Turn on thread page Beta

V1006 – Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016 watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this bill be passed into law?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    45.83%
    On the contrary, No
    43.75%
    Abstain
    10.42%

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    obviously, the argument against it one based on how much pain it causes ffs. so proving that this causes less pain is the counter argument to the argument you just made.

    why is this hard to understand.
    You are saying that fox hunting is a painless way for the fox to die which is just wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Once again, you are still using the justification of how painful the death is to say whether this should pass.

    In certain areas, foxes are considered a pest but unless they all contract rabies but that is not the case at the moment. Have you also considered that reducing the numbers of one pest (foxes) could increase the numbers of another (rabbits)? If you could give me a figure for the amount of babies that have been attacked by foxes, that would be great because I'm sure more have been attacked by dogs.
    I don't think you quite understand and might want to take in what you read. The hunting act DID NOT LEAD TO FEWER KILLS, all banning hunting did was increase the numbers of trappings and shootings.

    It seems hard to find figures on attacks on humans, only able to find individual articles (even the ones asking how frequent don't actually answer the question). It's also worth noting that there are about 300 times as many dogs in the UK as urban foxes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    You are saying that fox hunting is a painless way for the fox to die which is just wrong.
    i'm saying it is less painful than the alternatives, which is correct.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    yes i did.

    i study logic you don't.
    Where?

    And your credentials do not nessesaraly make your argument and suppositions correct.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    i dont care about the numbers of foxes who attack kids. my position on that front is simply that i wouldn't mind having a fox in my garden.

    Unless i had a baby, then i'd shoot it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Where?

    And your credentials do not nessesaraly make your argument and suppositions correct.
    my thought experiment, which nobody has responded to yet.

    nor does your blanket assertions to the contrary make me incorrect.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I don't think you quite understand and might want to take in what you read. The hunting act DID NOT LEAD TO FEWER KILLS, all banning hunting did was increase the numbers of trappings and shootings.

    It seems hard to find figures on attacks on humans, only able to find individual articles (even the ones asking how frequent don't actually answer the question). It's also worth noting that there are about 300 times as many dogs in the UK as urban foxes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't believe that to be quite honest and if there are 300 times more dogs than foxes, the fox population is not out of control as some people like to make out.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    my thought experiment, which nobody has responded to yet.

    nor does your blanket assertions to the contrary make me incorrect.
    I'll respond now.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by banterboy)
    i dont care about the numbers of foxes who attack kids. my position on that front is simply that i wouldn't mind having a fox in my garden.

    Unless i had a baby, then i'd shoot it.
    So you wouldn't mind a fox being in your garden but because it's a pest, you think it deserves to die?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    lets amend the thought experiment to make the examples, as well as the reasoning, equivalent:

    suppose if by playing chess or not playing chess, both these would lead to x number of necessary animal deaths (and it is necessary, foxes are a pest and farmers have the right to protect their livelihoods, irrespective if you find them "cute" or not.)

    But by playing chess the pain of those deaths are painless, whereas banning it result in painful deaths like shooting and having legs broken, cut and allowed to bleed out for hours.
    no evidence that hunting is painless and the fear the fox has is scary anyway. I'm not arguing against out of cuteness but because I abhor all blood sports. They are there to entertain people and as already discussed people who seek pleasure from killing animals tend to grow up as psychopaths or serial killers.

    Now take these further two arguments:

    If you believe in eating meat, then you already believe that people's liberty overshadows the lives of animals. So if you vote no, you HAVE to become a vegan to be consistent.
    not true. You can oppose fox hunting (and other blood sports) for being cruel but support eating meat as long as the animal has been stunned and feels no pain. That is not logically inconsistent at all.

    Furthermore, there's no reason to presume that foxes are conscious to a level that gives their lives independent value. So that further reduces the probability that harm is being caused by the ban.
    ummm as in you are saying they aren't self aware or they aren't emotional? I very much think that the "we don't know, superiority complex" applies here. In that we assume that we are the superior animal for no logical reason but 'isn't it obvious'. We assume that we are better and know more but a lot of our old beliefs got over-turned so I believe it is rational to say that we don't know therefore we should assume positive until we have unequivocal proof.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    no evidence that hunting is painless and the fear the fox has is scary anyway. I'm not arguing against out of cuteness but because I abhor all blood sports. They are there to entertain people and as already discussed people who seek pleasure from killing animals tend to grow up as psychopaths or serial killers.

    not true. You can oppose fox hunting (and other blood sports) for being cruel but support eating meat as long as the animal has been stunned and feels no pain. That is not logically inconsistent at all.

    ummm as in you are saying they aren't self aware or they aren't emotional? I very much think that the "we don't know, superiority complex" applies here. In that we assume that we are the superior animal for no logical reason but 'isn't it obvious'. We assume that we are better and know more but a lot of our old beliefs got over-turned so I believe it is rational to say that we don't know therefore we should assume positive until we have unequivocal proof.
    It might not be painless, but it is the least painful option. This is the indusputable point, which no one has pciked up on, which disproves all arguments against fox hunting. You argument hjere doesn't disprove the thought experiment: as things stand, you guys are losing the argument.

    In ancient rome everybody enjoyed seeing gladiators kill each other. Only one percent of the population are psychopaths. This argument doesn't make sense.

    But you have to accept that your pleasure in eating meat supercedes an animals right to life.

    Not knowing lowers the probability.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So you wouldn't mind a fox being in your garden but because it's a pest, you think it deserves to die?
    I don't think it deserves to die, just if it threatened me economically or physically I'd have to problems killing it.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by banterboy)
    It might not be painless, but it is the least painful option. This is the indusputable point, which no one has pciked up on, which disproves all arguments against fox hunting. You argument hjere doesn't disprove the thought experiment: as things stand, you guys are losing the argument.
    well all I have to say is citation please?

    In ancient rome everybody enjoyed seeing gladiators kill each other. Only one percent of the population are psychopaths. This argument doesn't make sense.
    you know the percentage of psychopaths in Ancient Rome?!

    But you have to accept that your pleasure in eating meat supercedes an animals right to life.

    Not knowing lowers the probability.
    but that isn't my objection to fox hunting so that argument doesn't stand.

    No it doesn't. That is very mathematically unsound. The probability is unchanged weather we know the result or not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I don't believe that to be quite honest and if there are 300 times more dogs than foxes, the fox population is not out of control as some people like to make out.
    If there are 300 times as many dogs then even if dogs proportionally only attack half as often you still get 150 times as many. You also get that often dog attacks are due to irresponsible owners.

    But again we get the assertion has been made that shooting is less painful due to the ability to headshot. If a headshot is near painless then dog kills also are, remember that the kills tend to be two ways, the skull being crushed, which has the same effect as a clean headshot, or the neck being broken from a body bite, which is similarly painless as the location of the pain is separated from the brain.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    well all I have to say is citation please.
    You need citations for common knowledge? Destruction of the hypothalamus is instant death, severing of the spinal cord leads to no pain below the severage

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    well all I have to say is citation please?

    you know the percentage of psychopaths in Ancient Rome?!


    but that isn't my objection to fox hunting so that argument doesn't stand.

    No it doesn't. That is very mathematically unsound. The probability is unchanged weather we know the result or not.
    it's common sense. do you want your neck broken, being shot, or have your leg broken and bleed out, if you're gonna die?

    Even better than that; i know the percentage of psychopaths in the human race. 1%.

    nonsense, probability is dependant on what i known and not known.

    Suppose i know the next car to pass round the corner is red. The the probability of my guess that the next car to pass round the corner is red is 100%. Now suppose I don't have a clue. Obviously, the probability of my guess that the car will be green will be correct is lower than 100%.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You need citations for common knowledge? Destruction of the hypothalamus is instant death, severing of the spinal cord leads to no pain below the severage

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No such thing as common knowledge and how do we know that the process of teh sever is not excruciating?
    (Original post by banterboy)
    it's common sense. do you want your neck broken, being shot, or have your leg broken and bleed out, if you're gonna die?
    no such thing as common sense. Most of it isn't common nor does it make much sense. And actually a bullet to the brain sounds okay. Although a painless toxin I'd prefer. I don't like the idea of being chased by a pack of hounds over miles.

    Even better than that; i know the percentage of psychopaths in the human race. 1%.
    thats today not nearly 1700 years ago.

    nonsense, probability is dependant on what i known and not known.

    Suppose i know the next car to pass round the corner is red. The the probability of my guess that the next car to pass round the corner is red is 100%. Now suppose I don't have a clue. Obviously, the probability of my guess that the car will be green will be correct is lower than 100%.
    yes but that doesn't make what you said true. Either you know the fox is intelligent or you know it isn't, both are 100% but because we don't know it's an unknown percentage where that unknown is related to the percentage of intelligent species on Earth. Which means that that Unknown is a constant which we just don't know.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I don't believe that to be quite honest and if there are 300 times more dogs than foxes, the fox population is not out of control as some people like to make out.
    So you're saying 10m (the approximate number of domestic dogs) divided by 33,000 (the estimated number of urban foxes) is not about 330?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    No such thing as common knowledge and how do we know that the process of teh sever is not excruciating?
    no such thing as common sense. Most of it isn't common nor does it make much sense. And actually a bullet to the brain sounds okay. Although a painless toxin I'd prefer. I don't like the idea of being chased by a pack of hounds over miles.

    thats today not nearly 1700 years ago.

    yes but that doesn't make what you said true. Either you know the fox is intelligent or you know it isn't, both are 100% but because we don't know it's an unknown percentage where that unknown is related to the percentage of intelligent species on Earth. Which means that that Unknown is a constant which we just don't know.
    You have taken your derpyness to a whole new level now of you believe there is no such thing as common sense or common knowledge. And we know by talking to humans to whom it has happened?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You have taken your derpyness to a whole new level now of you believe there is no such thing as common sense or common knowledge. And we know by talking to humans to whom it has happened?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    there is no such thing as common sense. It's a loaded term, massively over used and doesn't exist.

    Okay so citation?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 20, 2016

3,650

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.