Fox Hunting is gay

[Doogle]

Killing animals for sport is wrong and should be banned.

[Work_Child]

you should be banned!

[Dante Hicks]

Is killing them for food OK?

If so, why the distinction? We clearly don't "need" to eat meat anymore (if we ever did) since we can get by on a vegetarian diet.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Doogle

Killing animals for sport is wrong and should be banned.

depends on the way animals are killed. did you ever have a wild boar in your garden? youd think diffrent, even if you do not plan to eat it.

[G_frog]

wu_trax, that's not for sport.

and this is the biggest political non-issue of our times.

[the dying puppy]

it should be banned only if they under 18 months old and all animals should have some tipe of ID's, like Illegal DL or something.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by G_frog

wu_trax, that's not for sport.

and this is the biggest political non-issue of our times.

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)

[Deffeh]

only toffs like fox hunting, and nobody likes a toff

therefore, ban fox hunting

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

only toffs like fox hunting, and nobody likes a toff

therefore, ban fox hunting

Or, leave the Fox Hunting and ban Toffs.

[Vermillion]

I have to admit, Fox hunting always struck me as somewhat absurd. I mean, if you are deer hunting, at least you get to kill the deer. May not appeal to everyone, but at least there is some visceral pleasure or power thing going on when you bring down a large animal.

When fox hunting, you ride around listening for barking and then try to find your dog herd who have already torn the fox to shreds while you were nowhere nearby. At best you get to come upon a few bits of red fur or a mangled carcass of a creature the size of a large cat. The hunters do nothing and do not even get to see the kill.

And this is fun because...

[JC]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

only toffs like fox hunting, and nobody likes a toff

therefore, legalise toff hunting

[Dante Hicks]

I never got line dancing either and that's probably for weirdo's, but I don't support banning it.

[JC]

Slight difference, they dont kill anything in line dancing.

[Pyr0 MK III]

Let them kill foxes, people worried about the well being of some jumped up orange vermin need their heads examined.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

Slight difference, they dont kill anything in line dancing.

OK, I've never understood people who like eating jellied eels. Or liver. Or whatever.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

OK, I've never understood people who like eating jellied eels. Or liver. Or whatever.

Animals are killed for food. Its part of the food chain. Dont give me no bollocks about vegetarian being ok because we didnt evolve to eat rabbit food.

Killing for sport though should be banned. It serves no purpose. I dont mind animals being killed for some sorts of medical research, hell i work in a lab that kills rats and mice, but i dont see why animals should be killed for a sport.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

i dont see why animals should be killed for a sport.

I think a more appropriate question is why shouldn't they? You're the one who wants to take away's people freedom to carry out their hobby. I would hope there is some burden on proof that says killing an animal in this context is fine, but doing it elsewhere is evil and bad.

Plus : Don't give me that "we didn't evolve to..." stuff either. Did we evolve to play Quake? Did we evolve to download pornography? Did we evolve to carry guns? What did we evolve to do? If killing animals "unnecessarily" is bad, then we can clearly stop at any time, you just don't want to, presumably because you like the taste of meat.

[Phang]

dante, you're trolling. stop.

ps if you aren't you need to stop being so shit

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

dante, you're trolling. stop.

How am I trolling? What am I being "shit" about?

If I'm saying something incorrect or stupid, challenge me on an individual point, not "lol your post is gay".

And I never troll. I've got enough controversial opinions to start arguments without wishing to make any stuff up.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

then we can clearly stop at any time, you just don't want to, presumably because you like the taste of meat.

Why put an animal through unnecessary pain? Why not just kill it straight away instead of toying with it for hours on end till it runs out of energy then gets eaten alive or poked to death with pointy sticks and swords or pecked to death by another ****?

For fun?

What sick kind of people enjoy watching an animal be killed and then left to rot?

I'ld stick them in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson and see how they enjoy being beaten and eaten alive.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And I never troll. I've got enough controversial opinions to start arguments without wishing to make any stuff up.

:chortle:

Plus : Don't give me that "we didn't evolve to..." stuff either. Did we evolve to play Quake? Did we evolve to download pornography? Did we evolve to carry guns? What did we evolve to do? If killing animals "unnecessarily" is bad, then we can clearly stop at any time, you just don't want to, presumably because you like the taste of meat.

This is what really makes me think you're trolling. Meat is an important dietary supplement, replaceable but with difficulty. Meat is a convenience.

See, fox hunting isn't.

I can't think if a situation where going fox hunting is easier than not going fox hunting. Fox hunting doesn't provide protein, it doesn't provide money, it doesn't provide important medical research. It DOES provide torture and death to the fox. And feel free to make a 'animals are not humans' counterpoint but they still feel pain and die. Against a human it would be a life sentence, against a domestic animal it would be a few months inside and/or an enormous fine. But bizarrely, the fact that we use dogs instead of a big stick makes it somehow perfectly acceptable.

We don't have a 'right' to kill things for no reason, regardless of how you dress it up.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

Why put an animal through unnecessary pain?

Once again, I ask - why not?

You're anthropomorphising. You're seeing an animal "suffer" and presuming it bears some relationship to human suffering. It's like seeing a computer game character get kicked in the bollocks and wincing.

As for the "sick" people who do it, I don't know why they do it. I couldn't care less. If they commit a crime against a human then sure, I'm for all revenge (see my previous thread). But for causing "suffering" against a fox (or dog, or badger, or whatever) - I couldn't care less. Similarly, you can spend hours of fun shooting people in the groin in computer games.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

This is what really makes me think you're trolling. Meat is an important dietary supplement, replaceable but with difficulty. Meat is a convenience.

We don't have a 'right' to kill things for no reason, regardless of how you dress it up.

But it's ok to kill things for convenience? I'm slightly worried that you've some equated a human death with a foxes death, and in the same breath said it's ok to kill animals for meat because it's easier that not doing so...

And you're quite right, the domestic pet situation is a joke - I'm for a total repeal of all animal cruelty legislation. It's utter madness the law exists in the first place.

[JC]

If i could be arsed and wasnt about to go to bed i would dig up a hell of a lot of papers proving that animals suffer pain much in the same way you and i do. Why do you think a cat cries or a dog yelps when you stand on its tail?

Comparing a computer game to killing animals in real life. lolly roffle.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You're anthropomorphising. You're seeing an animal "suffer" and presuming it bears some relationship to human suffering.

In Soviet Russia, pain feels no animals!

[JC]

You keep asking why not, but you still havent given a good reason why we should...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by idimmu

Dante is unable to empathise.

Not with non-sentient beings, or computer game characters, or whatever. I get the initial reaction if I see an animal being killed, but then I realise it's animal so it doesn't matter.

Bizarrely when I was at school there was a teacher which was hyper-sensitive about books being damaged. They constantly went on about the spine of a book, about it should be a crime to damage it, etc, etc. Now when I see a book fall off a shelf, I still get a tingle of "wincing". But obviously it's irrational and I don't let it dictate my politics by insisting on life sentences for any book damager.

I obviously can empathise with humans.

[Snurx]

Fox hunting is evil, and disgusting. As is fur, since that's also a luxuruy we don't need, but it's "popular" and , so people support the killing of animals that lives under horrible conditions and is killed in even more horrible ways, for fashion. Is this right? (Im pissed of at the fur industry atm, so forgive my offtopicness)

Oh, i would think the fox hunters and the fur wearers are the same people that gives 10 pounds a year to charity and think they change the world

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But it's ok to kill things for convenience? I'm slightly worried that you've some equated a human death with a foxes death, and in the same breath said it's ok to kill animals for meat because it's easier that not doing so...

im an apathetic vegetarian. I try to avoid eating meat products because it's not a practice i condone but ultimately my opinion will not make less meat be sold.

but on topic.

Killing an animal for a purpose is just about acceptable. Going out of your way to kill one for no purpose has absolutely no defence other than 'I'm a bloodthirsty, sadistic bastard who should be kept somewhere where the walls are padded' which isn't really a defence

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Phang

: Fox hunting doesn't provide money,

It does. Rich people go fox hunting and they spend money on their hobby. Money which goes to poor people who get paid to clean horses and stuff.

The foxes would probably have to be killed anyway, probably by someone hired at the tax payer's expense wondering round looking for foxes to shoot.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not with non-sentient beings.

A sentient being - a being capable of perceiving things by senses.

So that would be an animal then.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

You keep asking why not, but you still havent given a good reason why we should...

Well, we (as in you and I) shouldn't if we don't want to. I've never wanted to hunt, fish or anything similar ever, and I probably never will. Same with hurting an animal (beyond killing insects, spiders etc). No desire whasoever. I'm not arguing we should hurt animals, I'm arguing if others want to we shouldn't stop them.

They're obviously doing it for all manner of reasons (preserving cultural heritage, enjoyment, whatever). That doesn't really interest me.

And I've probably read most of the papers you'll cite about animal's "suffering". I merely disagree. The idea that dogs "yelping" proves some kind of suffering is absurd - which is why I bring up the computer game example. In Street Fighter 2, the characters "grunt" when hurt. Does that mean they are suffering.

Suffering is not automatic reaction (yelping, etc) or even the externally noticable reaction (whimpering afterwards). It's about reflection, as most consciousness is.

[Phang]

you're so utterly utterly utterly wrong with the suffering thing that im about to give up marxism. i thought you were proof that there were sane marxists.

[JC]

Good god the obsession with computer games.

I cant believe you are trying to say animals dont feel pain. I suppose in the evolution into Homo Sapiens we magically evolved the sense of pain that no previous animal had had?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

A sentient being - a being capable of perceiving things by senses.

I'm using "sentient" in the example it often is these days, which admittedly is probably not the one in the dictionary. I'm using in the sense of being "conscious" (like the way they use it in Trek). If you prefer "self-awareness" or "second order introspection" you can use that.

Having sensory perception isn't particularly great milestone, that merely tells you they are able to tell what's happening externally. As with the example I keep giving (which I know you'll reject, but blah) - computers can "sense" the outside world via various equipment, yet no-one would dream of think we are causing any "suffering" if we rigged up a sensor and a wav file to play which screamed every time we activated it.

[JC]

Originally Posted by JC

Good god the obsession with computers

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

I cant believe you are trying to say animals dont feel pain.

I don't believe I ever said animals don't feel pain (if I did, I apologise, for I didn't mean that).

I said animals don't suffer in the manner we do. Pain is merely a response. Suffering is what I'm talking about. If you can point me to the quote I've made where I say animals don't feel pain I'll try to explain.

[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

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

As I say, I know you reject the analogy, but I think it's an interesting mid-ground. Otherwise you can say "animals suffer because they make noises when they are stepped on" and I'll say "I don't think they do suffer", and we can just repeat ad nausea if you like.

It's about trying to build up some kind of mid-point where some kind of agreement can be made.

[JC]

Ok how do we measure suffering?

Increased adrenaline levels maybe? Or maybe other hormones activated by a response to the initial stimulus.

I think you will find this happens in animals as well as humans. Humans are part of the animal kingdom the only differnce is we can talk about our suffereing and feelings and express them in a way that an animal cannot, but it doesnt mean they dont have a similar response.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

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

There are philosophers would disagree with the language point there, but I don't believe anyone said anything about clothing or language in this thread

Besides, I'm not sure why people are getting so upset about such matters. It's not like I'm personally torturing animals, or even funding it or whatever. I merely hold a differing opinion to you, and it always seems to make people so angry...Are people's beliefs systems constructed in a totalitarian way or something?

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I merely hold a differing opinion to you, and it always seems to make people so angry...Are people's beliefs systems constructed in a totalitarian way or something?

Just trying to understand how people can think animals dont feel pain or suffer and so how its ok to kill them for fun.

[Phang]

personally i believe all n*ggers should be lynched.

so dante, want to discuss 'my' 'viewpoint'?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JC

Ok how do we measure suffering?

Increased adrenaline levels maybe?

No. Suffering can be purely emotional. When someone's close relative dies I doubt they get an adrenaline rush. That seems to be a much more primal fight or flight thing.

I don't propose to "measure" suffering, otherwise we'd have suffering meters, and there'd a be a Guiness Book of Records Entry under "Top Suffering Ranking" or something.

But as for "detecting the capability" of suffering, I'd need to presume the notion of self-awareness or consciousness, or something like that. Not necessarily language (mutes can suffer after all) but some kind of evidence. In my readings on the study of consciousness, language and cognitive science (not that I'm particularly well read, but it's an interest of mine) I've never seen any evidence that even vaguely points towards animals being able to "suffer" on the level I'm talking. Of course they can detect pain - which is why I haven't claimed they can't.

If I did think animals had consciousness (of the form I'm talking) then I'd become a vegetarian overnight as quite clearly slaughtering conscious beings for "convenience" (to use someone elses words) would be abhorrent.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

personally i believe all n*ggers should be lynched.

Sorry, are you comparing dogs to black people?

And of course we can discuss it. On what grounds do you support the lynching of ******s? I've heard the idea put forward many times, but there rarely seems to be any evidence to support the violation of fundamental human rights.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sorry, are you comparing dogs to black people?

too obvious im afraid generally convincing otherwise though. 4.5/5

[Nusselt]

The solutions easy make the dogs eat the fox. Problem solved.

And theres nothing wrong with playing with your food and causing it suffering before gobbling it up, killer whales do it.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JC

You keep asking why not, but you still havent given a good reason why we should...

Because controlling fox populations is important.

And meat isn't convinience, it used to be convinience, but now we have combine harvesters. That's why a vegetarian diet is cheaper than a meat based diet (even taking into account subsidy shit).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

too obvious im afraid generally convincing otherwise though. 4.5/5

Obviously I was jesting with regards to the debate, it'd be deleted instantly and everyone banned (I presume). But I've come to realise the best thing you can do with extreme ideas is either ignore them or reasonably engage. I don't see any benefits in getting angry, especially via the internet.

And besides, you wouldn't be able to "shock me" with right-wing views. I've got an entire directory of white power music with some of the most outrageous lyrics that I ocassionally listen to when bored.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Because controlling fox populations is important.

Environmental health workers for the council often have to bash rats in with the equivalent of baseball bats, or use horrific rat poison, or shoot them.

Apparently dealing with urban pests is OK.