Leaving aside the treatment of the foxes, what about the lardarse horse riders treatment of the horses? They stick a lump of metal in their mouths, jerk their heads around, kick them in the sides, whack them to run fast and jump over stuff whilst carrying their obese carcasses. It isn't only the dogs and foxes in thrall to the humans, but horses as well.
Are you saying my wife and I should stop riding then because it's cruel?
In my opinion it is cruel, maybe I could be persuaded otherwise, but I have listed some of the things that seem cruel to me. In addition there is the concept of 'breaking in' a horse. You and your wife are free to do as you wish however, it is simply me, I don't like to see horses ridden.
You obviously know nothing about horses.
Spend a day at your local stables and see what a wonderful time is had by both humans and animals. The bond between horse and owner/rider can be as strong as that with your children.
When I was in (what is now) year 11 at Brockley County School, Mr Jarman the Head of PE said to me, and about 9 other boys (because we were small) that our PE was going to be horse riding, and it was for the next 3 years. A guy would collect us in a mini bus, and we would be driven to Banstead in Surrey for our horse riding lessons. We learned how to saddle a horse, put the bit and reins on, were schooled going round and round, touching the ears, and the back, learning how to balance, to keep a straight back. We learned the rising trot, did some jumping, went on 'hacks', wore the hats, mucked the creatures out, indeed I was the only boy who didn't fall off during those three years. We learned to face the back of the horse when mounting it, to keep our toes pointed down when doing so, so as to not rub the creatures side or belly. So yes obviously I know nothing about horses. However to me horse riding is cruel, I didn't think about it at the time, but that is what I think now.
Pleased that you've experienced the ownership of horses - all be it in a limited way.
However, if that's your idea of cruelty, I just hope you never watch the news.
I didn't own a horse, it was a PE activity organised by my school.......
I remember my Dressage classes in PE at Eltham Green well
So if a creature doesn't fit a narrow definition of beauty it's fair game to kill/hunt?
Not for me. I believe ALL sentient beings should be left to live a long and pain-free life. They're all beautiful in my eyes.
Never found any ticks on my cats and they've always been relatively flea-free. I admit to treating them when they have had a few but I can't see my boys being irritated. If it's any consolation I apologise to the fleas and give them a proper send off.
Despite what you might think, from what you say, the fact is you have your own moral code on the relative value of one life against another and mostly dictated by how pretty it is. Also probably how "innocent" it is, implying there are animals that are found guilty of some misdemeanour and deserve to be killed.
Accept you have honest views, but like all veggies and animal activists you cannot explain why it is OK to kill ticks and fleas and not other animals we humans regard as vermin. If you are honest with yourself you have no alternative but to become a Buddist where all life is of equal value and you do not kill ants, flies, ticks, fleas or foxes. Until then you are unfortunately a hypocrite in criticising those who kill foxes or in thinking their motives are any different to yours when you swat a fly.
The only flaw in Buddism is believing that a lettuce cannot be re-incarnated as a fox so it's OK to eat it.
If we're talking of hypocrisy why beef and not cow, or chicken not hen, or bacon not pig etc? I don't consciously kill flies and such like, or use leather for that matter, but if the suggestion is that people shouldn't consciously avoid becoming the charnel house or graveyard of a living creature because vegetarianism is basically hypocritical, I think that is a weak argument. It ranks alongside the notion that if I am a superior creature to you, can I eat you? Can we get back to horses though?
So if a creature doesn't fit a narrow definition of beauty it's fair game to kill/hunt?
Not for me. I believe ALL sentient beings should be left to live a long and pain-free life. They're all beautiful in my eyes.
Never found any ticks on my cats and they've always been relatively flea-free. I admit to treating them when they have had a few but I can't see my boys being irritated. If it's any consolation I apologise to the fleas and give them a proper send off.
Despite what you might think, from what you say, the fact is you have your own moral code on the relative value of one life against another and mostly dictated by how pretty it is. Also probably how "innocent" it is, implying there are animals that are found guilty of some misdemeanour and deserve to be killed.
Accept you have honest views, but like all veggies and animal activists you cannot explain why it is OK to kill ticks and fleas and not other animals we humans regard as vermin. If you are honest with yourself you have no alternative but to become a Buddist where all life is of equal value and you do not kill ants, flies, ticks, fleas or foxes. Until then you are unfortunately a hypocrite in criticising those who kill foxes or in thinking their motives are any different to yours when you swat a fly.
The only flaw in Buddism is believing that a lettuce cannot be re-incarnated as a fox so it's OK to eat it.
I think you have completely lost track of the issue here. What are my motives when I swat a fly? And in what way are those motives the same as a bunch of chinless posh people terrorising a fox and eventually subjecting it to a painful and grisly death by being ripped apart by a pack of dogs?
The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport.
Succinctly summarised, Seth. If I might add, everyone harms and kills as a result of their daily activity. The key difference, as highlighted by the pro-fox killers and those who use horses vs. some others on here, (myself included), is INTENTION. I feel that all life deserves respect and autonomy, and I intend to go carefully and not to use, harm or kill others through my daily choices. I find that a simple and practical way to navigate daily decisions, ethical questions, vexing issues etc., is to first consider, "would I want that done to me?"
Succinctly summarised, Seth. If I might add, everyone harms and kills as a result of their daily activity. The key difference, as highlighted by the pro-fox killers and those who use horses vs. some others on here, (myself included), is INTENTION. I feel that all life deserves respect and autonomy, and I intend to go carefully and not to use, harm or kill others through my daily choices. I find that a simple and practical way to navigate daily decisions, ethical questions, vexing issues etc., is to first consider, "would I want that done to me?"
so with regards to horse racing, are you telling us you wouldn't want to be ridden ragged and whipped by a midget?
Sometimes I have to ask myself would would jesus do if he were to sign himself up for charltonlife.
If he happened across this thread he would now be sitting with his head in his hands muttering 'they are all absolutely bat-shit mental' whilst probably reaching for some valium
We are discussing the feelings of plants guys. Come on!
The creativity of some of your minds is astonishing and I don't mean any of this as a slur.
Succinctly summarised, Seth. If I might add, everyone harms and kills as a result of their daily activity. The key difference, as highlighted by the pro-fox killers and those who use horses vs. some others on here, (myself included), is INTENTION. I feel that all life deserves respect and autonomy, and I intend to go carefully and not to use, harm or kill others through my daily choices. I find that a simple and practical way to navigate daily decisions, ethical questions, vexing issues etc., is to first consider, "would I want that done to me?"
*All sentient life. Plants are not sentient, albeit that there is electrical energy coursing through them, but minus a central nervous system, it seems, no pain is felt.
Succinctly summarised, Seth. If I might add, everyone harms and kills as a result of their daily activity. The key difference, as highlighted by the pro-fox killers and those who use horses vs. some others on here, (myself included), is INTENTION. I feel that all life deserves respect and autonomy, and I intend to go carefully and not to use, harm or kill others through my daily choices. I find that a simple and practical way to navigate daily decisions, ethical questions, vexing issues etc., is to first consider, "would I want that done to me?"
*All sentient life. Plants are not sentient, albeit that there is electrical energy coursing through them, but minus a central nervous system, it seems, no pain is felt.
You may say that, but my lawn really kicks up a fuss, when I get the mower out.
Succinctly summarised, Seth. If I might add, everyone harms and kills as a result of their daily activity. The key difference, as highlighted by the pro-fox killers and those who use horses vs. some others on here, (myself included), is INTENTION. I feel that all life deserves respect and autonomy, and I intend to go carefully and not to use, harm or kill others through my daily choices. I find that a simple and practical way to navigate daily decisions, ethical questions, vexing issues etc., is to first consider, "would I want that done to me?"
so with regards to horse racing, are you telling us you wouldn't want to be ridden ragged and whipped by a midget?
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
This isn't the first time in this thread those opposed to a ban have been compared to sex offenders and it is equally as facile. Bit like in another thread recently where Tory voters were compared to Nazis.
So if a creature doesn't fit a narrow definition of beauty it's fair game to kill/hunt?
Not for me. I believe ALL sentient beings should be left to live a long and pain-free life. They're all beautiful in my eyes.
Never found any ticks on my cats and they've always been relatively flea-free. I admit to treating them when they have had a few but I can't see my boys being irritated. If it's any consolation I apologise to the fleas and give them a proper send off.
Despite what you might think, from what you say, the fact is you have your own moral code on the relative value of one life against another and mostly dictated by how pretty it is. Also probably how "innocent" it is, implying there are animals that are found guilty of some misdemeanour and deserve to be killed.
Accept you have honest views, but like all veggies and animal activists you cannot explain why it is OK to kill ticks and fleas and not other animals we humans regard as vermin. If you are honest with yourself you have no alternative but to become a Buddist where all life is of equal value and you do not kill ants, flies, ticks, fleas or foxes. Until then you are unfortunately a hypocrite in criticising those who kill foxes or in thinking their motives are any different to yours when you swat a fly.
The only flaw in Buddism is believing that a lettuce cannot be re-incarnated as a fox so it's OK to eat it.
There are a few flaws in Buddhism- there are many paths and extremes within the philosophy, eg Mahayana's are generally strictly vegetarian as are many monastaries, - but if I may correct this sterotypical mistake about Buddhists and eating meat with a quote from Buddha himself?
“Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.” ~ Gotama Buddha
Dont forget the electricity used to power your computer has been generated at a cost to wildlife, and even the pages of Buddhist scripts themselves were made from paper which killed insects etc en masse, worms insects are also killed in the production of vegetarian produce.
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
This isn't the first time in this thread those opposed to a ban have been compared to sex offenders and it is equally as facile. Bit like in another thread recently where Tory voters were compared to Nazis.
Not the first time you have incorrectly inferred something to support your view! Clearly I don't compare opponents of a fox hunting ban to sex offenders. The point I was making is that the libertarian, who are we to proscribe what other people do, arguments against a ban are as facile and ridiculous as the arguments used by some paedophile groups.
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
This isn't the first time in this thread those opposed to a ban have been compared to sex offenders and it is equally as facile. Bit like in another thread recently where Tory voters were compared to Nazis.
Not the first time you have incorrectly inferred something to support your view! Clearly I don't compare opponents of a fox hunting ban to sex offenders. The point I was making is that the libertarian, who are we to proscribe what other people do, arguments against a ban are as facile and ridiculous as the arguments used by some paedophile groups.
There was a group of MPs and politicians who supported abolishing the age of consent for and supported groups who later turned out to be involved in sexual behaviour with those below the legal age of consent. Some of those politicians are still in office but currently belong to the Labour Party. Hardly a Libertarian Party.
The point is comparing fox hunting to child abuse is not really appropriate or clever.
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
I'll just assume you've run out of ideas. Difference is pedophiles don't deny what they are doing or why. Society is entitled to show disgust and demonise them legitimately, there is no disagreement about motives.
People who ride in a fox hunt would deny they are lusting after blood and taking pleasure in ripping foxes apart and it is only your ability to convince yourself you can read the minds of fox hunters that allows you to take comfort in thinking it proves you are a superior being and a race apart from fox hunters.
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
I'll just assume you've run out of ideas. Difference is pedophiles don't deny what they are doing or why. Society is entitled to show disgust and demonise them legitimately, there is no disagreement about motives.
People who ride in a fox hunt would deny they are lusting after blood and taking pleasure in ripping foxes apart and it is only your ability to convince yourself you can read the minds of fox hunters that allows you to take comfort in thinking it proves you are a superior being and a race apart from fox hunters.
So no need for Yewtree etc, all the police have to do is ask?
"The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport."
I bet I could find paedophile sites that use the same twisted libertarian logic to justify why they should be free to pursue their particular activities!
I'll just assume you've run out of ideas. Difference is pedophiles don't deny what they are doing or why. Society is entitled to show disgust and demonise them legitimately, there is no disagreement about motives.
People who ride in a fox hunt would deny they are lusting after blood and taking pleasure in ripping foxes apart and it is only your ability to convince yourself you can read the minds of fox hunters that allows you to take comfort in thinking it proves you are a superior being and a race apart from fox hunters.
You are being particularly obtuse this afternoon. It is completely irrelevant what a fox hunter's motives are or what it is they enjoy about fox hunting. The simple fact is that the result of their activity is always that a fox is terrorised and then ripped to pieces by the dogs. As you say, 'Society is entitled to show disgust and demonise' the people who partake in this activity.
Comments
Blimey, he wasn't your greatest fan.
What did you do? Ride his horse?
Good job the argument thread wasn't about earlier in the year.
Accept you have honest views, but like all veggies and animal activists you cannot explain why it is OK to kill ticks and fleas and not other animals we humans regard as vermin. If you are honest with yourself you have no alternative but to become a Buddist where all life is of equal value and you do not kill ants, flies, ticks, fleas or foxes. Until then you are unfortunately a hypocrite in criticising those who kill foxes or in thinking their motives are any different to yours when you swat a fly.
The only flaw in Buddism is believing that a lettuce cannot be re-incarnated as a fox so it's OK to eat it.
At least neither of you are Red_in_SE8
It ranks alongside the notion that if I am a superior creature to you, can I eat you?
Can we get back to horses though?
The reason why most people in this country are disgusted by fox hunting is simply that as a modern civilised society we are utterly opposed to subjecting animals to pain and suffering purely and simply for the sake of pleasure/sport.
If he happened across this thread he would now be sitting with his head in his hands muttering 'they are all absolutely bat-shit mental' whilst probably reaching for some valium
We are discussing the feelings of plants guys. Come on!
The creativity of some of your minds is astonishing and I don't mean any of this as a slur.
So it's OK to inflict pain and suffering s long as it's not for sport or pleasure.
If the hounds were let loose on their own to kill the foxes as it is more effective and humane than trying to shoot them, it would therefore be OK with you?
You would presumably dismiss out of hand any argument that their pleasure is not derived from the death of a fox but from testing their horsemanship and getting their mules fit for local point to point racing.
The modern civilised society has lost touch with the nature. Quoting civilised society that poisons rivers and destroys trees, hills, valleys and meadows to enhance modern society's demands on natural resources doesn't count for much in my book.
Modern civilised society says it's OK to destroy nature as long as it isn't "cruel" or pretty and bomb other civilised societies if they are deemed uncivilised. Modern civilised society has lost all connection with the natural world which it destroys at a whim and is in no position to pontificate on what is acceptable in our interaction with the natural world.
The fact is that nature keeps in balance by ruthless "cruelty" inflicted by one species on another. Pretending we are somehow aloof from this uncomfortable reality is why some get so screwed up with animal rights issue, its a deflection mechanism that makes you feel better about yourself.
Just live by your own beliefs but leave others to live with their own beliefs, you cant legislate on what people think just because you don't agree. I wouldn't join a fox hunt for many reasons, but I do not need to justify my reasoning by superimposing, against all logic, perverse motives in the minds of fox hunters that give me license to demonise and harass them.
“Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.”
~ Gotama Buddha
Dont forget the electricity used to power your computer has been generated at a cost to wildlife, and even the pages of Buddhist scripts themselves were made from paper which killed insects etc en masse, worms insects are also killed in the production of vegetarian produce.
The point is comparing fox hunting to child abuse is not really appropriate or clever.
People who ride in a fox hunt would deny they are lusting after blood and taking pleasure in ripping foxes apart and it is only your ability to convince yourself you can read the minds of fox hunters that allows you to take comfort in thinking it proves you are a superior being and a race apart from fox hunters.
Lots of distracting tactics too.