Fox Hunting is gay

[Jammers]

The Government have been trying to ban it for years, and they still haven't succeeded. They should just let local councils decide what to do about it, and then use the time saved in Parliament to do something useful, like talk about what to do with asylum seekers, or Iraq, or foundation hospitals, or anything that is actually important, and actually affects real peoples lives.
Also, if we ban fox hunting, all the dogs that are used for hunting will be unemployed, and will get put down. Why is it that the deaths of a few foxes causes outrage, while the deaths of 800 dogs is seen as acceptable? As for the people who looked after the dogs, they would also be unemployed, but probably wouldn't be put down, instead they'll have to find new jobs, if they can.
Finally, if we ban fox hunting, the anti-hunting lobby will probably turn their attention to other sports, such as fishing, and then we'll all wake up one morning and realise we can't have fish and chips anymore.

[Bunga]

Postulate:
Causing pain is wrong.
Foxes feel pain as they are mangled to death by dogs after having been chased for a few miles.
Conclusion:
Allowing dogs to chase down and mangling foxes is wrong.

Of course, you might not agree with postulate 1 and/or 2 Dante.

[Nusselt]

In the course of eating my boiled egg and soilders in the morning i couldnt really care less if the chickens were bred in a battery farm forced to shit eggs and finally killed by getting an electrode up the exit hole. Neither do i really care if the bacon i eat comes from oinkies that are forced to rare more little oinkies than nature intended. I dont care. I have my egg with soilders and bacon and sod their pain. I also dont see that many people boycoting products for said reasons

Conclusion:
people dont really care about animals suffereing that much, as long as the food is cheap/tasty/edible.


Now the dogs chase down the fox, kill it, and should be made to eat it. Thus the circle of life (a whoona awok awhoon awok) is completed. Just like on the serengeity serengetiytiy that plain where the stuff happens.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Postulate:
Causing pain is wrong.

Yeah, gonna have to disagree with that. Causing "suffering" is wrong. Some people like pain. If you pulled a gorgeous lady tommorow night, got her home and she said "I love to be spanked", are you going to turn her away because causing pain is wrong?

And there are plenty of times where doctors or whatever have to cause small amounts of pain to stop a larger problem.

I know you'll just want to change your postulate to "Causing unnecessary pain to an unwilling party", but I don't think the "unwilling party" is meaningful with non-human animals.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Jammers

or anything that is actually important, and actually affects real peoples lives..

Are you saying fat rural toffs aren't real people or something?

HAY mabye we could all send them to an isleland somewhere.

[I'm Not Grimble]

I prefer killing cats. Easier to find.

[I am Idler]

dont happen to swing them by their tales grimble?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Doogle

Killing animals for sport is wrong and should be banned.

That's right animals are people too and we shouldn't forget that.



I'd support it though if we could get together with the king of the foxes and sign an agreement whereby we agree not to hunt them in exchange for them stopping killing chickens and rooting through our garbage and disturbing my sleep. Only problem is we can negotiate with him when he's not been democratically elected? We could have a few snap elections to give him a public mandate but I don't think grey foxes should have as much of a voice as red foxes as they're not as intelligent. I mean look at all red foxes do, they build complicated warrens and all grey foxes do is live in little holes scratched in the ground that they steal off other animals on occasions.


Now that's trolling boy.




PS If enough wankers support banning fox-hunting ban do it then. Nobody really cares. It's hardly like they're going extinct (or are they?!?!?!?!??!)

[I'm Not Grimble]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

dont happen to swing them by their tales grimble?

I usually grab one by the tail to swing about, and then I use it to club the others with.

Putting a day-old fish on your porch attracts quite a few of the little buggers.

Kittens are the most fun, something about the noise they make.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by I'm Not Grimble

I usually grab one by the tail to swing about, and then I use it to club the others with.

Putting a day-old fish on your porch attracts quite a few of the little buggers.

Kittens are the most fun, something about the noise they make.

Have you tried clubbing any baby seals? The skin is very soft so the lack of recoil means you can swing all day

[Marilyn Manson]

**** the animals. It's pensioners that we need to deal with.

[I'm Not Grimble]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Have you tried clubbing any baby seals? The skin is very soft so the lack of recoil means you can swing all day

It's great.

Every norwegian boy has to do it at 14 to prove he's become a man.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

DOGS RECOGNISE HUMANS AND FORM RELATIONSHIPS

THEY RECOGNISE OTHER DOGS AND FORM RELATIONSHIPS

tHE PRESENCE OF CLOTHING AND LANGUAGE IS NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL OF SENTIENCE

Maybe I just don't speak dog but I've never heard anything non-human proclaim it's self-awareness or assert it's sentience.



PS 14 grimble? ****ing hell, over here by that age you have to have shot an immigrant and lynched a homosexual. Are there some kind of hippies running your government or something?

[lokken]

Fox populations need to be kept under control, otherwise farming becomes a more difficult job than it already is.

The only other options to fox hunting are shooting and trapping which you can hardly describe as humane. So what if people decide to do it for their entertainment. Fox hunting generates a good deal of cash for those involved, and probably makes a nice subsidy for some country folk.

I don't see why people are bothered at all about fox hunting, and why they think such a trivial issue demands legislation for it, especially considering the time it is taking to pass, especially with the threat of the use of the Parliament Act. Leave the cow shit in the country and your shit in #10 Mr.Blair!

[I'm Not Grimble]

Our country is run by a priest.

He says seal-clubbing is ungodly

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by I'm Not Grimble

Our country is run by a priest.

He says seal-clubbing is ungodly

Import a few million arabs to vote him out of power. Then use aforementioned arabs to club the seals. Problem, solution.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Import a few million arabs to vote him out of power. Then use aforementioned arabs to club the seals. Problem, solution.

Then you shoot the Arabs.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Then you shoot the Arabs.

That's a given.

[I'm Not Grimble]

Can't we use the million pakistanis we've got?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by I'm Not Grimble

Can't we use the million pakistanis we've got?

If they're already in the country what do you promise then to make them all vote the same way?

[I'm Not Grimble]

Free Kebabs?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If they're already in the country what do you promise then to make them all vote the same way?

Five extra months of life and an increase of a gram in their bread rations.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Maybe I just don't speak dog but I've never heard anything non-human proclaim it's self-awareness or assert it's sentience.

comedy 'maybe i just don't speak masai' option.

different species ===> not a lot of similarity genetically. we're more highly advanced obv.

different species =//=> do not have emotions, do not feel suffering upon feeling pain.

hay guys i heard cats purr when they're happy oh wait they arent happy because they dont have feelings all that purring is imaginary.

[W]

Originally Posted by Phang

hay guys i heard cats purr when they're happy oh wait they arent happy because they dont have feelings all that purring is imaginary.

The purring is most obviously not imaginary, stop with your strawman bullshit. The happiness might well be. My computer purrs when it gets power, is it happy too? How do you tell?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Doogle

Killing animals for sport is wrong and should be banned.

Fox hunting is a non-issue and a waste of valuable parliamentary time and attention.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

hte peole who kill these animal probably regard it as a sport / hobby. especially cruel ways of killing animals should be banned though.

(but then im the facist here, id like to bann everything)

so you should start considering changing your signature

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

comedy 'maybe i just don't speak masai' option.

Bet you I can find someone who does though. Great, while I go and find someone who speaks masai you go and find someone who speaks dog. We'll report back here on monday morning.

different species ===> not a lot of similarity genetically. we're more highly advanced obv.

different species =//=> do not have emotions, do not feel suffering upon feeling pain.

hay guys i heard cats purr when they're happy oh wait they arent happy because they dont have feelings all that purring is imaginary.

I don't think feeling happy is a great demonstration of self-awareness. Perhaps if it asked for a vote or built a road or joined a protest march or learned the multiplication tables or wrote an essay on Immanuel Kant or did anything at all to convince me it deserves the same rights as a human being.





On a side-note I can't believe you're arguing we should treat animals like we treat people. I mean lol.

[Phang]

no im arguing that just because they arent people it doesnt follow that they arent sentient and as such should have less legal protection than property and im ****ing sure most cars dont feel happy

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

no im arguing that just because they arent people it doesnt follow that they arent sentient and as such should have less legal protection than property and im ****ing sure most cars dont feel happy

I would argue for exactly as much protection as property. The foxes as the landowner's property, and as such the landowner can decide exactly what to do with them.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by queball

The foxes as the landowner's property

explain.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

explain.

Like this; you should be allowed to kill the rabbits that live on your land, I should be allowed to kill the rabbits that live on my land. (If either of us had land this is). If I want to kill your rabbits I need your permission.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

no im arguing that just because they arent people it doesnt follow that they arent sentient and as such should have less legal protection than property and im ****ing sure most cars dont feel happy

What is sentience?


Webster's dictionary defines it as a grammatical unit that is syntactically independent and has a subject that is expressed or, as in imperative sentences, understood and a predicate that contains at least one finite verb.

[W]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What is sentience?


Webster's dictionary defines it as a grammatical unit that is syntactically independent and has a subject that is expressed or, as in imperative sentences, understood and a predicate that contains at least one finite verb.

Dictionaries does not explain about anything but words, least of all about sentience.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by W

Dictionaries does not explain about anything but words, least of all about sentience.

I lost the will to live while typing this reply.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I lost the will to live while typing this reply.

Never try and make with the funny.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Never try and make with the funny.

I learnt a salutary lesson here today. On the bright side I'll have forgotten it by tomorrow morning.

[W]

Originally Posted by Phang

no im arguing that just because they arent people it doesnt follow that they arent sentient and as such should have less legal protection than property and im ****ing sure most cars dont feel happy

So you don't know whether they "should" have legal protection. Until you do, shut the **** up about interfering with other people.

[Phang]

im saying they should have legal protection because making the assumption based on available evidence that they are to some extent sentient we do not have the right to kill them for our own ends. of course, enough people disagree with that but in cases where there is no good reason to kill the animal - the death of the animal provides no purpose other than to sate some psychotic, primal bloodlust - i dont see it as really being defensible.

if animals are completely devoid of intelligence and experience life about the same as plants or large chunks of metal then its justifiable but the only basis so far for this sort of claim is 'omg they dont write essays on kant'.

of course, this sort of argument could equally be used about severely mentally disabled people but nobody would think of trying to suggest that in seriousness on account of 'omg you want to murder the helpless' etc.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

im saying they should have legal protection because making the assumption based on available evidence that they are to some extent sentient we do not have the right to kill them for our own ends. of course, enough people disagree with that but in cases where there is no good reason to kill the animal - the death of the animal provides no purpose other than to sate some psychotic, primal bloodlust - i dont see it as really being defensible.

Im not convinced that "I prefer the taste of pork to cabbage" counts as a good reason by your proposed standards mang.

[Phang]

read the ****ing sentence faggot

im saying WHEN THERE IS NO GOOD REASON - FOOD, ANIMAL PRODUCTS, EVEN MEDICAL RESEARCH - when 'sport' is the only reason to kill the animal - there isn't really an acceptable excuse.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

of course, this sort of argument could equally be used about severely mentally disabled people but nobody would think of trying to suggest that in seriousness on account of 'omg you want to murder the helpless' etc.

To be honest, the only reason people don't kill the REALLY REALLY comatosed/vegetative state cases is because :
a) They could recover and become a conscious human being (in some cases)
b) No real point in pissing off their family/friends/etc.

People with mental health problems is a slightly different case (i.e. they may never recover). I've worked with people with mental illness a little bit and I think it's a bit insulting (in even the most extreme case) to compare their mental capacity to animals. Even the most severely retarded person has a spark of creativity which is completely devoid from "lower" animals.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

read the ****ing sentence faggot

im saying WHEN THERE IS NO GOOD REASON - FOOD, ANIMAL PRODUCTS, EVEN MEDICAL RESEARCH - when 'sport' is the only reason to kill the animal - there isn't really an acceptable excuse.

Why is the pleasure derived from eating pork instead of lettace more acceptable than the pleasure derived from hunting? There is no good reason for you to eat animals other than your personal enjoyment - you have no moral highground whatsoever to stand on.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

Like this; you should be allowed to kill the rabbits that live on your land, I should be allowed to kill the rabbits that live on my land. (If either of us had land this is). If I want to kill your rabbits I need your permission.

Televisions generally dont grow legs and walk into their neighbour's gardens. What's your solution for handling cases where a pet does?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Televisions generally dont grow legs and walk into their neighbour's gardens. What's your solution for handling cases where a pet does?

I think it's fairly easy to imagine a situation where reasonableness would apply in judging.

So if for example, a pet escaped into your garden for the first time then you'd have some kind of legal obligation to return it, or inform the owner. If it was the second or third time, or they didn't respond to your asking them to take it back, then it could become yours. Property may not jump over fences, but you have the Unsolicited Goods Act for items where things get misdelivered (e.g. a TV get's sent to your house but you didn't order it).

I don't see why a similar situation couldn't exist for pets.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

in cases where there is no good reason to kill the animal - the death of the animal provides no purpose other than to sate some psychotic, primal bloodlust - i dont see it as really being defensible..

So indefensible acts are indefensible. But if it wasn't for people like you they wouldn't need to be defended. Fox hunting is certainly defensible and has been defended in this thread by me without argument. Please make it clear what you are arguing against. The kind of brutal sport you're suggesting simply doesn't exist any more (in public) (the animal-empathy people have pretty much won, I guess).

And nod, I said "lived on...". If you aren't sure whether a TV is from your land or the land next door then it's unlikely anyone cares about it, and if they do then people can arrange specific contracts. It's really not important.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

im saying they should have legal protection because making the assumption based on available evidence that they are to some extent sentient we do not have the right to kill them for our own ends. of course, enough people disagree with that but in cases where there is no good reason to kill the animal - the death of the animal provides no purpose other than to sate some psychotic, primal bloodlust - i dont see it as really being defensible.

Shits and giggles baby. You can live without killing animals for any reason at all (bar them trying to kill you). So why kill animals any of the time? Why should any rights apply to animals? Human rights are for human beings. People don't have rights because they have feelings that can be hurt, people have rights because they're people and they're part of a society which acknowledges those rights. Animals aren't. The right not to be beaten up isn't based on the idea that human beings feel pain. It's based on the belief that every human being has a fundamental right to his or her body. Animals aren't people.

if animals are completely devoid of intelligence and experience life about the same as plants or large chunks of metal then its justifiable but the only basis so far for this sort of claim is 'omg they dont write essays on kant'.

They don't do anything. How in the name of god you can sit there arguing that animals deserve anything is beyond me. I've seen plants wilt in burning light or next to strong heat. Do they feel pain? Or is your only concern the fact that you can see animals with similar reactions to human beings and that disturbs your ****ing conscience at night.

of course, this sort of argument could equally be used about severely mentally disabled people but nobody would think of trying to suggest that in seriousness on account of 'omg you want to murder the helpless' etc.

Severely mentally disabled people are still people. And to be honest I support the right to commit suicide. Cases where people are literally unable to do anything and have no hope of recovery are tricky and responsibility should probably be passed onto the closest family members.



PS I can't believe you just compared a mentally disabled person to an animal heh.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS I can't believe you just compared a mentally disabled person to an animal heh.

Why not? It's the same analogy that is drawn in all the animal rights threads.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Why not? It's the same analogy that is drawn in all the animal rights threads.

Because they're clearly not the same thing? A mentally disabled person is a human being with an impediment. An animal with an "advantage" is not a human being. Unless we're talking about total vegetables in which case I've already expressed my view on that.

[Work_Child]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

. An animal with an "advantage" is not a human being.

what about a monkey with a human brain implant?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Why not? It's the same analogy that is drawn in all the animal rights threads.

That's because all animal lovers are human haters!

You know who else was a vegetarian?