thought it was a good idea to try to turn the argument back towards what this has to do with horseracing, given that this is a horseracing forum rather than a forum for moral and philosophical debate.
There has been oddly little response to my post of 10-19.
(Edited by Prufrock at 12:41 am on Nov. 24, 2004)
Let’s change the sentence
What a lot of people who support fox-hunting or are indifferent to it don’t seem to appreciate is just how deeply offensive the pastime is to a lot of others.
to "what a lot of gay people don’t seem to appreciate is just how deeply offensive homosexuality is to a lot of others."
and we could change it again to "people in mixed-race relationships"…
Should these things be outlawed if the majority were offended by them?
Is that what you meant by "I also feel that you should attempt to impose your will on people whose behaviour offends you provided you have some sort of mandate to do so."
Another question is about
you don’t have to witness this behaviour at first hand all the time, you just need to know that it is going on
How do you know if it’s going on? I mean, how do you know if foxhunting is really how you think it is?
I’ve heard that foxhunting is just about a bunch of hooray henry and henriettas rampaging around the countryside fuelled by bloodlust, cheering while a small defenceless creature is torn to pieces.
However, I doubt that things are so black-and-white.
On page3 of this thread Empty Wallet mentioned a girl who, when asked if they usually catch a fox, said "no,we usually have a ride round for a couple of hours then go home".
When this happens, do you think the hunters feel they’ve just wasted their time? Or, is it possible, they’ve had a fun and unpredictable ride round the countryside?
Finally, in what way is killing an animal not "deliberate cruelty"? If you were to find out that animals slaughtered for meat suffered a traumatic experience, would you support a ban on meat?
What about fish?
On Monday, I read a story which said that PETA want a ban on eating cod, haddock and plaice because they "feel pain and discomfort when caught", saying "we don’t think people should eat fish at all" and "people should go out on a fishing boat and see the amount of suffering a fish goes through when it is caught".
So, they’re offended, you’re offended and I’m offended too.
Just yesterday, when watching the reports about the HIV crisis I was offended by the fact the interviewers never took the time to ask "after 20 years and tens of billions of pounds spent on research, has anyone managed to show HIV can cause AIDS?".
That’s modern life for you: you’re born, you’re offended, you die.
And, if we ban everything that could offend, there’d not be much left to make the whole process worth going through.
Steve
Homosexuality is not a life choice, even though some expressions of it might be, but fox-hunting is.
If you don’t want to engage in it you can pack away the pink and the other funny clothes and customs and do something else.
Fox-hunting, that is, not homosexuality. ;)
Mixed-race relationships are a human right in any civilised society and are rightly protected by international legislation. If you or I don’t like it, tough. There are plenty of things I don’t "like" but which I put up with.
I do not, however, see why anyone should have a human right to glorify in pursuing a living creature to a horrific death for no good reason.
For their own good, the pro-hunting brigade should really have settled at an early stage on whether fox-hunting was an efficient and (relatively) humane way of controlling vermin or just a costly bit of "fun" in which (in your and EW’s words) people "usually have a ride round for a couple of hours then go home".
They didn’t make the distinction—essentially because they couldn’t—but to this day continue to claim that it is definitely one or definitely the other according to what suits their needs at the time. ÂÂÂ
I still fail entirely to see what the problem with drag-hunting is. Presumably a large degree of the "unpredictable" aspect of "proper" hunting can be replicated with a bit of creativity, not to mention its enabling people of a certain persuasion to rampage around the countryside much as before.
While it seems that the "moral" argument has been "lost", at least for the time being, by the hunters, the practical and economical ones have not been in my view. Personally, I favour a degree of government subsidy for hunts for the next five years on the understanding that those Hunts convert immediately to drag-hunting and do not flout the law. That way there would be little or no need for horses and dogs to be put down or for those directly employed by the Hunts to be put out of a job. But such a suggestion is unlikely to find favour with more hard-line elements.
Ultimately, however, I don’t see what my wider personal ethics—be it on homosexuality, on mixed-race relationships or on vegetarianism—has to do with a discussion of the likely impact a ban on fox-hunting would have on horseracing, which is what this thread, on a Racing Forum, was meant to be about in the first place.
Perhaps we can return to that important issue before our respective hand-wringing bores people further.
Right on again, Stavros (where can I sign-up to your newsletter?
A lefty like you subsribing to a right-wing newsletter???
Now that’s open-minded.
Steve
A freind of mine runs the point to point website ‘pointopoint’.co.uk and he is well into point to point racing. He is of the view that once hunts are banned point to point racing will do even better as its more or less run by the hunts at present and the hunts receive a lot of money from the point to point racing.<br>He also thinks the crowds may even grow once people understand that point to point racing has nothing to do with fox hunting. <br>If you look on the point to point website you will notice around half the point to point meetings are promoted by fox hunting clubs.<br>The racing post today have drawn attention to he fact that the Cheltenham and Aintree Foxhunters races may have to change the names as it may well be referring to an illegal activity. <br>There is also one meeting at Cheltenham and other courses such as Folksetone devoted entirely to hunter chases andthat will probalby have to change the title also. Point to point racing is the link between fox hunting and nat hunt racing and I hope that continues.
Grasshopper, you are spot on about George Galloway, never liked him, i had the misfortune to meet him once in Glasgow, i thought i would need a bucket afterwards to be sick in.
Agreeing with everything you say Grasshopper – never thought that would happen!:o
My basic thoughts are that the government have better things to do than go round banning anything that might be offensive, or cruel etc. Also, how is the ban going to be policed? Surely the police have better things to be doing than parking in hedges down remote country lanes (they’ll probably kill two birds with one stone and do people for speeding at the same time).
A complete and utter waste of parliamentary time and debate if you ask me.
Also, is "National Hunt" racing going to change its name? Races like the Grand National will probably be targeted more heavily now so I wouldn’t say that racing is entirely safe at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.