[Closed] Fox hunting on the trails!!!

a majority of the population would bring back hanging, would you go with that ?

badger biting is hardly a comparable activity, hare coursing is probably closer, or angling. both acceptable imho.

I think morals are fairly widely accepted across the country and world. To inflict suffereing deliberately is immoral. tis is why the vast maority of the population are against it

Done in your name, up and down the country, every day, apparently this is acceptable to the vast majority - and these are the ones that [i]are[/i] getting stunned before having their throats cut!

(Note to mods - I've linked to a video of slaughter practices video'd in the UK, have not embedded the video here for obvious reasons)

Why the **** were they on the whites descent in the first place!?
Good job you didnt plow through the pack - my mate would of, he doesnt get out the way for anything 😉

[url= http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jamies-fowl-dinners/4od ]jamies fowl dinners. [/url]

just to make people think a bit.

its all about our rights, our heritage, our traditions ,our lively hoods not those pompose fat ****s that used to try to run this glorious country and nearly brought to its knees .

a majority of the population would bring back hanging

Really? they couldn't even get the 100,000 signatures on a petition required to have it debated in the house of commons.

Ban fishing. Torturing innocent fish by hooking them in the mouth and yanking them around to cause pain and suffering before leaving them to suffocate or beating them to death.

its all about our rights, our heritage, our traditions ,our lively hoods not those pompose fat **** that used to try to run this glorious country and nearly brought to its knees .

You mean?

[img] [/img]

yep fat ****

sorry

Sorry for butting in, I've only just looked a this thread.

I do note no one here has actually come up with any defense other than its traditional and we want to do it.

Do any of the anti hunting brigade drink milk?

If so, please research the life of dairy cattle and the production process that brings milk to your table, and then tell me that you don't exploit animals for your selfish pleasure.

Utter, utter hypocrites.

Morally, I despise hunting.
Logically, I can't condemn it.

all the calves with no mothers just so everybody can have there cornflakes der!!!!!!!!! BUT THATS OK

rusty - the difference is its not deliberate suffering for the sake of entertainment.

Its a huge moral difference.

Dairy farming may cause suffering but its to some extent minimised and there is a some utility in it - production of food.

Fox hunting the cruelty is deliberately maximised ( the chase is made as long as possible and earths blocked up) and there is no utility to it at all

Dairy farming may cause suffering but its to some extent minimised and there is a some utility in it - production of food.

It is well documented that raising animals for food is incredibly wasteful of resources and there is no need for it. Consider Veal, either eat it or the calves get a bolt through there brains soon after birth, As soon as the mothers start to fail, off to slaughter and become Mcdonalds burgers.

What exactly is the "utility" in the production of a food that the human body does not need?

The human body can survive perfectly well on a vegetarian or vegan diet, there is no need for us to eat meat or drink milk, the only "utility" is a social "norm"

Eating meat is just another form of entertainment, we do it because we like it, not because we need it.

complete and utter hypocrisy

just to add to a point, humans are not actually meant to drink milk into adulthood, it is a genetic mutation that has occurred in some populations.

Mrmo - that is true but is a separate issue to the cruelty argument.

Zulu - the hypocrisy is with those who try to equate farming with the deliberately cruel killing of animals for entertainment.

I see you still haven't answered TJ, what exactly [b]is[/b] your position on religious slaughter?

Been vegie for 25 years, wife and child are not. Don't preach vegetarianism , believe in my choice. But it I believe it is true that IF the world population grows as expected we can not sustain meat production as our main protein sourse. Doesn't effect you? It will do!

Mrmo - that is true but is a separate issue to the cruelty argument.

Not really, farming is a business it exists to make money, it does not exist for an animas welfare, plenty of evidence for abuse throughout the production. Hugely wasteful of resources, environmentally destructive, damaging to human health.

Issues like fox hunting allow some people to salve their consciences by appearing to do something whilst denying that they are infact guilty of tolerating far worse. Anyone who claims that the treatment of animals is not their problem is lying to themselves. If you want cheap meat, you get what you pay for, animal abuse. I have met many people who argue that fox hunting is wrong but are perfectly happy to inflict pain on fish, to gamble on the outcome of horse and dog races and who have successfully blinded themselves to their gross hypocrisy.

TandemJeremy - Member

rusty - the difference is its not deliberate suffering for the sake of entertainment.

Its a huge moral difference.

Dairy farming may cause suffering but its to some extent minimised and there is a some utility in it - production of food.

Fox hunting the cruelty is deliberately maximised ( the chase is made as long as possible and earths blocked up) and there is no utility to it at all

Pardon me TJ, but that's bollocks.

There is no need for you to drink milk.
You choose to inflict cruelty and suffering on another animal for your pleasure.
Just because it's done vicariously does not mitigate your responsibility for that animals suffering.
We have access to plenty of food without having to making animals suffer to provide it.

YOU choose to eat meat and drink milk.
YOU are responsible for the suffering and death of that animal, purely to satisfy your desires.

Don't attempt to take the moral high ground just because you're at one remove from the slaughter.

The 'utility', as you choose to call it is exactly the same - you gain satisfaction from the death of another animal.

Dress your hypocrisy up as many ways as you like - morally, you and a hunter are exactly the same.

BTW, I do eat meat and drink milk.

Rusty - If you cannot see the difference I feel sorry for you.

Its nothing to do with being one remove from slaughter - I know meat is animals and I have seen and helped turn a cow into my dinner. There is no practice in farming no matter how reprehensible some intensive farming can be that is intentional inflicting of pain and suffering. this is the crucial difference

This is why hunting with dogs is in a different category

you have become blind to the fact that the hunting with dogs is about inflicting cruelty and suffering deliberately for entertainment and has no purpose beyond that.

I say again - the hypocrites are those who equate farming with hunting with dogs and who try to confuse the issue by stating spurious comparisons

two wrongs do not make a right. Hunting is cruel, and has no utility at all.

eat the damn fox if you want to kill it!

Fair enough TJ.

Enjoy your cornflakes in the morning. 🙂

🙂

There is no practice in farming no matter how reprehensible some intensive farming can be that is intentional inflicting of pain and suffering.

Yes,
there is,
its called Kosher and Halal slaughter, and, speaking as someone who has hunted, shot, killed, experimented on and farmed animals, it is utterly, utterly reprehensible, and far, far more of an animal welfare and cruelty issue than [i]any[/i] of the other things I've ever seen in that field.

Please TJ, drop your chip on the shoulder class struggle for a minute and educate yourself:

Now you've watched it, can you [i]please[/i] tell me why you refuse to condemn this barbaric & unnecessary practice.

Hunting should be an equal opportunity sport. No distance weapons should be allowed.

There should be an equal chance the animal can inflict harm on you. The lads who hunt feral boar in Oz with a knife and a dog are a good example. A razorback can make a real mess of you (or the dog).

Just don't bother Z-11, it's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. 😀

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Yes,
there is,
its called Kosher and Halal slaughter.

That's not intentional pain and suffering- that's a process done for a different reason that involves pain and suffering.

It is, if you like, much like the difference between hunting a fox for a purpose, and hunting a fox for a laugh.

Northwind - he is trying to confuse the argument with something irrelvant.

Halal / kosher has no relevance to hunting and this

it is utterly, utterly reprehensible, and far, far more of an animal welfare and cruelty issue than any of the other things I've ever seen in that field ( hunting)

Rubbish Northwind, it is thoroughly and intentionally unnecessary cruelty, and the only justification for using this method of slaughter (without pre-stunning, which renders the animal incapable of feeling pain) is religious tradition.

TJ, if you honestly feel I'm "divorced from reality" can you please tell me how many animals you've killed, as I'd be interested to compare your and my experience in the matter.

See that word, experience, thats the thing that shows which one of us is grounded in 'reality'...

I'd lay a fiver you've not even watched the video TJ, let alone seen it in real life!

The [i]purpose[/i] is not the suffering, unlike hunting with dogs. Not a fan of halal/kosher slaughter by any means- it's very literally a throwback practice IMO- but I don't see any sensible comparison between cruelty purely for fun, and cruelty which at least has some purpose- regardless of what I think of that purpose.

Equally I can see no sense whatsoever in those who try and affiliate hunting with dogs to eating meat in general. It's just a weird nonsequitor that they think will suddenly make sense if they repeat it often enough in hysterical enough tones, IMO.

What exactly is the "purpose" of choosing halal/kosher slaughter over stunned slaughter - both carry the same result, a dead animal, one of the options causes unnecessary pain and suffering, the only justification for this from the advocates is that it is part of their religion.

how is this different from the "purpose" of choosing the hunt over the lamp, or the snare? - both carry the same result, a dead animal, but apparently to you one of the options is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering, the only justification for this from the advocates is that it is part of their tradition

whats the difference?

No - hunting with dogs is unacceptable because it is deliberalty intended to be cruel and its only purpose is entertainment from cruel killing

So, what makes religious slaughter acceptable TJ?

How is the completely unnecessary infliction of [u]more pain and suffering than absolutely necessary[/u] justified in the name of religion?

Your castigation of hunting as cruel, allied with a refusal to condemn religious slaughter, is utterly hypocritical.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
What exactly is the "purpose" of choosing halal/kosher slaughter over stunned slaughter - both carry the same result

They do not, no. (incidentally, you seem to be under the common misapprehension that stunned slaughter is haram)

Zulu-Eleven - Member

how is this different from the "purpose" of choosing the hunt over the lamp, or the snare? - both carry the same result, a dead animal, but apparently to you one of the options is unacceptable because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering

I shall explain it again, one last time. The diffence is that for one, the suffering is a side effect, whereas for the other the suffering is the reason. Hunting with dogs isn't wrong because it causes pain and suffering, but because it is done solely to cause pain and suffering.

This isn't complex or nuanced. You may believe that the difference doesn't matter- I would completely disagree of course- but you can't credibly claim there is no difference.

This isn't complex or nuanced. You may believe that the difference doesn't matter- I would completely disagree of course- but you can't credibly claim there is no difference.

There is a difference, but not enough to excuse it. Much like protectign kiddie fiddling clergy to protect your religious world - you know the side effects, whether they're your intention or not doesn't make it excusable, it just means it looks like you had a bigger picture in mind while doing it.

there is no utility to it at all

tj, we've established that there is utility - social action.

don't keep stating as fact things that have already been disproved on the thread.

unless of course you want to just keep arguing for the sake of it.

there is no utility to it at all

1. Exercise - riding a horse is quite strenuous.

2. Gets people out into the countryside and fresh air.

3. Entertainment/enjoyment.

Mmmmm....sounds like mountain biking, perhaps we should ban that as it has no utility. (IMO)

Page 5, I cant believe no one has insisted that someone "wear the fox hat".....

The ppt presentation was indeed priceless....

If you need to spill the blood of an animal to get you out in the fresh air and talking to people you got issues.

Mmmmm....sounds like mountain biking, perhaps we should ban that as it has no utility

Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn't tear animals to shreds.

trailmonkey / st george - all that could be done by a drag hunt.

Hence it is established there is no utility to killing the fox by chasing it to exhaustion then setting dogs on it

What's all this Utility nonsense?

Mcboo - you racist idiot. What a stupid thing to say and why do you invent spurious things to attribute to me?

I am not commenting on halal because it is irrelevant to the issue. Its an attempt from Zulu to divert attention. two wrongs do not make a right

Utility - some purpose / use / to it. Proponents of hunting claim its for vermin control but that myth has now been demolished. Its only purpose is entertainment / blood lust.

So how do you stand on badger baiting? Cock fighting? How about dancing bears?

Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn't tear animals to shreds.

ocrider - Member

"Utterly spurious, my mountain bike doesn't tear animals to shreds."

...says someone who has never got a squirrel try to jump through their spokes

No, my squirrel and I are just highly trained.