(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)
Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.
It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.
You still dont seem to get it. 1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)
2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.
1) It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.
2) I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.
Your posts really confused me sometimes Algarve, it's obviously nothing personal against you, I just really don't see where you're coming from at times.
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)
Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.
It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.
You still dont seem to get it. 1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)
2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.
1) It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.
2) I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.
Your posts really confused me sometimes Algarve, it's obviously nothing personal against you, I just really don't see where you're coming from at times.
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
You might dispute some of those advantages - when they come down to health, opportunity etc... A bigger house, better car, more exotic holiday fine! Fox hunting shouldn't be seen as a class issue. It is an animal welfare issue. There are a lot of rich people opposed to fox hunting. And the reason the government withdrew the vote was simply because members of its own party opposed it, overwise the majority would have guaranteed victory.
(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)
Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.
It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.
You still dont seem to get it. 1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)
2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.
1) It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.
2) I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.
Your posts really confused me sometimes Algarve, it's obviously nothing personal against you, I just really don't see where you're coming from at times.
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
You might dispute some of those advantages - when they come down to health, opportunity etc... A bigger house, better car, more exotic holiday fine! Fox hunting shouldn't be seen as a class issue. It is an animal welfare issue. There are a lot of rich people opposed to fox hunting. And the reason the government withdrew the vote was simply because members of its own party opposed it, overwise the majority would have guaranteed victory.
Maybe they withdrew it because, for some odd reason, the SNP promised to oppose it.
I'm not 'pro' fox hunting at all, however if dogs are used as the law insists, I don't really see a problem. I fully understand why some would see a big problem with that form of hunting though.
I believe the biggest problem is that the law is not followed by those hunting, the police should do more to enforce the law, imo.
As for those advantages one might dispute, obviously a wealthier person can afford private health care, would you ban private health care? I'm not sure how else you could avoid that.
Obviously the NHS should be maintained to a certain level and available to all members of society, I honestly can't say if the NHS is currently up to scratch, as I live in China. What I am sure of is that the NHS offers better & cheaper medical care than most of the world.
It might sound brutal, but the poor gentry folk of the land have no option but to put these darling hounds to sleep. The namby-pamby PC liberal loony left have banned foxhunting, and without foxhunting there is literally no space remaining in the entire countryside for these noble beasts. A single dog requires fifteen acres of uninterrupted wilderness to stretch its legs in, otherwise its quality of life is so low it is better off dead; a hunt will generally clear about a hundred acres of land for these gorgeous dogs, but without hunting the land is filled with caravans containing gypsies and their pet foxes, both of which are protected by soft 'progressive' loony laws. The poor gentry, eyes wet with salt tears, are being forced to take their beautiful guns to the heads of their own dogs because these left-wing bastards have murdered the most precious thing of all: their way of life.
(I find it strange that significant numbers of antis would cheerfully watch "posh people" being subjected to the foxes' fate. It's always because they are "posh" or "toffs". Posh people (define?) may come across as odd/daft/whatever but isn't this just another form of phobia? Who is looking out for this minority group?)
Hunting's days are done so I don't get why Cameron wants to make it an issue again other than to wind up the legions of urban fox-lovers and get widespread bad press. Very odd.
It's worthy of parliamentary time because the Tories had it in their manifesto BK. The minority group of posh people are looked out for by the other posh people who have all the money and influence. And I don't think that Cameron's government cares what people think or about bad press, as they have their extra five years to fill their pockets and then fuck off somewhere else when the shit hits the fan.
You still dont seem to get it. 1. hunting is far far removed from being a posh boys activity. You appear to have a real chip on your shoulder about ''posh'' people but as stated earlier, the vast majority of hunts are a cross section of society. Just because they dress up doesnt make them posh. (BTW and unrelated to hunting, do you consider every Charlton player of the past 2 decades as posh? Because in income terms they surely must be worthy of your ire!)
2. As I understand it (from a friend who is a hunter) the amendment is simply to increase the number of dogs used to flush to the gun, which is how hunting is supposed to be done currently. In Scotland you can have unlimited dogs to flush out Mr Fox to be shot, in England you are only allowed 2. Personally I have serious doubts that all foxes are shot (I've heard some hunts dont even take guns with them!) as opposed to being killed by dogs, but that is supposed to be happening since the change in rules. The amendment is to allow English hunts to use unlimited dogs like in Scotland. Not sure hunting ban is the correct term picked up by the media, though I stand to be corrected.
1) It also depends on your definition of posh and chip on your shoulder - I always think of chip on shoulder as being something disputable, however the advantages afforded to the richer members of society are clear for all to see - that is indisputable. My definition is wrong I discover, so yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but I am not wrong in my reading of society. Take a look at the make up of the boards of the footsie 100 companies, the two houses of parliament and the bilderberg group if you want any proof, Art.
2) I have no problem with defending the poorer and less privileged and I have no problem with drawing attention to those who for their own interest like to keep it that way. If that makes me chippy - so be it, I wear the badge with pride. Sadly in their quest for superiority the "ruling classes" are blind to the fact that the man or woman who could discover the cure for cancer may be living on a council estate in Peckham, but due to policies that make it more and more difficult for the underprivileged to get themselves out of that situation, that person will probably end up as a (non fox hunting) clerk in the DSS.
Your posts really confused me sometimes Algarve, it's obviously nothing personal against you, I just really don't see where you're coming from at times.
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
You might dispute some of those advantages - when they come down to health, opportunity etc... A bigger house, better car, more exotic holiday fine! Fox hunting shouldn't be seen as a class issue. It is an animal welfare issue. There are a lot of rich people opposed to fox hunting. And the reason the government withdrew the vote was simply because members of its own party opposed it, overwise the majority would have guaranteed victory.
Maybe they withdrew it because, for some odd reason, the SNP promised to oppose it.
I'm not 'pro' fox hunting at all, however if dogs are used as the law insists, I don't really see a problem. I fully understand why some would see a big problem with that form of hunting though.
I believe the biggest problem is that the law is not followed by those hunting, the police should do more to enforce the law, imo.
As for those advantages one might dispute, obviously a wealthier person can afford private health care, would you ban private health care? I'm not sure how else you could avoid that.
Obviously the NHS should be maintained to a certain level and available to all members of society, I honestly can't say if the NHS is currently up to scratch, as I live in China. What I am sure of is that the NHS offers better & cheaper medical care than most of the world.
Or, better idea, ban fox hunting completely and use the precious little amount of police time and resources to tackle real crime. Instead of making em chase after people too thick and inbred to understand that riding around on horses, dressed like steampunk prositutes, tooting horns and mistreating dogs all in order to terrify a helpless animal is a sh*t thing to do.
It might sound brutal, but the poor gentry folk of the land have no option but to put these darling hounds to sleep. The namby-pamby PC liberal loony left have banned foxhunting, and without foxhunting there is literally no space remaining in the entire countryside for these noble beasts. A single dog requires fifteen acres of uninterrupted wilderness to stretch its legs in, otherwise its quality of life is so low it is better off dead; a hunt will generally clear about a hundred acres of land for these gorgeous dogs, but without hunting the land is filled with caravans containing gypsies and their pet foxes, both of which are protected by soft 'progressive' loony laws. The poor gentry, eyes wet with salt tears, are being forced to take their beautiful guns to the heads of their own dogs because these left-wing bastards have murdered the most precious thing of all: their way of life.
How about getting them to chase a scent? The responsibility of putting them to sleep falls on the owners, not the general public.
Last time I looked, the conservatives had an overall majority so it shouldn't matter whether the SNP oppose or not. The problem is a good number of Tories would have voted against it. It is something the majority of the British people oppose.
I 'm not against culling foxes if they are genuinely a problem - I am against enjoying it. The life of any animal should be treated with that respect. There should always be a reason for it - health/food etc... not pleasure.
This 100%, Succinctly put Muttley, This is no laughing matter.
A good reply Algarve (though I believe our welfare budget suggests those less well off do have access to benefits and board members of free market businesses employing thousands of workers seems an odd example to choose) but I've seen a couple of hunts and those participating were far from the hated 'toffs'. I trust my first hand experience.
Interesting Wiki entry on the make up of Hunts
... the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the Home Counties packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt has been used as an example, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a cosmopolitan make up
I've got an open mind though and will listen to any argument telling me otherwise
No one attempting an alternative narrative so here goes.
If the sheer act of killing, either for food or to control vermin, is "cruel" then why is there no activist movement against killing flies. At what level on the tree of life does killing become unacceptable or "cruel". I suggest It is at the level where the animal is furry, or has attractive looks or is a common sight or we are uncomfortable seeing the corpse.
Plant life differs from other forms of life only by virtue of a nervous system. Justifying the taking of plant life on the grounds it isn't "cruel" means you can justify taking any other form of life if it doesn't trigger a reaction in the nervous system. It's a get out for vegetarians. By the same token some will say it's OK shooting foxes because they don't see it coming. So for most, fox hunting comes down to being cruel because the fox must suffer during the chase and at the kill. A pack of hounds will dispatch a fox instantly, so it's probably as cruel as Halal slaughter.
A human being knows what awaits him if he's being chased by a psychopath with an axe and gets caught. A fox like any animal lives in the moment and if he's chased he's wired to run. Not because he has seen videos of what happens to foxes when they are caught, but because foxes are prey for wolves and are wired to take flight from anything that looks like a wolf. The fox is not reacting out of "fear" it's out of instinct. It would probably be more accurate to superimpose the human feeling of running in a race where you have to beat your rival at all costs. A fox has no idea what happens if he loses, and being torn apart after he's dead is not painful for the fox, only our sensibilities.
I still have my essay book from when I was at school containing an essay on fox hunting. I described it as barbaric and cruel and asked what pleasure at all could anyone get chasing a fox and killing it. My English master wrote in red biro "The thrill of the chase". So I am instinctively against cruelty to animals but as a carnivore who fishes and eats game I have had to rationalise what is morally acceptable. If foxes are to be controlled and a natural predator can be used, then is it right to call that "cruel". Take away the rituals, and men's dogs killing foxes is no different to allowing your cat out unsupervised to kill birds and mice. What I struggle with is setting arbitrary values on the relative worth of different forms of life.
My English teacher could have written it's an excuse for horsey people to ride around like hooligans when they wouldn't normally be allowed. I obviously didn't think fox hunters were psychopaths. If you think about it, given most of them are a mile away from the fox most of the time, they are going to be pretty disappointed if they are looking to see a fox ripped to bits to get their rocks off. I guess I now give the benefit of the doubt and accept that it's the pleasure from combining the skills of horsemanship and dog training whilst providing foxes with a natural predator to control them that drives the desire to hunt foxes. I cannot believe that it is a lust for blood, we have boxing to cover that, or you could go on slaughter house tours.
Finally, banning anything by laws should only be done in very exceptional circumstances where it affects our safety or well being, fox hunting does not fall into that category and is a bad precedent for law making. Football hooliganism in the 1970s could have been solved by banning football. Hooligans are not interested in the outcome of a football match, by the same token fox hunters are not much interested in the outcome of a fox chase, most end in a draw anyway. Its an excuse for a jolly jape on horses while the dogs sort it out with the fox.
I've written this just to give an alternative to the stereo anti view, but don't give a toss about fox hunting, I'm more concerned about unwarranted interference in peoples lives by politicians.
If you are worried about cruelty there are blatant acts of cruelty by human beings against other human beings that should be sorted out first.
A good reply Algarve (though I believe our welfare budget suggests those less well off do have access to benefits and board members of free market businesses employing thousands of workers seems an odd example to choose) but I've seen a couple of hunts and those participating were far from the hated 'toffs'. I trust my first hand experience.
Interesting Wiki entry on the make up of Hunts
... the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the Home Counties packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt has been used as an example, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a cosmopolitan make up
I don't suppose the fox is too bothered about the class of the people behind its painful death, and neither should we be. It is a question of whether it is right or wrong.
I still have a problem with the argument about horsemen and huntsmen wanting to showcase or use their skills and not seeing a fox get mullered. I think it is something that makes people feel empowered in a way that chasing peasants used to back in the day.
And as a form of pest control it is a waste of time.
I've got an open mind though and will listen to any argument telling me otherwise
Plant life differs from other forms of life only by virtue of a nervous system. Justifying the taking of plant life on the grounds it isn't "cruel" means you can justify taking any other form of life if it doesn't trigger a reaction in the nervous system. It's a get out for vegetarians.
Looks like your scientific knowledge is better than mine, but somehow I can tell the difference between plants and animals, for example they don't test make-up on a lettuce.
I know I've joined this thread late and I know Morgan didnt have the greatest of starts to his season last year but should on the back of that should we really let a pack of blokes on horses with their dogs chase after him... Some fans dont like him but really cant see that aiding his development!!
Fair points there Dippenhall. Any fishermen on here? I realise most fishermen don't dress up in red coats, but at the end of the day, things die at the hands of fishermen. Not furry things, I'll grant you.
I'm no hunt supporter or apologist, but I do think Dippenhall's last paragraph resonates.
A good reply Algarve (though I believe our welfare budget suggests those less well off do have access to benefits and board members of free market businesses employing thousands of workers seems an odd example to choose) but I've seen a couple of hunts and those participating were far from the hated 'toffs'. I trust my first hand experience.
Interesting Wiki entry on the make up of Hunts
... the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the Home Counties packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt has been used as an example, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a cosmopolitan make up
I don't suppose the fox is too bothered about the class of the people behind its painful death, and neither should we be. It is a question of whether it is right or wrong.
No argument with that Mutts. As I have repeated, it's just plain wrong. But for some to turn it into simply a class thing is also just plain wrong. Hence the post you've commented on.
As Wilde said, “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable!”
I think some of the fox hunting supporters will find a link as to how it save Greece!!!! In this country I cant buy a pet and torture it and I can't torture a wild animal. That seems fair enough to me - I don't think any rights have been impinged. Ah but the fox hunters say it is a tradition that is being lost. Well burning heretics at the stake was once common practice but we have to move on and just because we have been doing it for hundreds of years, doesn't mean we should continue doing it.
I think some of the fox hunting supporters will find a link as to how it save Greece!!!! In this country I cant buy a pet and torture it and I can't torture a wild animal. That seems fair enough to me - I don't think any rights have been impinged. Ah but the fox hunters say it is a tradition that is being lost. Well burning heretics at the stake was once common practice but we have to move on and just because we have been doing it for hundreds of years, doesn't mean we should continue doing it.
Yer you are right, can't have dogs being culled because the owners didn't have them doctored, better bring back fox hunting as a solution
I think you might have missed Raith's point. The suggestion being that the hunters are imposing cruelty on the dogs as well as the fox, not that fox hunting should be reinstated to spare the dogs.
Not bothered either way if the ban gets lifted as I'm not interested in hunting or foxes. But I do believe most of the protestors are just pissed off lefties using it as a platform to voice their anger/bitterness towards the Tories.
I would ban smoking in total, out for a meal last night and couple sat next to me went out for a puff came back in and all I could smell was pungent fags, and as stated as per previous post, legalise hunting - Taly Ho
I've got an open mind though and will listen to any argument telling me otherwise
Plant life differs from other forms of life only by virtue of a nervous system. Justifying the taking of plant life on the grounds it isn't "cruel" means you can justify taking any other form of life if it doesn't trigger a reaction in the nervous system. It's a get out for vegetarians.
Looks like your scientific knowledge is better than mine, but somehow I can tell the difference between plants and animals, for example they don't test make-up on a lettuce.
Rightly so that would be the tip of the iceberg....
I fail to see how it is a left wing thing to be against fox hunting. And I fail to see how the fact that you may think it is, is a reason not to care one way or the other.
Comments
Point 1, do you really think that wealth and the hard work that has gone into acquiring that wealth should not lead to certain advantages in life? If it didn't, what would be the point? I'm not sure anyone would dispute those advantages, although I can't see how anyone could suggest they shouldn't exist.
As for your second point, I know I've not lived in the UK for a while now, although I do try to keep up with the news and other current events, so I'm shocked that it appears those nasty Tories have banned poor people from the education system. It's a shame really, the student loan system was a fantastic way of enabling our poorest members of society the chance of a great education.
I'm not 'pro' fox hunting at all, however if dogs are used as the law insists, I don't really see a problem. I fully understand why some would see a big problem with that form of hunting though.
I believe the biggest problem is that the law is not followed by those hunting, the police should do more to enforce the law, imo.
As for those advantages one might dispute, obviously a wealthier person can afford private health care, would you ban private health care? I'm not sure how else you could avoid that.
Obviously the NHS should be maintained to a certain level and available to all members of society, I honestly can't say if the NHS is currently up to scratch, as I live in China. What I am sure of is that the NHS offers better & cheaper medical care than most of the world.
EDIT: One person likes it
Instead of making em chase after people too thick and inbred to understand that riding around on horses, dressed like steampunk prositutes, tooting horns and mistreating dogs all in order to terrify a helpless animal is a sh*t thing to do.
Last time I looked, the conservatives had an overall majority so it shouldn't matter whether the SNP oppose or not. The problem is a good number of Tories would have voted against it. It is something the majority of the British people oppose.
Succinctly put Muttley,
This is no laughing matter.
You really are the dog's Bolloc**
I trust my first hand experience.
Interesting Wiki entry on the make up of Hunts
... the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the Home Counties packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt has been used as an example, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a cosmopolitan make up
If the sheer act of killing, either for food or to control vermin, is "cruel" then why is there no activist movement against killing flies. At what level on the tree of life does killing become unacceptable or "cruel". I suggest It is at the level where the animal is furry, or has attractive looks or is a common sight or we are uncomfortable seeing the corpse.
Plant life differs from other forms of life only by virtue of a nervous system. Justifying the taking of plant life on the grounds it isn't "cruel" means you can justify taking any other form of life if it doesn't trigger a reaction in the nervous system. It's a get out for vegetarians. By the same token some will say it's OK shooting foxes because they don't see it coming. So for most, fox hunting comes down to being cruel because the fox must suffer during the chase and at the kill. A pack of hounds will dispatch a fox instantly, so it's probably as cruel as Halal slaughter.
A human being knows what awaits him if he's being chased by a psychopath with an axe and gets caught. A fox like any animal lives in the moment and if he's chased he's wired to run. Not because he has seen videos of what happens to foxes when they are caught, but because foxes are prey for wolves and are wired to take flight from anything that looks like a wolf. The fox is not reacting out of "fear" it's out of instinct. It would probably be more accurate to superimpose the human feeling of running in a race where you have to beat your rival at all costs. A fox has no idea what happens if he loses, and being torn apart after he's dead is not painful for the fox, only our sensibilities.
I still have my essay book from when I was at school containing an essay on fox hunting. I described it as barbaric and cruel and asked what pleasure at all could anyone get chasing a fox and killing it. My English master wrote in red biro "The thrill of the chase". So I am instinctively against cruelty to animals but as a carnivore who fishes and eats game I have had to rationalise what is morally acceptable. If foxes are to be controlled and a natural predator can be used, then is it right to call that "cruel". Take away the rituals, and men's dogs killing foxes is no different to allowing your cat out unsupervised to kill birds and mice. What I struggle with is setting arbitrary values on the relative worth of different forms of life.
My English teacher could have written it's an excuse for horsey people to ride around like hooligans when they wouldn't normally be allowed. I obviously didn't think fox hunters were psychopaths. If you think about it, given most of them are a mile away from the fox most of the time, they are going to be pretty disappointed if they are looking to see a fox ripped to bits to get their rocks off. I guess I now give the benefit of the doubt and accept that it's the pleasure from combining the skills of horsemanship and dog training whilst providing foxes with a natural predator to control them that drives the desire to hunt foxes. I cannot believe that it is a lust for blood, we have boxing to cover that, or you could go on slaughter house tours.
Finally, banning anything by laws should only be done in very exceptional circumstances where it affects our safety or well being, fox hunting does not fall into that category and is a bad precedent for law making. Football hooliganism in the 1970s could have been solved by banning football. Hooligans are not interested in the outcome of a football match, by the same token fox hunters are not much interested in the outcome of a fox chase, most end in a draw anyway. Its an excuse for a jolly jape on horses while the dogs sort it out with the fox.
I've written this just to give an alternative to the stereo anti view, but don't give a toss about fox hunting, I'm more concerned about unwarranted interference in peoples lives by politicians.
If you are worried about cruelty there are blatant acts of cruelty by human beings against other human beings that should be sorted out first.
I still have a problem with the argument about horsemen and huntsmen wanting to showcase or use their skills and not seeing a fox get mullered. I think it is something that makes people feel empowered in a way that chasing peasants used to back in the day.
And as a form of pest control it is a waste of time.
Again, very well reasoned bit of writing
I'm no hunt supporter or apologist, but I do think Dippenhall's last paragraph resonates.
As Wilde said, “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable!”