Ban Fox Hunting Forever

[CHAPPERS]

I'm a bit of a hypocrite in the way that I will eat pretty much anything without really thinking about the way it has been killed although not veal (I protested at Shoreham a few times). I also try to eat as much free range food as possible but you can't always tell how animals have been treated by the people that bred them.

What I do know is that they haven't been chased down by a bunch of out of touch, democracy ignoring toffs and their hounds (which they breed for the sole purpose of sport and kill them if they aren't up to the job anymore) before being ripped apart by the hounds while still alive.

 

[caz99]

phew thank god for that i was on my own for a bit fighting off this lot

 

[lost in london]

Reading the above the difference would seem to be on the intention of the human, rather than on the suffering of the animal then. Is that what you are all saying? ie it's OK for hens to live in a shed and produce eggs, because the farmer that does it does not get a kick out of it.

Please don't view me as some kind of nutter, I'm actually quite nice, just would like to have your (anti-hunt) points of view as to be honest I don't really understand it.

 

[caz99]

no you obviously haven't read the above have you we have already discussed this. and i have admiited to being a hypocrite as i eat chicken

keep up or jog on

 

[CHAPPERS]

My anti hunt point of view.

I don't agree with putting animals through any type of pain for sport.

Bullfighting, cock fighting and fox hunting are all the same in my view. Fishing is a dodgy one, I am not informed enough to talk about that.

Whatever anybody says, fox hunting is NOT the most effective way of culling foxes.




I eat free range eggs.

 

[Meade's Ball]

In light of recent scientific evidence which suggests that fish do in fact suffer when they are caught, I don't think slapping a ban on fishing is a different argument...

Maybe you're right. This, however, is just a first step by banning hunting with dogs. It's a stand against barbarism. But also a convenient way to meet one election promise and keep a few backbenchers happy.

 

[caz99]

why don't we twist this around and ask these people to justify why there shouldn't be a ban on hunting?

we are continously slagged off for our hypocritical views?

 

[Set of Tracksuits]

What I do know is that they haven't been chased down by a bunch of out of touch, democracy ignoring toffs and their hounds (which they breed for the sole purpose of sport and kill them if they aren't up to the job anymore) before being ripped apart by the hounds while still alive.

Would you say you were "in touch" with rural issues then Chappers? Would it make a difference to you if they weren't toffs but just normal people? Would the democracy that we know and cherish today be the same if it weren't for direct action in the past?

 

[caz99]

Would you say you were "in touch" with rural issues then Chappers? Would it make a difference to you if they weren't toffs but just normal people? Would the democracy that we know and cherish today be the same if it weren't for direct action in the past?

yes it would make a difference if it were normal people just more annoying that its tory loving toffs who are throwing their toys out of the pram cos they cannot now control the government.

anyhow i noticed no one has stepped up for my question

 

[Dr Schnell]

That's an argument i used to give to friends when i was a little more militant.
Nowadays, i wear the badge of the hypocrite too. But i challenge anyone to point out a single non-contradictory human. We pick and choose our values, just like the religious recite certain psalms or prayers that reinforce their priorities.
So, perhaps you're looking for logic in the wrong place. I don't know.

To be honest Meade's Ball I'm simply just trying to illustrate that some of the arguments people have used above are not as black and white as they may think - as you explain above we pick and choose values and some of the issues especially re animal rights are extremely complex.

To respond to Ben Andrews Girlfriend, there is a difference between killing for food and killing for sport but I think the difference is more subtle and blurred than you suggest. I eat meat because I enjoy it not because it is a necessity. I could easily avoid eating meat and become vegetarian. People who hunt presumably hunt because they enjoy it too. The more subtle difference as Easy 10 points out is supposedly in the way a fox is killed and the way the chicken I am hoping to eat tonight is killed. Unfortunately, I know that the conditions that the animals we eat are kept in and the methods used for their transport and slaughter are in far too many cases also depressingly cruel which makes the difference once again rather blurred...

 

[CHAPPERS]

Would you say you were "in touch" with rural issues then Chappers? Would it make a difference to you if they weren't toffs but just normal people?

You're right, I'm not but they generally are 'toffs' because they can afford to keep horses and breed hounds.


The fact is that Fox hunting is a blood sport and I don't agree with blood sports.

 

[Rougvie]

Where have all the hunt sabotuers disapeared to these days ??

They used to love a BIG OFF with those pathetic animal murderers in redcoats.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Would you say you were "in touch" with rural issues then Chappers? Would it make a difference to you if they weren't toffs but just normal people? Would the democracy that we know and cherish today be the same if it weren't for direct action in the past?

I'm with you to an extent here. I don't mind them taking action, even if i find them abhorent and the enemy of a lot of what i believe in. But i'll merrily take direct action against them too.

 

[Birdy]

I wonder how many of these protesters were willing to stand up & support the miners when their jobs were under threat?

Interesting too, that they all managed to get the day "off work" today.....

NB: I am a veggie, anti-Thatcher & therefore not, in this case, a hypocrite....

 

[Easy 10]

ANY form of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrant, and I don't doubt that the conditions some poor animals are kept in before their slaughter are abysmal, and that they too suffer before they die. HOWEVER. The animals which suffer with poor living conditions generally do so because of a reason. Quite simply, its cheaper, easier and more economical to keep a large number of animals in a confined space. Its easier NOT to look after them properly before they are slaughtered. No-one is submitting them to those conditions for their own personal pleasure, thats just sometimes "the way it is". Now that absolutely doesn't make it right, or in any way justifiable, but that is (sometimes) the economic reality, and for these reasons I can fully understand why some people choose to be vegetarian. Farmers and retailers who do not look after animals bred for consumption should be heavily punished.

Animals suffering before becoming our food IS different to animals suffering for our pleasure though. Deliberately and maliciously inflicting a horrifying death on a living creature for fun, or for "sport", is just not acceptable.

What it boils down to is intent. In general, food producers do not INTEND to hurt or cause suffering to the animals they are breeding. They are not in it for the bloodlust and pleasure of seeing animals die. But the pro-hunt lobby are into exactly that. The thrill of seeing a creature torn to shreds is what turns them on, that is their intent when they go hunting. And thats just wrong, plain and simple.

 

[caz99]

ANY form of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrant, and I don't doubt that the conditions some poor animals are kept in before their slaughter are abysmal, and that they too suffer before they die. HOWEVER. The animals which suffer with poor living conditions generally do so because of a reason. Quite simply, its cheaper, easier and more economical to keep a large number of animals in a confined space. Its easier NOT to look after them properly before they are slaughtered. No-one is submitting them to those conditions for their own personal pleasure, thats just sometimes "the way it is". Now that absolutely doesn't make it right, or in any way justifiable, but that is (sometimes) the economic reality, and for these reasons I can fully understand why some people choose to be vegetarian. Farmers and retailers who do not look after animals bred for consumption should be heavily punished.

Animals suffering before becoming our food IS different to animals suffering for our pleasure though. Deliberately and maliciously inflicting a horrifying death on a living creature for fun, or for "sport", is just not acceptable.

What it boils down to is intent. In general, food producers do not INTEND to hurt or cause suffering to the animals they are breeding. They are not in it for the bloodlust and pleasure of seeing animals die. But the pro-hunt lobby are into exactly that. The thrill of seeing a creature torn to shreds is what turns them on, that is their intent when they go hunting. And thats just wrong, plain and simple.

easy words escape me

 

[Easy 10]

Cheers caz. Just agreeing with you really.

 

[Dr Schnell]

ANY form of animal cruelty is absolutely abhorrant, and I don't doubt that the conditions some poor animals are kept in before their slaughter are abysmal, and that they too suffer before they die. HOWEVER. The animals which suffer with poor living conditions generally do so because of a reason. Quite simply, its cheaper, easier and more economical to keep a large number of animals in a confined space. Its easier NOT to look after them properly before they are slaughtered. No-one is submitting them to those conditions for their own personal pleasure, thats just sometimes "the way it is". Now that absolutely doesn't make it right, or in any way justifiable, but that is (sometimes) the economic reality, and for these reasons I can fully understand why some people choose to be vegetarian. Farmers and retailers who do not look after animals bred for consumption should be heavily punished.

Animals suffering before becoming our food IS different to animals suffering for our pleasure though. Deliberately and maliciously inflicting a horrifying death on a living creature for fun, or for "sport", is just not acceptable.

What it boils down to is intent. In general, food producers do not INTEND to hurt or cause suffering to the animals they are breeding. They are not in it for the bloodlust and pleasure of seeing animals die. But the pro-hunt lobby are into exactly that. The thrill of seeing a creature torn to shreds is what turns them on, that is their intent when they go hunting. And thats just wrong, plain and simple.

Sorry Easy 10 but I see it slightly differently. Animals suffering before becoming our food equates to animals suffering for our pleasure - ultimately we eat animals for pleasure and know that they have to undergo some degree of suffering (sometimes minimal and sometimes extensive) to satisfy our tastebuds. We are therefore being complicitous in their suffering

 

[caz99]

Cheers caz. Just agreeing with you really.

yes but you put it a better way i was just getting no where

 

[caz99]

Sorry Easy 10 but I see it slightly differently. Animals suffering before becoming our food equates to animals suffering for our pleasure - ultimately we eat animals for pleasure and know that they have to undergo some degree of suffering (sometimes minimal and sometimes extensive) to satisfy our tastebuds. We are therefore being complicitous in their suffering [/QUOT
E]

where do you see eating animals for pleasure? there are good arguements for and against eating meat.

that is another debate surely