Laphroaig
Full Member
You called it a sport. It isn't. I appreciate honesty. Whether you think fox hunting is alright or not you should call it what it is.
You called it a sport. It isn't. I appreciate honesty. Whether you think fox hunting is alright or not you should call it what it is.
Why do you think they need controlling?Banning hunting doesn’t save any foxes, they still need controlling.
In the scheme of thing it's not that important but we have got rid of cock fighting, bear baiting and dog fights on the grounds that they're rather unedifying as a spectacle.
Indeed and if black men who commit crimes in the US must be executed I'd prefer that it wasn't by a baying lynch mob in KKK outfits.
Anyone who takes pleasure in the suffering and death of another living creature is, quite frankly, fecked up.
That shouldn't stop us from striving for betterment. And besides, there are worse things than hypocracy.Human's are hypocrites. Every single one of us.
I really don’t know why Fox hunting gets so much attention. Banning hunting doesn’t save any foxes , they still need controlling. Other methods of controlling fox population often result in more suffering to the animal. Of course the very thought of a Fox being hunted and torn to pieces is upsetting but that is exactly what Foxes do to their pray.
The main reason most people jump on the anti-Fox hunting bandwagon is because most hunters are wealthy tossers.
The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
Take it from one who knows; this is a totally wrong statement - and demonstrably so, what is more. Go and see, talk to the followers (foot, car and mounted) then come back and admit you've just fallen (like the majority of non-hunting people) for one of the most pernicious little bits of socialist propoganda yet devised.
Take it from someone that knows, my statement was accurate.
My sister used to ride in a hunt nearly every weekend. She started with her first husband, and at the time they were probably the least well off in their hunt. At the time they had a nice house with seven acres, so they were comfortably middle class.
Most of the people in her local hunt were land owners, professionals or successful people that worked in London and lived in the country on the weekends. One of the wealthiest woman in the UK (Charlotte Townshend) rode in my sisters local hunt, so its hardly the pursuit of the working man.
There are a few wannabee toffs that ride in the hunt but the majority are upper middle class or above.
How can you generalise like that? You can speak of the hunt you know or more accurately that your sister knew but you know nothing of the hunts I know about in Yorkshire or those that ThatOldRedMagic knows about.
Friends of mine follow hunts and they are anything far from posh and wealthy.
Is all hunting wrong then in your view, or just the type favoured by posh people?
Human's are hypocrites. Every single one of us.
Take it from someone that knows, my statement was accurate.
My sister used to ride in a hunt nearly every weekend. She started with her first husband, and at the time they were probably the least well off in their hunt. At the time they had a nice house with seven acres, so they were comfortably middle class.
Most of the people in her local hunt were land owners, professionals or successful people that worked in London and lived in the country on the weekends. One of the wealthiest woman in the UK (Charlotte Townshend) rode in my sisters local hunt, so its hardly the pursuit of the working man.
There are a few wannabee toffs that ride in the hunt but the majority are upper middle class or above.
Can you be more specific about your thoughts that humans are hypocrites and how it is relevant in this discussion?
Sounds about right. It has been getting fuller with wanabees since the 80's. It might be slightly less wealth related in some areas particularly those further away from London but it certainly isn't a class independent activity. Far from it. It would be like saying the NUM wasn't a working class union because Tony Benn supported them.
We go on about how the killing of foxes is disgraceful yet we'll eat bacon and fish and the like.
That's it really, I wasn't trying to really make any point.
Though Cameron and his party should really be concentrating on more pressing issues with the country rather than this fallacy.
We go on about how the killing of foxes is disgraceful yet we'll eat bacon and fish and the like.
That's it really, I wasn't trying to really make any point.
Though Cameron and his party should really be concentrating on more pressing issues with the country rather than this fallacy.
We enjoy meat but not the actual killing. Ethically a big difference.
Take it from someone that knows, my statement was accurate.
My sister used to ride in a hunt nearly every weekend. She started with her first husband, and at the time they were probably the least well off in their hunt. At the time they had a nice house with seven acres, so they were comfortably middle class.
Most of the people in her local hunt were land owners, professionals or successful people that worked in London and lived in the country on the weekends. One of the wealthiest woman in the UK (Charlotte Townshend) rode in my sisters local hunt, so its hardly the pursuit of the working man.
There are a few wannabee toffs that ride in the hunt but the majority are upper middle class or above.
Ah! So your second-hand anecdote regarding your sister in one hunt trumps my knowledge, gained first-hand, hunting with literally scores of packs of hounds all over teh Uk over a period of forty years?
I do believe that I've met your sort before, sir...
I was being facetious with my opening line.![]()
Its not second-hand knowledge actually, I have followed the hunt several times. Not just the one hunt either, they moved to another county and the turnout was not dissimilar. There are a few wannabee with less money but the sport would not operate without the wealthy.
For sport alone? Yes.
Rifles are the most effective and humane way of controlling some feral pests in some instances so I have no objection there.
We enjoy meat but not the actual killing. Ethically a big difference.
Really? I cannot imagine a less ethical way of consuming food than the industrialised slaughter of millions of conscious animal lifeforms every day, largely for the pleasure their flesh gives us.
The truth is we are all of us soaked in animal blood, and while that remains the case, stopping a few hunters ritualising their own version of the food chain is silly.
So Kangaroo hunts then? They use rifles, they chase the animals til death - in trucks! and it's done as much for sport as population control.
Easy on the generalisations.The truth is we are all of us soaked in animal blood, and while that remains the case, stopping a few hunters ritualising their own version of the food chain is silly.
I tend to agree, but I'd also call hypocrits those who care about human suffering and couldn't give a feck about non-human suffering.It's almost a scape-goat situation; 'Oh I'm not a vegetarian, but I support those groups who try to outlaw those beastly country sports'. Such hypocricy.
It's not hypocrisy if you draw a clear distinction between the moral worth of humans and other species. It may be immoral but that's a different argument.I tend to agree, but I'd also call hypocrits those who care about human suffering and couldn't give a feck about non-human suffering.
It's not hypocrisy if you draw a clear distinction between the moral worth of humans and other species. It may be immoral but that's a different argument.
The whole fox hunting ritual makes us look bad to the rest of the world, and presumably weakens our influence when criticising barbaric practices that are still tolerated in other countries.
On the other hand, fox hunting is not a political issue of major importance, and it is liable to be very controversial in rural areas and it is difficult to enforce the law. It wouldn't do for beliefs about fox hunting to become the litmus test of a politician, rather like abortion in the US.
I've never seen that done in a satisfying manner, and there's a fine line between intellectual laziness and hypocricy I feel. But I was being a tad polemic I suppose because I'm riled up by people who are more angered by inconsistent animal defenders than animal suffering, that attitude really baffles me.It's not hypocrisy if you draw a clear distinction between the moral worth of humans and other species. It may be immoral but that's a different argument.
Singer's problem is his moral philosophy. I would feel uncomfortable in the presence of any strict and consistent hedonistic utilitarian!Yes indeed. Failing to acknowledge that distinction is exactly what enables Peter Singer to make his ludicrous and repellent claim that 'the equivlent of the holocaust is taking place each day'. He refers to animals slaughtered for food.
Personally I would feel extremely creepy in the presence of such a man.