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.
David Cameron 'to vote against fox hunting ban'
- Thread starter rednev
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It has many if not all the characteristics of a sport. But what it is called is the least important thing about it.
And I don't think it is "all right", only that it's really none of my business how a bunch of tossers choose to go about the dirty business of culling foxes.
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 main reason most people jump on the anti-Fox hunting bandwagon is because most hunters are wealthy tossers.
Why do you think they need controlling?
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.
Is all hunting wrong then in your view, or just the type favoured by posh people?
Posh people? I have mates who hunt that would crease up laughing at the thought they were posh.
The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
Ah, the old "but foxes need to be controlled" chestnut. Yes - they do.
What they don't need is to be chased terrified through the woods for three hours before finally succumbing to exhaustion and being torn limb from limb by a baying pack of hounds. Anyone who takes pleasure in the suffering and death of another living creature is, quite frankly, fecked up.
What they don't need is to be chased terrified through the woods for three hours before finally succumbing to exhaustion and being torn limb from limb by a baying pack of hounds. Anyone who takes pleasure in the suffering and death of another living creature is, quite frankly, fecked up.
I take great pleasure in the death of another living creature each time I eat a steak. Is that fecked up?
Human's are hypocrites. Every single one of us.
That shouldn't stop us from striving for betterment. And besides, there are worse things than hypocracy.
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.
We may be in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars.
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.
Maybe its a generalization but its pretty hard to participate in a hunt without a horse or two (or more) plus the land and equipment needed to own horses. There are a few followers and chasers in cars etc, done that myself, but the majority of the hardcore hunting fraternity are fairly 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.
Fox Hunting is a particularly nauseating form of hunting though even before you get into the ritualised class rubbish aspect of it.
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.
My Sister lived in Dorset, so its a long way from London. Most of the wealthy people involved were scruffy cnuts in beat up Land Rovers. Her second hubby is the perfect example. A farmer with 600k in the bank and the family had a few million quid worth of land. Looking at them you would think they were Steptoe & Son's long lost relatives.
We enjoy meat but not the actual killing. Ethically a big difference.
OK, I see now. Thanks.
Just to point out that I, for one, am not hypocritical about this issue even though I may be about myriad other things in my life. Your point still stands generally though.
Cameron needs the votes of "rural" tories who might be voting UKIP or not at all, he is a slimy but pragmatic man.
If only there was perhaps a 'Chase It Until Its Heart Explodes or It's Ripped Apart By Hounds, Cook It, Eat It' series on BBC3 to address this...
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.
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.
I'll certainly admit there are many wealthy and traditional aristocratic types who hunt. But the great majority, over the country, are ordinary people doing ordinary jobs. There is, in Wales, a pack called The Banwen Miner's Hunt. Not too many toffs and middle class types out following them, I can assure you!
It's the same with the foot packs in the Lake District and in wilder parts of Wales. Shepherds, keepers, schoolteachers, lorry drivers; i've met them all, and many more who ride, sometimes with quite fashionable packs.
I used to hunt regularly with the Grafton - a 'sub-shire' pack in Northants, very smart, but there was a no-nonsense feel about it, and all were welcome.
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.
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.
Well said. The irony with these heart-on-sleeve would-be champions of wildlife is that traditional field sports, underpinned by the twin rationales of food procurement and pest control, offer a far better life overall to the creatures which they are concerned with than does the industrialisation of slaughter which you rightly point out puts food on fifty million British tables each day.
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.
in fairness that does sound like a lot more fun than horse riding...
not that id particularrly want to do either... but if i had to do one then sign me up for the 4X4 shooting experience... presumably its mostly off road so can you have booze and use machine guns??? if you can then sign me up for 2 weeks in the summer... roo steaks for dinner
Easy on the generalisations.
If you "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", then I take it you don't eat it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only three heads of Governments in the world have ever banned hunting. They are:
1. Adolf Hitler
2. Saddam Hussein
3. The Rt Hon Mr Anthony Blair MP
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.
Singer's problem is his moral philosophy. I would feel uncomfortable in the presence of any strict and consistent hedonistic utilitarian!