Hunting debate.....nb

The 2 people who impressed me most during yesterday's debate were Kate Hoey(Lab) who was against this bill and (I apologise for not remembering his name), the Conservative backbencher who voted for the bill. They gave the most down to earth reasons for their stance and in particular, I thought it was very brave of Kate Hoey to stand up and be counted in front of her own party.
The 2 people who dismayed me most, and it wasn't because they supported the ban, it's because they are MP's, were Gerald Kaufman and, (I've got the biggest balls in my house) Clair Ward. They didn't give a toss about what the topic was, they and other saw it purely as a way of attacking the other side of the house.
Bloody hell, some of the Labour bench were even talking about it being payback for Thatcher and the miners.

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

Zefender

Not meaning to pick on you (honest) but your answer to that question illustrates a point.

You think that chasing an animal with dogs and ripping it apart is cruel and therefore wish to see it banned. On the face of it a perfectly balanced view and one which you are entitled to have. No problems so far, but you and many others wish to impose this viewpoint on those that disagree. This is where my problem lies.

There are others that feel equally, if not more strongly than you that killing a cow for beef or leather is intolerably cruel. And others still that vehemently oppose any form of killing of any kind of creature.

Why should there view be any less valid? And if it isn't how far a step is it to outlaw the killing of any animal for whatever reason. The killing of animals is a selfish act that leads to benefits for those that eat meat and wear clothes made from animal products.

I can't personally see the difference between wearing fur coats and wearing leather shoes, but those that oppose fur are strangely quiet about shoes. The crux of this argument is once again about elitism. If leather was expensive and worn by the privelidged few and fur cheap and worn by everyone then leather would be protested against.

Similarly if rich people played dominoes and the sport of unemployed miners was fox hunting then dominoes would be pillaried under the guise of ivory protection and fox hunting would be left alone.

Once again I maintain that this has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with the politics of envy and elitism.

Bill

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

Ah, Nickel, so your saying that it is possiblle for something to morally wrong if done by one group, ie foxhunters, but ok if done by another, ie Masai warriors.

Therefore is it not conceivably possible for fox hunting to be morally wrong for me, who was born and brought up in a town, or you, who has objections to it. And yet morally ok for those brought up in that environment and who practice it as both sport, rite of passage, method of pest control and celebration of their culture?

After all, what if I decided that killing lions was morally wrong and the masai should prove themselves by arm wrestling, build proper enclosures to protect their herd, and hunt only for what they eat. The killing of lions is no longer neccessary by the masai, in fact it never was, it was just and is a macho ritual. Should I be allowed to ban it?

Bill

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

tut tut .. you are making the linkage between personal morality and legislation again .. marks off! Remember legislation is for societal framework and expediency .. do no confuse them in future .. unless you are an advocate of Aristortles theory of natural law.

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

I didn't expect you would agree with my analyses - people who are in tune with the current government are unlikely to disagree with the system that elected it - both Tories and Labour have consistently opposed proportional representation not because they disagreed that it was a more democratic system, but because they knew they would lose influence under it. So we're lumbered with an unrepresentative system where the majority of the electorate are inadequately represented. Where that system comes under strain is where a significant minority see no point in obeying the will of a Parliament that does not represent their interests - that's when direct action becomes attractive - the next 6 months or so could be interesting.

You're attempts to draw a distinction between your own destruction of animals and fox-hunting are a bit weedy however. If you ever stray down to the "country" and visit a slaughterhouse, you'll see a lot of animals about to be dispatched who often become anxious when they smell the blood of their fellow creatures. A lot of slaughtermen no doubt enjoy their work. Where's the distinction? (other than in favour of fox-hunting, where the animal has a chance of escape). It seems that your objection is not to the practice of destroying animals, or how it's done, but to the people that do it. Don't you feel just the teensty bit hypocritical?

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

So are you suggesting that under PR foxhunting wouldnt be banned but under first past post it would? I think you will find that rural areas would be more likely to have less representation.

Find your logic on slaughterhouses a bit offbeat (and yes I have been to one). It's also the case the slaughterhouses are controlled by law (not as stringently as they should IMHO) so, rebounding your logic it's OK to set controls then on how foxes are killed like, for example, not by dogs. Or, taking your logic further, let's have all slaughterhouses despatch cows via a public arena where dogs kill'em or we could always let children spear them from behind fences and then cover the faces with their blood - ooh yummy, don't you just love civilisation and progress!

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

Actually I'm not a believer in natural law although that has all the trappings of a good debate.

I only made the link because you used the legal argument as your reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, and even went so far as to say that if it was legally sanctioned then you would have supported it. On the face of it that seems to suggest that the only position you took was to uphold the law, whetever it decided.

In which case fair enough, it was cheap shot on my part in any case, aimed more at those that use the law as justification when it suits and ignore it when they disagree. But I'm sure I do the same when it suits me.

To be honest, given the subjective nature of morals, I'm inclined to think that the law has no business messing around in this area.

Bill

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

There is obviously a distinction to be made between fox-hunting (sport) and livestock farming for food, clothes or shoes.

As I said in an earlier post, on balance (narrowly) I think fox-hunting should not be banned, but I would be very happy to see it die out, simply because I believe that it is morally dubious (at best) to take pleasure from killing living creatures. Some people go much further, but it seems to me that most right-thinking people agree with that starting point.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
Re: Democratic process

Quite possibly - with PR, you wouldn't get the huge Labour majority that steamrollered this through, and MP's would be less lazy about consulting the people that actually elected them. PR's got nothing to do with the size of constituencies.

The point re slaughterhouses that you're trying hard to avoid is that they involve frightened animals being killed - the same as fox hunts - yet one you deem ok (and actively support by buying meat and leather) and the other not - where's the consistency? And why is shooting or gassing foxes better than having them killed by a dog? Where's the evidence that these methods involve less suffering or environmental damage?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Too true - governments always achieve less than they hope to, but they should be able to tidy up the laws on enjoying cruelty.

After all, we won't be able to stop dads teaching their children to tease fish onto barbed hooks while the country set are allowed to teach dogs to kill foxes. Let's hope we can get an angling bill on the statute books sooner than 7 years.


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

You were doing quite well until you mentioned the word "right-thinking" - then you got all sanctimonious. What is the distinction between shooting and fishing then, and hunting? - all involve killing animals/fish and people take pleasure out of them. And what's the difference between taking pleasure in eating an animal that's been killed for you, and taking pleasure in actually killing it? If you're an anti-hunt vegetarian, then I respect your beliefs, but don't agree with them, but if you're a meat-eating anti-hunter then I can't see but that your attitude is hypocritical - No?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Pathetic statement....imho

<Let's hope we can get an angling bill on the statute books sooner than 7 years.>

Ok then.

Oh, I don't like sailing or the people who do it and teach their kids to do likewise.
I know.......LET'S BAN IT................/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif


and yes I do flyfish, mainly using barbless hooks and I practice catch & release.
Funnily enough, more & more people do nowadays.

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

One popular misconception that must be quashed is that hunting peeps do not necessarily:-
a). Take pleasure in the Kill, they're there for the chase
b). see the fox torn apart in front of them. Usually the Fox goes to "earth" in a wood and onlty the hunstmen are there to ensure that the animal is despatched as swiftly as possible.

For most iit's the chance to join in a communal ride with others of a like mind over a route which is somewhat unpredictable. What sticks in peeps craw is that the senior players dress up in antique costumes, there is a pecking order of who does what and wears what - and this is seen to be a display of privilege which should be stamped out.

I note nobody has been brave enough to start a pro's and con's list here's your starter for ten:-

Cons
Seen as rich peeps anti-social enjoyment
barbaric
Hunt peeps don't conform to a norm
Labour promised the electorate it should go

Pros
Provides employment.
Some measure of fox population control.
Hunts work together with interested farmers to maintain coverts fences and other. things - many of which benefit other wildlife and interests.
Hunts remove "fallen" animals reducing costs to the farmer.
Tourist attraction.
Preservation of a wacky tradition.
opportunity for peeps (on both sides) to let off steam
Some discipline for young riders.

Pass

Our countryside pubs are closing
Our country churches are closed
Scouts and Guides are in decline
Riding schools are in decline
Morris dancing has disappeared,

all these are countryside activities and those peeps that live in country towns are concerned that their localities are being dumbed down and are becoming either holiday homes or dormitories for city peeps.

Our children are obese because all the out-doorsy acitivites which folk used to enjoy have gone.

There's some muddled thinking somewhere..

Don't just attack my points, put up some of your own.

<hr width=100% size=1>
x_sm.gif
Stop what you're doing and wait my signal
 
Re: Fox\'s are in favour of hunting.

Well they would be if they had any sense. They have less future than the horses and dogs without it.

Them that likes fox's haven't met one or seen what they do but they are tolerated in the countryside. While they are tolerated they are under no threat as a species. Unless the government want to protect them in law they are doomed by this legislation.

If you don't like the toffs enjoying riding out thats all well and good but the enjoyment of topping fox's isn't confined to fat boys in pinks. Shooting them is great fun, it takes skill and patience like fly fishing.

As a country dweller can I now ban something city dwellers do like air conditioning their offices or shipping their rubbish out to the country?

I'm afraid that those who think hunting with hounds is barbaric don't get out enough. They must sit at home reading Mrs. Tiggywinkle and thinking it's fact.

Unless your a vegan buddhist monk you gain pleasure from animal suffering somewhere in your day to day life. Whether it's satisfaction at your leather suit, the comfort of your shoes or the lipsmacking trip to McD's. If you like a curry the Halal butchery of your dinner is much more distasteful than anything that happens to a fox.


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

Well there were only six words after "right-thinking" so if I was "doing quite well up to there" that's not too bad.

This is a difficult question to answer. There is some element of double standards (perhaps multiple standards) in my position. I find "killing for pleasure" is .. I'm trying to find the words for this .. 'morally dubious' partly says it but perhaps what I also mean is 'degrading of humanity'. At the same time, I'm not at all (well somtimes slightly) uncomfortable about eating meat, wearing animal skins etc. Maybe I would also find that 'morally dubious' if I was forced to confront the reality of livestock farming and slaughter. Perhaps it's because I recognise this .. weakness .. in my rational position that I do not advocate a legislative ban on hunting (an honourable abstention or a cop out?). Put another way, I am more inclined to 'live and let live' than to seek to impose my moral standards on others.

On the other hand, I think the pro-hunting lobby also has a difficult question to answer to justify escaping the imposition of the will of the majority (let's take it as read, for this purpose, that there is a majority against hunting). If (as I venture to suggest) even the most ardent bloodsports enthusiasts would agree that society is entitled to legislate aginst wanton cruelty to animals (I bet the hunting community wouldn't countenance cruelty to horses for example), why should the line between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' be drawn to allow fox-hunting to escape such legal sanction. Dog fighting, cock-fighting, badger baiting etc do not escape. Why should hunting? No doubt it would be argued that it is on account of the pest control aspects. That is a very weak argument. I do not deny that foxes are pests and I have no problem with killing them on those grounds, but the argument that hunting is the best way of controlling them is ... not credible. It is difficult to see any difference in the relative cruelty of any of the above.

The reason why hunting has hitherto escaped legislative stricture (and this is where I am afraid the 'class' argument comes into play) is, it seems to me, almost certainly rooted in power. Hunting is, historically, a pursuit of the wealthy and powerful. Nuff said.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
Re: Pathetic statement....imho

once you start banning one sport which involves hurting animals for fun, then surely you should ban the lot.

If sailing does involve cruelty to other living creatures as as major part of its fun, then please let me know how.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Damn - don\'t let this man on the forum

Peppermint has almost convinced me with his last mail - and I wasn't expecting that.

I'm no vegan and I've always thought that food, clothing and pest control are the only excuse for killing animals, not pleasure - even for slimy animals like fish. But...that curry argument...hmmm do the halal butchers take pleasure in their work? And why is it that the pleasure aspect offends me far more than cruelty as part of a job?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Ah! there\'s the point.

We look away from a lot of stuff because its hard to live if you don't.

I've a mate who's a vegan. His life is much harder than mine because, having his principles is a full time job. Constantly questioning what's in food, clothes, where he works or where his bank invests it's money is time consuming.

Fox hunting is a country management task that, god knows how long ago, someone found a way to make into fun. It's not my idea of fun cos it's got horses in it, but it takes all sorts. I don't know if the Halal blokes enjoy what thet do, but if they could find a way to make it fun I bet they would. That's human nature.

People who hunt are no different to people who yacht or play golf. They use lots of their spare cash, dress funny and go out in weather most folks wouldn't bother with. They cause a little bit of suffering to themselves, fox's, horses and dogs. They don't catch that many fox's. When that occurs it's quite nasty.

Now were yachtsmen. The general thrust of our debates here are about education and training not compulsion. If the goverment want's to educate the hunters into a different pastime, offer them alternatives or whatever, I'm all for it. I just don't like to see minority groups being compelled to change by hypocrasy.

We could be next. Lord knows we don't kill fox's but we do try and drown our friends every now and then.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Damn - don\'t let this man on the forum

Interesting point there from RupertW about being more offended by the idea of people enjoying cruelty than cruelty as part of a job. The utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill had an idea that there were 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures and that we should cultivate the 'higher' ones. The earlier utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, on the other hand, thought all pleasures counted equally. So for Bentham, foxhunting would probably have counted as a good thing because it would have increased the total amount of pleasure arising from killing the fox. (Hell, if they've got to die anyway, why not have some fun out of it?)

Dislike of people taking pleasure in cruelty probably relates to the fact that it would generally be quite a bad thing for society if people were encouraged to develop sadistic tendencies - I suppose that's why those of us who don't hunt tend to be quite nauseated by rituals such as 'blooding'. Can't say I've noticed any more violence and nastiness among people who hunt than among people who don't, though.

I agree that Peppermint's argument is a very good one. While I couldn't imagine hunting myself (though I did catch, gut, cook and eat my first mackerel this summer!) I do find it hypocritical for those of us who eat meat and wear leather shoes or clothes, all of which we do for pleasure rather than necessity, to start interfering with activities where a lot of pleasure is gained from killing a few animals which would be killed anyway.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
This Fox is nearly shot

I respect your position Observer, but I'd say that the difference between badger baiting etc and fox hunting, is that the fox has a chance of escape. Besides, given that foxes set upon by hounds are killed within a couple of seconds, then I'm not sure that it is more cruel than shooting (a clean shot on a moving animal is v.difficult) or gassing - and both of those will be permitted. It seems to be the "sport" element that upsets people - not the effect on the fox.

And I'm not sure you're right about the "Toffs" argument - that's certainly the case for the high-profile hunts, but there's plenty of local hunts involving plenty of people who can afford to keep a horse, but not a boat. The most famous is probably the Banwen Miners Hunt in S.Wales, which was set up by local miners using scraggy-arsed mokes they kept on common land - nothing in the least bit posh about them, unlike a great number of yotties....

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

Share this page

Top