The whole argument of if you eat meat or wear leather then your being a hypocrite to hunting if your against it is just laughable.
In todays society, nobody needs to kill their own food. They do the killing for their own enjoyment .. simple as that.
Usually the people who are hunting the foxes live in places far away from the places they hunt them .. so their argument of they are only controlling them kinda seems weak. How are the foxes affecting them?
Fox hunting with dogs to me seems little more than dog fighting. Yes, hunt for food no problem with that. but I've not seen many farms offering fox burgers yet. As for controlling numbers agrument, pro hunters oftern say that it's the most economical way to control numbers, yet they also say it's not often they catch one. They can't have it both ways. Anyway it's not like we're falling over them is it? I've live in a very rural part of north wales and I hardly see them. Now badgers that's a different story. I see loads of these! I don't see it's anything to do with class either. Most of the peolpe I know who hunt are working class lads.
Also read an interesting artical saying that during the F&M outbreak, when there was no hunting, fox numbers actually decreased. If fox numbers need controlling, I'm sure that either natural selection or the car is enough to control em.
Toys - that is just so much bullshine. I have my reasons based upon sound morals - you clearly have non if you think chasing a terrified animal to its death with no utility behind it is acceptable.
Is cruel and barbaric and as you admit its about the pleasure in killing.
TJ you haven't proved that your morals have any validity, you do not have a good reason to eat meat. Come on cite one, and then you might have an argument. You only eat meat because you like it. Therefore you are complicit in the killing of animals for pleasure, any reason or re-mentioning of the utility word doesn't prove a thing, you are the bullshiner. In fact if you want to use the "utility" word again, can you not see the utility in pleasure?
Its not an admission of pleasure, its a fact. I'm not trying to hide anything.
On that 'Cycling the Americas' programme, Marc Beaumont said he had to eat some meat in order to gain the energy he needed for his endeavours. In colder parts of the World, meat contains far more of the essential nutrients a person needs for survival. Inuit people have a diet that is mostly meat/fish, as there's bugger all else there.
Humans have eaten meat for more or less their entire existence. Out teeth have evolved to chew meat. Our digestive systems are closer to meat eaters than herbivores. We are naturally omniverous. There has never been any conclusive scientific evidence to suggest we would be better off not eating meat at all. Granted, we could 'survive', but it would be a struggle to replace the vital amino acids, vitamins etc found in meat. We would need to be far more agricultural in our habits, and far more land would have to be cultivated for the production of other foodstuffs.
I'm going to have some chicken tonight. I would like to think it was raised and killed humanely. I accept this is perhaps is a tad idealistic.
As for
. I challenge you to follow animals from farm through to slaughter and then try and convince anyone that they are not terrified or exhausted, and all for your so called "utility" of eating them. There is a vast array of food out there to meet your dietary needs that do not have anything to do with the raising and killing of animals. I challenge you to prove to me that without meat you would suffer any nutritional loss, I do not even expect you to get ill or die without it, just to suffer slightly? You won't suffer and do not need meat, and cannot prove otherwise. Utility? Pah. you do it for fun, accept it and then you will not be able to continue this pointless justification of the persecution of those who do admit it.chasing a terrified animal to its death with no utility
This is why I admire vegans, they stand behind their principles, and go against the norm.
Couldn't we just save the fox, and have different hunt groups put about 10 miles apart and then have them charge in and let both packs of hounds tear each over apart. Obviously you wouldn't be able do it quite as often which would please some people living in the areas effected by the hunt, and more jobs would most likely be required in training up a new fighting dog pack. For hunters though the pay off for less hunts would be the huge spectacle and there would be a chance of loseing adding to the excitement.
said he had to eat some meat in order to gain the energy he needed for his endeavours.
Ok not exactly scientific but lets assume its true.
a) is his ride a necessity? Does it serve a utility purpose? (Which needs to be higher than the utility of pleasure, because TJ doesnt think that's good enough, it must be necessary to prevent the suffering of animals or as necessary as food) No.
b)it is probably a more convenient package for the energy and protein he needs, but I'll bet a decent nutritionist could have filled him up .He might just be a meat lover and not facing up to the truth that he just loves the stuff.
Anyway I'm not advocating veganism, I love meat. Ergo I love killing things.
The fact is anyone who enjoys killing surely enjoys the eating, it makes it all the sweeter.
Is that a quote from Jeffrey Dammer?
Toys - what you miss is the essential element of cruelty - non of the other things you mention are deliberately cruel. Fox hunting is deliberatly cruel. All of the other things have some utility - IE there is some other end product than just pleasure.
If your moral compass is so lacking that you cannot see the clear moral difference then I remain sorry for you.
I'm sorry, you are just ignoring the point, where have you shown that it is necessary for you to eat meat? Until you prove that eating meat is necessary and not only done for pleasure, by your own definition its deliberately cruel, I think your compass is failing you. My moral compass is sound, I am capable of discerning what the real reason for all of this is, you are still in denial of your own carnivorous desires, you need to learn more about yourself.
Anyway to refute what you say: Hunting has many other end products other than the act of killing a fox, all the people it employs, the sense of community cohesion, and the pleasure the activity brings, not just the killing but the riding, interaction with the dogs, the money that is spent, there is plenty of your "utility" present. You will just have to try harder, currently you are just repeating yourself.
Once again I challenge you to prove it, come on where is there any evidence that you need to eat meat. I want to see it. Your whole utility argument is based on this assumption but you haven't provided any grounds for it.
There are countless vegetarians who are incredibly healthy, long lived and athletic, I cannot remember ever hearing that someone has died of vegetarianism.
Ps don't feel sorry for me, I don't need or want your pity.
Ok not exactly scientific but lets assume its true.
Erm, I would have thought Mr Beaumont's eating habits may have been just a tad more 'scientifically' thought out than most of us, tbh. This man does know what he's doing. I doubt he could have taken on the 6000 calories required, daily, without eating meat, or copious amounts of vegetables, which a) would have been much more difficult to get hold of readily along his journey, and b) may have caused digestive issues that may have been detrimental to his efforts. Simple fact is, eating meat gave him the necessary nutrients needed for his immense physical activities. I think he was doing 200 miles a day or something crazy.
but I'll bet a decent nutritionist could have filled him up
From what was [i]readily available[/i] along his route? I seriously doubt it. He actually did say that he doesn't eat much meat normally, so I'm sure he thought his diet out very carefully, and decided that meat was in fact necessary. As for wether or not his journey was 'necessary', that's irrelevant really.
Humans have evolved as Omnivores for a reason. Not simply because they like meat. The amounts of meat eaten vary from geographic region to region. Many people in India do not eat meat, for religious reasons, and probably because a vegetarian option is perhaps more healthy due to storage problems in a hot climate, etc. This isn't the case for most regions on Earth however. In fact, I'd say Vegetarianism is more of a lifestyle choice than Omnivorism, globally. It definitely is in the West, where we enjoy a great deal of choice.
ok, decided not to pursue the topic - I'll limit myself to bike related threads only.
Is that a quote from Jeffrey Dammer?
Woody I think you were having a joke, but in case you are not then I'm not sure what you are trying to say, are you saying that meat eaters are really murders of human beings ala Jeffery Dahmer? Because he liked to kill things? Therefore anyone who likes to kills things must be a murderer? This is a common logical fallacy called the fallacy of guilt by association eg:
Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.
or
All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
That's anti-Semiotic.
Talkemada.
I cannot say I really disagree with your points about Mark Beaumont, if it wasn't convenient on his route then I can see how meat would be better. My point about unscientific is that he is not a representative of the norm of what our diet should be.
As for wether or not his journey was 'necessary', that's irrelevant really.
Not according to TJ, killing things has to have a utility, that's why I made the point about necessity.
Talkemada - MemberThat's anti-Semiotic.
Indeed. 😆
Woody I think you were having a joke
No shit Einstein....................so in effect, the entire remainder of your post was a waste of time as well as being schoolboytastic 'logic' 😆
yeah well once you start you cannot stop...
Anyway schoolboytastic logic was lifted straight from [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy ]wikipedia[/url]
toys19 - MemberMy moral compass is sound
Clearly not if you think killing an animal by a method that is deliberately cruel for entertainment of the bloodthirsty is acceptable
The rest of your argument is equally facile.
TandemJeremy - Membertoys19 - Member
My moral compass is sound
Clearly not if you think killing an animal by a method that is deliberately cruel for entertainment of the bloodthirsty is acceptable
The rest of your argument is equally facile.
and yours is bang on if you think the end of an animals life in a slaughter house just for your pleasure is acceptable?
Yes my argument is simple, its easy to understand, thanks.
TJ you should be in politics, your ignoring of the real point here is very telling.
.....and here was me assuming you'd actually put some thought into it 🙄Anyway schoolboytastic logic was lifted straight from wikipedia
Well I knew where to look..
We could chat about bullfighting ?
Why, do you like bull fighting?
Only when the matador loses.
I don't hunt, never have done, and never will do, but I'd be happy to see this stupid, irritating piece of legislation repealed. [fwiw, that does not mean I will be voting Tory!]
Badly thought out, almost impossible to enforce without a colossal waste of valuable Police resources, and driven almost entirely by urban working class prejudice rather than a great desire for animal welfare. Just think how much time in Parliament could have been better used without it - they banned fox hunting before they legalised LED lights on bikes FFS!
And as for other means of control, as I recall, a wildlife trust in Essex banned fox hunting on it's land, and then discovered the darling creatures were decimating some of their rarer species they were trying to protect. After paying a pair of marksmen for a month to deal with the problem, not a single fox was successfully killed. It did actually serve a practical purpose in the countryside.
Maybe the urban majority will change their minds when the cute little foxes get into the rabbit run in the garden.....
Have you heard the joke about la bulla?
I'm going to have some chicken tonight. I would like to think it was raised and killed humanely. I accept this is perhaps is a tad idealistic.
Idealistic? Unrealistic more like. If you don't know it's origin and welfare conditions as I assume you don't from that comment, then its life was almost certainly an example of far worse animal cruelty than foxhunting.
Go on. I could do with some amusement today.
Cannot be arsed to type it so I found this on google:
A guy on holiday in Spain, feels somewhat hungry, so goes into the village restaurant. Gets the menu and after some careful study, orders the paella. Quite tasty it was too, but there was an absolutely delicious smell coming from the next table, where one of the locals, Carlos, was eating.
He calls over the waiter, and in his best holiday Spanish asks: "Tell me, what is that dish there, the one that smells so fantastic."
The Waiter replies: Ah yes, that is made from certain rather delicate areas of prime freshly killed bull. It is then marinated in our secret sauce mix, and garnished with fresh herbs, and just a touch of garlic, with our special red wine dribbling.
"Sounds superb, may I have some please.?"
"For you sir, as a special favour. But we have none left today. Come back tomorrow, an hour or so after the bullfight finishes"
The guy arrives on cue, his meal is ready, piping hot and tastes out of this world.
He calls the waiter over again, tips him hugely, sends his compliments to the chef, but asks. "But tell me, why was my portion so much smaller than the one Carlos had yesterday?"
.
.
.
.
" Ah well sir, sometimes the bull wins"
Ah. That one !
If you don't know it's origin and welfare conditions as I assume you don't from that comment, then its life was almost certainly an example of far worse animal cruelty than foxhunting.
I doubt it. I doubt very much that the chicken, notably not that intelligent an animal, was hunted down for ages, to the point of physical exhaustion, then ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. It might not have had a great life, but it's a chicken.
Fox hunting's all about 'lok at me, I'm a hunter, what a big brave soul I am'. It's not even about the 'hunting'.
Forget the countryside lot anyway. Polluting all the rivers and streams, poisoning animals, destroying wild habitats, so's they can grow environmentally destructive biofuels and get massive government subsidies to buy new 4x4s with. 😉
I love the irony, of when they want to complain about something, they have to come into the big bad city to do so, because no-one will take any notice of them anywhere else! 😆
(Country folk are ok. Good and bad in all. No need for fox hunting though, let's be honest)
Talkemada have a look here [url= http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html ]chickens[/url]
"Farmers" Guardians of our countryside? Discuss......
I doubt it. I doubt very much that the chicken, notably not that intelligent an animal, was hunted down for ages, to the point of physical exhaustion, then ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. It might not have had a great life, but it's a chicken.
So because it's less intelligent than a fox it's OK to be cruel to a chicken? If you think the only form of cruelty is hunting (which is by the way much the same as lots of stuff that happens in the wild - life is tough out there for a wild animal) then you truly are ignorant. But then that was quite clear before anyway.
At least the fox gets a life.
I have no doubt chickens are treated appallingly, and kept in horrible conditions for their short and unhappy lives. But there is a need for food. Where, exactly, do you propose to grow all these vegetables to replace the meat we eat? What about the need for pesticides, fertilisers, preservatives etc?
See, it's easy to get all sympathetic with a chicken, pig, cow, goat, sheep or prawn, but the reality is, people need feeding. Meat provides a perfectly packaged source of proteins, vitamins and nutrients that are essential to survival. Economics dictate that if you were to take meat out of the global food production equation, then food would suddenly become a lot more expensive. One cow is probably far better value for money, than hundreds of square meters of farmland. Land is a precious resource.
We need to treat animals better, that's a given.
But then, we might want to think about treating each other a bit better too.
[img] 
[/img]
then you truly are ignorant. But then that was quite clear before anyway.
I'm sure it was.
I don't think I've actually advocated cruelty to any animals, and have to say, being as stupid and ignorant as I am, I'm having trouble with the concept that cruelty to foxes is ok because chickens are kept in bad conditions? Like, two wrongs make a right?
As I've said; there is no point to fox hunting other than to serve the egos of inadequate individuals. End of.
Chicken cruelty is a whole different kettle of fish.
you truly are ignorant.
There's no need to prove my point for me. You should check up how much meat costs to produce compared to other forms of food (in money, land use and resources).
I'm having trouble with the concept that cruelty to foxes is ok because chickens are kept in bad conditions? Like, two wrongs make a right?
But is cruelty to chickens OK because foxes are hunted? Do two wrongs make a right? Or would cruelty to chickens be OK even if they didn't hunt foxes because you like the taste? You know you do have a choice - you don't have to eat chicken (or if you do, it is possible to buy some which has led a proper life, though doubtless that wouldn't suit your finances).
Chicken cruelty is a whole different kettle of fish.
But one you're quite happy to be a part of because it doesn't cause you problems with your class prejudices.
Fish don't feel pain the way mammals do. Besides, many people eat the fish, rabbits etc that they kill, thus justifying their actions.
You're wrong about the pain thing, but I think that's already been covered. The question is why eating what you kill for sport is better justification than pest control.
Of course many (most?) people who catch fish don't eat what they catch - including for instance the wonderful Mike Foster MP, who is one of the original advocates and staunchest supporters of the anti-foxhunting bill.
I've had this discussion a good half dozen times on this site - and it never goes anywhere useful!
I'll simply make one comment - how many of you talking about hunting have ever:
i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox?
However, despite that of course I'm happy to accept that you all know all there is to know about Charlie and his friends. and how to kill them!
i) Farmed? Yep
ii) Hunted? Yep
iii) Shot anything? Yep
iv) Actually seen a fox? Yep
Your point is?
how many of you talking about hunting have ever:i) Farmed?
ii) Hunted?
iii) Shot anything?
iv) Actually seen a fox?
i) Never, though I've lived most of my life where I can see farmers fields from my bedroom windows and have known some farmers reasonably well.
ii) Never - if we're talking foxhunting type stuff then I don't think I've even ever known anybody who has.
iii) I presume a clay pigeon or a target doesn't count? Again I've known people who have.
iv) Often, though ironically probably not as often as some townies do!
Disappointed though that you missed off some things I have done first hand:
v) Catch a fish, gut it, cook it and eat it.
vi) Skin and prepare a rabbit (shot by somebody else).
Then again I don't suppose you were aiming at me!
Your point is?
I don't think he was aiming at you either.
Get it right please. He said he would allow a free vote on it. Not the same at all. If there is a Conservative majority in the next parliament and a free vote on hunting you might find a lot of the new Tory MPs in marginal seats either voting to retain the ban or abstaining so as to not upset their voters.
Do us all a favour. 🙄
All he is trying to do with a free vote is just wash his hands in the wider public perception of this, I don't believe they are that stupid. If he really was tuned in to what the public thinks he wouldn't be offering a vote of any kind in the first place.
