Hunting debate.....nb

Re: I think the hunting bill...

All true - buts it's also to finally get on with one of the minor reasons why a lot of us voted them in and the last lot out.

I can't be the only bored with all pro and anti arguments who just wants the whole thing finished with quickly and quietly (well, I can hope). They should have done it years ago, but funnily Mr Blair seem to think it could wait.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Dead right! And where was Blair when this was being debated? I guess he has to spend more time at home now writing Cherie's speeches!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Nickel

Please explain to me how it is a moral issue?

You may not like it, and it may not fit your moral code, but why shouldn't it fit others. Indeed I don't especially like it. But many people like this and other forms of hunting and have no moral issue with it.

If we start to apply moral judgements to animals then we must also apply it to how they behave. In which case the countless instances of theft, murder, rape, and torture that occur in the animal world must be treated and punished as moral outrages.

The desire to kill, steal, rape and torture are all part of the tools neccessary for survival and development in the animal kingdom. As much as many might not like to face it, we are animals too and many of these desires are buried within the human psyche as they were once neccessary for us too. As we have evolved and formed societies, the need for these traits has not only diminished but have become positively detrimental, and over time they evolved out of our consciousness but still lie beneath the surface. It is only natural to expect this to be nearer the surface in some than others and the activity of hunting is just one example of this being played out. Masai children are sent out to hunt lions as part of their rites of passage for the same reason.

Morality is a subjective issue and one that you can't impose upon others. To many religious people homosexuality is immoral, so should that be banned on moral grounds?

Fox hunting may be cruel, it will indeed soon be illegal, but I still maintain that it is not immoral.

Bill

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
They were of course wrong to block the road. They have a legal duty of care when driving on the road to move off road whenever possible at reasonable intervals to allow other traffic to pass. You have a legal duty of care when approaching or passing someone on horseback. Be careful if you intend to be inconsiderate to horses, we horseriders are becoming more aware of our rights and our obligations and will report anyone who does not show due care and consideration. I am sure you were only blowing off steam.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Aha you are entering the great jurisprudential/religious debate of what morality is. Well the good news is that your personal morals are yours and yours alone shaped by your background, religion, brainwashing etc.., Law on the other hand is the framework of rules that the society that you belong to imposes upon its citizens. A big question then arises as to how moral it is to break the rules?

This fundamental question may answer an earlier post about why some of us think it was wrong to invade Iraq whilst being anti cruelty to animals.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Morality is not applicable to the animal kingdom because they have not developed the philosophy to distinguish right from wrong.

We have - and it is a step of a micron's distance from there to the knowledge that being cruel to an animal for the sake of enjoyment is - wrong. If it's wrong it's immoral. If for you cruelty to animals is not wrong, then I do not share your moral code.

The hunting practices of an indigenous people are a completely different matter - for the Masai, the ability to hunt well proved two things - you could provide food, you could defend the herd. These were and are questions of survival not enjoyment.



<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
Yes - I was blowing off steam - I had a tiring day yesterday and a completely avoidable traffic jam, imposed on me and thousands of others for no reason was just about the last straw - I live in the sticks and horses on the roads around my house are a daily occurance and I am always more than considerate to horses, and really have no intention of becoming inconsiderate.
However should I find another horse box blocking the A12 tonite......... /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Zefender, this is a very limited form of democracy. We have a first past the post system that means governments can be elected with large majorities in parliament, when the majority of the electorate have in fact voted for somebody else. Parties produce manifestos which either contain few or no commitments (Labour in '97) or else a jumbled list of promises from which the elector cannot pick and choose (and most of which are not kept). Whether this commitment was in the manifesto or not is irrelevant - most people voted for Labour because the economy was doing well and the Tories were in disarray- not because of a proposal on vermin control - in any event, I believe the commitment was to give MPs a free vote, not ban it as party policy.
Besides, any majority should be very careful of enforcing its will on a minority without excellent cause - what JS Mill referred to as the "Tyranny of the majority" - Democracy is as much about protecting the rights of minorities as giving the majority their way. I don't think this vote is going to be the end of the matter - the country people you patronisingly dismiss are under significant pressure at the moment, and they ain't going to go quietly, whatever our rather distant Parliament thinks.
Your comparisons between urban hooliganism and fox-hunting are fatuous, so I shan't waste time dealing with them, but I'd be interested in hearing if your views on animal rights are consistent - do you eat animals or wear their skin?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Zefender

Again whilst I don't agree with your stance, I fully understand it, but equally understand the point of those in favour of hunting. I also don't for one minute think that you are one those that are manipulated, but I'm sure you'll agree that many are, on both sides of the fence.

The problem is that fox hunting is an easy target, as to those not involved, me included, it's looks completely pointless and cruel for no other reason than the hell of it. However those in favour feel diferently, and I feel obliged to take their view into account.

After all, if a vegan suggested that killing any animal for food or clothing was cruel and that we could survive without doing so, then what's the difference with this argument? You may well be happy with this being imposed, but many may not.

If a farmer slaughters a cow for food, then this is unnacceptable to a minority but ok for most. However, if he expressed that he enjoyed killing the cow, then I suspect the balance may change.

To me this still has little to do with cruelty, but more to do with other peoples pleasures and the desire by some to impose what they think should be enjoyed or not enjoyed onto others.

As I said before, I believe that a large part of hunting and other sports that may be cruel to animals come from our inner animal instincts that are essentially selfish and aggressive. If they are stifled in one area, they will be channelled into another. Personaly, I would rather see these played out against a fox than another person.

As society continues in it's march to remove all forms of our animal descendancy and strives to remove danger, aggression and individuality from our lives, then it will have nowhere to go but against each other, and in towns this is glaringly obvious.

I for one would rather live in a rural community where people look out for each other and rip the odd fox to shreds than a town where a fox is revered and people's main fear is other people.

Bill



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
At least we know our MPs are all largely safe from any attack on the Houses of Parliament, they never go!

<hr width=100% size=1>...If you can find the simple solution to a complex problem, you've got it wrong!.........
 
Re: Democratic process

Jimi

I would interested to know your reasons as to why it's ok to let an Iraqi leader torture and kill his own people but not let someone kill a fox.

Bill

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Newb,

Thanks for phrasing that like that. It's what I would like to say to zef but can't get it right.

Zefender, do you eat animals? Wear there skin? Swat flies? use ant killer? etc

Come on, less than 2000 years ago our very survival depended on the hunt. It takes 20000 years of natural evolution to change our skin colour from black to white. A minor climate related evolutionary change. How long will such natural urges as hunting take to pass into oblivion?

<hr width=100% size=1>Pretend this is a link to a website.
 
Re: Democratic process

Ok then. I considered Sadam's behaviour morally abhorrent. However under international law it is illegal to interfere in a country's internal affairs. The world has a means of imposing order by generating consensus where required. This body is known as the UN. The USA and UK totally disregarded the rule of law here and thus have acted illegally. The consequences we are seeing today. The world is more dangerous as a consequence of the Iraq invasion and I doubt if Iraq will end up a safer and bettter place for Iraquis in the long run. My opinion was and is, it was an opportunistic attempt by Bush to oil grab supported by his lap dog Blair. If the issue was freeing people from repression and tyranny .. of all the states why was only Iraq selected .. whilst the Govt failed even to forbid our cricket team from going to Zimbabwe? Had the invasion been sanctioned by the UN (utilising proper rather than fabricated intelligece!) I would have supported it.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s bright then,

so facts related to Hitler are moot even if relevant.

Anybody else on the moot list?

Is it the name Hitler that results in this outcome or his actions or what?

How can you rule who wins or looses a debate based on the words they use rather than the effectiveness of their argument or accuracy of their facts?

How do you win a debate on a BB. I've never seen that done yet.

Sounds like rubbish to me.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Oh dear, what a sorry state of affairs this is.

We have a lack of policing in this country.
We have public services that are in a dreadful state.
We have an education system which has totally gone to the dogs(foxes if you like).
We have a government which doesn't give a fox's ass about anyone.
We have a government which has led us to war of one description or another, how many times in how many years?
We have a government whose spin on everything has become legendary.
We have a government that has taken us into this latest war illegally and may yet bring the embarressment of impeachment upon parliament.
We have illegal immigrants swamping our country and our benefits system.
We have pikeys defiling whatever they want, whenever they want.
We have people driving around killing people with cars who have no road tax or insurance.
The list is endless.
However what gets done about all of this..............................NOTHING.

These are the day to day real issues with what we should be concerned.

Instead we have people from various walks of life, who are in the main NOT affected by hunting, determined to stamp out the activities of the small goup who take part in this activity. WHY.

Sure this was on Labours manifesto but it was a minority issue. What happened to all the other issues?? Consigned to the bin.
This shows a total load of disregard for the society of this country.

Eloquent points are being put forward in support of this issue by jimi, zefender and others, even I don't particularly like foxhunting with hounds, but for god's sake this government doesn't give a toss about the poor fox. This is not about the fox in any way. If it was, it would be put through parliament and implemented asap. Instead of this, we are to have an 18 month delay of implementation. This is to allow this government to carry out it's task of banning this pastime after a general election, so that the pictures of people being forced out of their way of life etc can be carried out in the security that they will have another 5 years in power. If they lose, then it's someone else's problem.
This government are so desperate to win this issue, they are threatening to use the parliament act, in itself a total abuse of why the act was created.
What they have done here is to pamper to peoples passions about this issue and tried to divide this country in their favour.
It's always the same story in this country, show homeless starving people, for instance and we turn the other cheek, often as not.
Show us a puppy and the majority will get the hankies out and demand we take action.
One thing you can certainly say about this Labour government, they certainly know how to bring the worst out in people, and they have definately succeeded whith this one.

Now expecting to get totally flamed..............................................


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
No flaming but..... perhaps another point of view.....

If your government can't take a stand on a simple issue such as an barbaric sport....

How the heck do you think they might even tackle down true complicated issues such as discribed by yourselve (and others) ie pensions, education, wellfare etc.

But don't get too depressed, it's nearly as bad in Holland too (and perhaps even worse in Germany and France...).

Rene.

Ps could somebody put up a simple summarisation of the pros and cons of fox hunting?

<hr width=100% size=1>Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get
 
Re: Democratic process

Thanks Jimi for your open and honest answer, which is hard to fault. I was in favour of going to war and even in favour of doing it to protect oil interests, but can see your side of things.

However, the legal argument is one used by many with your opinion, and whilst I'm sure you're not one, these same people who use the law as justification seem to forget that until now fox hunting IS legal.

Despite this they are happy to condone illegal hunt sabateurs. Happy to support and take illegal action against those who take part in legal animal experiments. And are happy to see and support illegal terrorist actions against countries whose views they oppose.

They were also willing to support illegal secondary picketing against companies operating within the law and supported illegal opposition to the poll tax.

My point is, that on these and many similar issues, it is the same usual suspects that divide the argument into right and left and say follow me or be damned. It is no coincidence that many of these people share a whole collection of disparate views that are completely unrelated. It is because they take a side and follow the doctrine rather than make the effort to decide for themselves on each one.

If I'm wrong, why do you not see many vegans that are racists? Racists that support homosexual rights? Support animal rights and support the war in Iraq? Support lesbian rights and support western capitalist expansion?

It's perfectly acceptable to look into each issue individually and have a mixture of viewpoints, but people generally don't. The fact is that most people are lazy, stupid and desperate to belong. As such they buy the whole package. If their peer group with whom they share a similar view on animal welfare suddenly decides that owning a big car and house is greedy and selfish then they'll go along with it too, far more easily than if the idea came out of the blue. And it is this principle that is dangerous and will ultimately affect us all for the worse as each of our pleasures and freedoms gradually get eroded.

If we had a great society, with no crime, no hospital waiting lists, no homeless, and a fantastic education, then I can understand politicians in a bored moment thinking "what shall we do now" and someone saying "what about that fox hunting business?"

But to put it at the top of the political agenda is mindlessly allowing our government to be manipulated by a selfish few who have exploited the heartfelt views of some very caring people for their own political ends.

Bill

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Democratic process

Can't really agree with your analyses. And yes I do eat animals and wear shoes. But I try to avoid eating and wearing animal products that have been chased and torn apart by dogs, led by people who take pleasure out of it and defend it as culturally defensible or a necessary form of pest control.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top