Discussion
I have summarised above.
"There really is a very large gap between a liberal society and anarchy.
There is also a very large difference between morals, and laws designed to protect people from the misdeeds of others."
(Edited to insert comma)
Of four replies, I think you all may have missed that I have not once spoken in favour of lifting the ban.
In fact I have made it quite clear that I never liked fox hunting with hounds, only that I felt that the imposition of a ban was the wrong thing to do in the first place and that would be the only justification in my opinion for reviewing it.
It will of course fail to be lifted, and all of this will fade into PH history.
The troll is a troll, The history of the posts bears that out, but you would die of boredom reading the many pages, and it's [the troll's] lack of reason, repeated avoidance of questions and constant attempts at misdirection are tedious and mind numbing.
I shall not speak to it, and preferably not speak of it, again in this thread.
In another thread, on another day, it may happen.
The idea of ' the tyranny of the majority' is understood I am sure?
We will not always be on the side of 'the many' so should take care in our pleasure in seeing 'the few' brought to heel, because one day it will be ourselves, and it may well be something that actually matters.
If one accepts that the likelihood of one day being of 'the few', then it should be logical to desire that laws are passed only when absolutely necessary, rather than to enforce a moral viewpoint or remove a minor inconvenience.
Laws do not dictate morals, only actions or the restrictions of actions.
"There really is a very large gap between a liberal society and anarchy.
There is also a very large difference between morals, and laws designed to protect people from the misdeeds of others."
(Edited to insert comma)
Of four replies, I think you all may have missed that I have not once spoken in favour of lifting the ban.
In fact I have made it quite clear that I never liked fox hunting with hounds, only that I felt that the imposition of a ban was the wrong thing to do in the first place and that would be the only justification in my opinion for reviewing it.
It will of course fail to be lifted, and all of this will fade into PH history.
The troll is a troll, The history of the posts bears that out, but you would die of boredom reading the many pages, and it's [the troll's] lack of reason, repeated avoidance of questions and constant attempts at misdirection are tedious and mind numbing.
I shall not speak to it, and preferably not speak of it, again in this thread.
In another thread, on another day, it may happen.
The idea of ' the tyranny of the majority' is understood I am sure?
We will not always be on the side of 'the many' so should take care in our pleasure in seeing 'the few' brought to heel, because one day it will be ourselves, and it may well be something that actually matters.
If one accepts that the likelihood of one day being of 'the few', then it should be logical to desire that laws are passed only when absolutely necessary, rather than to enforce a moral viewpoint or remove a minor inconvenience.
Laws do not dictate morals, only actions or the restrictions of actions.
It’s all rather pointless arguing. I doubt very much that people who get a kick out of killing animals will ever understand why others find it so abhorrent.
Maybe it’s some kind of genetic throwback from a time when hunting was an essential part of human survival. As opposed to the newer characteristic of being more compassionate and therefore better adapted towards animal husbandry.
Maybe it’s some kind of genetic throwback from a time when hunting was an essential part of human survival. As opposed to the newer characteristic of being more compassionate and therefore better adapted towards animal husbandry.
colonel c said:
..part of human survival. As opposed to the newer characteristic of being more compassionate and therefore better adapted towards animal husbandry.
popeyewhite said:
colonel c said:
..part of human survival. As opposed to the newer characteristic of being more compassionate and therefore better adapted towards animal husbandry.
Stickyfinger said:
With so many emotional objectors to fox hunting thinking it is all about being in red and on a horse, the result is my sport grows.........thanks
It's got nothing to do with dressing in red or being on a horse, it has everything to do with people like you, who think killing animals is a 'sport'.Goaty Bill 2 said:
The idea of ' the tyranny of the majority' is understood I am sure?
We will not always be on the side of 'the many' so should take care in our pleasure in seeing 'the few' brought to heel, because one day it will be ourselves, and it may well be something that actually matters.
If one accepts that the likelihood of one day being of 'the few', then it should be logical to desire that laws are passed only when absolutely necessary, rather than to enforce a moral viewpoint or remove a minor inconvenience.
Laws do not dictate morals, only actions or the restrictions of actions.
"One day it will be ourselves" ... We will not always be on the side of 'the many' so should take care in our pleasure in seeing 'the few' brought to heel, because one day it will be ourselves, and it may well be something that actually matters.
If one accepts that the likelihood of one day being of 'the few', then it should be logical to desire that laws are passed only when absolutely necessary, rather than to enforce a moral viewpoint or remove a minor inconvenience.
Laws do not dictate morals, only actions or the restrictions of actions.
An interesting viewpoint and one which might well resonate with something much closer to many PH-ers' hearts. In years to come it will undoubtedly become more and more frowned upon to take pleasure from driving anything with an internal combustion engine - particularly if that pleasure involves competition or "sport". And then it will be banned. But the majority must prevail, so we will just have to accept it.
chrispmartha said:
Stickyfinger said:
With so many emotional objectors to fox hunting thinking it is all about being in red and on a horse, the result is my sport grows.........thanks
It's got nothing to do with dressing in red or being on a horse, it has everything to do with people like you, who think killing animals is a 'sport'.chrispmartha said:
It's got nothing to do with dressing in red or being on a horse, it has everything to do with people like you, who think killing animals is a 'sport'.
Nope....again I will tell you (I do not know why you struggle with it as it is quite simple)It is about culling vermin thus establishing a balance in the countryside.
I take pride in my method and skills to achieve the result (dead fox) ...thus I regard THAT as the sport. The two are separate.
"Pleasure" is gained from the skills used correctly and the quality of the shot that commits the act. Pleasure is never taken in the death of any animal.
Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 27th May 21:28
Stickyfinger said:
With so many emotional objectors to fox hunting thinking it is all about being in red and on a horse, the result is my sport grows.........thanks
Why on have you made almost a hundred posts on this thread, ONE HUNDRED posts,pointlessly arguing with people and silly name calling, if you're actually happy? I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing in favour of something and doing so much bad work for their cause ever before.
Stickyfinger said:
chrispmartha said:
It's got nothing to do with dressing in red or being on a horse, it has everything to do with people like you, who think killing animals is a 'sport'.
Nope....again I will tell you (I do not know why you struggle with it as it is quite simple)It is about culling vermin thus establishing a balance in the countryside.
I take pride in my method and skills to achieve the result (dead fox) ...thus I regard THAT as the sport. The two are separate.
"Pleasure" is gained from the skills used correctly and the quality of the shot that commits the act. Pleasure is never taken in the death of any animal.
Edited by Stickyfinger on Saturday 27th May 21:28
LDN said:
It should stay banned because anyone that makes a sport, and a spectacle, out of population control is basically a d
head. The coincidence being that; I've met many a fox hunter and by in large; they have been dheads. Funny that! The pomp and ceremony is a joke; as in - it's literally hilarious - and there's been enough criminal activity surrounding this 'tradition' to warrant it being deemed as it is, by the massive majority of the population.
Our farmer said the same.head. The coincidence being that; I've met many a fox hunter and by in large; they have been dheads. Funny that! The pomp and ceremony is a joke; as in - it's literally hilarious - and there's been enough criminal activity surrounding this 'tradition' to warrant it being deemed as it is, by the massive majority of the population.Actually, he said worse
El stovey said:
Why on have you made almost a hundred posts on this thread, ONE HUNDRED posts,pointlessly arguing with people and silly name calling, if you're actually happy?
I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing in favour of something and doing so much bad work for their cause ever before.
Lots of questions repeatedly answered....you "anti" types seem to ask the same thing dressed in a different way a lot....I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing in favour of something and doing so much bad work for their cause ever before.
Look at my posts...they are (generally) in reply to direct questioning....
numberwanger
El stovey said:
Exactly how I read it too.
What we have is poeple posting against foxhunting being labelled as trolls or acused of refusing to listen or whatever.
Then when it's correctly pointed out that we live in a democracy and the anti view is actually the majority and the ban was passed by a democraticly elected government and never been overthrown since that government has been replaced, it's somehow tyranny and imposing morality on others.
Troll comments, huh?What we have is poeple posting against foxhunting being labelled as trolls or acused of refusing to listen or whatever.
Then when it's correctly pointed out that we live in a democracy and the anti view is actually the majority and the ban was passed by a democraticly elected government and never been overthrown since that government has been replaced, it's somehow tyranny and imposing morality on others.
The last bastion for those argumentative types with an Intransigent nature.
Lots of those types on these forums.
I welcome it. It's almost always an admittal of a virtual 'defeat' and given it's decades old, utterly reeks of desperation.
Liokault said:
Why was fox hunting banned and not angling. Angling causes pain and death to many fold more creatures than fox hunting. Could it be a class thing?
Multiple reasons. Angling has far more participants, who have votes. They are spread across socioeconomic, constituency, urban and political divides, and not identifiable as the political enemy by one party or another.
People don't eat fox and chips.
People have less empathy for fish, and less still for worms and maggots. Arguably that's perfectly reasonable.
The vast majority of fish caught are released alive.
Digby said:
Ah that's ok, then.
Nice for them to hunt old, sick and injured foxes. I can see they must be a real threat. Do they diagnose before the torture starts?
Create the types of hunts you prefer in your head, ignore any wrongdoing, have no interest in animals being pointlessly torn to bits...I get it.
Sounds just like the type of person who would ignore the law due to "tradition"
I've already explained to you that old, injured and sick foxes aren't able to hunt to and catch as efficiently as a fit and healthy fox. As such they'll resort to easier prey such as newborn lambs, even if that means taking higher risks. Nice for them to hunt old, sick and injured foxes. I can see they must be a real threat. Do they diagnose before the torture starts?
Create the types of hunts you prefer in your head, ignore any wrongdoing, have no interest in animals being pointlessly torn to bits...I get it.
Sounds just like the type of person who would ignore the law due to "tradition"
Edited by Digby on Saturday 27th May 08:12
Why torture? Again, it's already been explained to you that the considerable power to weight ratio of a fox hound over a fox will result in a
quick death.The subsequent breaking up of the carcass, if it occurs, is not a welfare consideration as the fox is already dead.
Perhaps you'd rather they had a protracted death from starvation? Is that not torture?
A57 HSV said:
it's already been explained to you that the considerable power to weight ratio of a fox hound over a fox will result in a
quick death.
Wonderful.quick death.
Bloodlust defence 101.
I assume you would have no issue with someone letting bigger dogs tear hunting dogs to pieces should someone want to protect foxes?
How about shooting hunting dogs in the face?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff