Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    And the rate at which foxes are killed has not changed since 2005, only the method, to more inhumane methods that aren't even necessarily discriminatory.
    If the rate of foxes born isn't increasing heavily, then what's the need for this bill? As far as I can see, it only supports killing foxes for sport.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Hear, hear. There is no justification whatsoever for hunting animals, especially for aristocratic pleasure.
    Exactly. We cannot allow the hunting of innocent animals for a poor pleasure (my opinion). Even thinkers such as Mill and his harm principle would imply that this is a selfish act.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hansard is a wonderful thing, I suggest you go look at it. This is your first time at this.
    I suggest you give this bill up now to save some face. In 2016 not many people are so happy about killing animals for the pleasure of a few.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I won't pick one because as I said, I don't want any, and I don't think that this will change my mind because theres no justification for it regardless.
    2 or 3 it is then.

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Hear, hear. There is no justification whatsoever for hunting animals, especially for aristocratic pleasure.
    And the class indiscrimination award goes to...Quamquam!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    2 or 3 it is then.



    And the class indiscrimination award goes to...Quamquam!
    Your refusal to understand what I am saying is rather petulant.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I suggest you give this bill up now to save some face. In 2016 not many people are so happy about killing animals for the pleasure of a few.
    Don't look at Hansard then

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    If the rate of foxes born isn't increasing heavily, then what's the need for this bill? As far as I can see, it only supports killing foxes for sport.
    Let's see how many times this takes. The rate at which foxes are killed is about the same now as it was 10 years ago, as it was 20 years ago, what does this say? Foxes that were hunted before are trapped or shot now. The hunting act does not prevent deaths, it changes the method of death to worse ways.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    Let's see how many times this takes. The rate at which foxes are killed is about the same now as it was 10 years ago, as it was 20 years ago, what does this say? Foxes that were hunted before are trapped or shot now. The hunting act does not prevent deaths, it changes the method of death to worse ways.
    Are you suggesting trapping is less horrific than hunting? Where the fox is terrified, forced to run to the point of exhaustion, and then torn apart by dogs?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Your refusal to understand what I am saying is rather petulant.
    Your refusal to understand the basis of the argument is concerning. Within the system you ARE going to die, that is non negotiable, I'm just letting you choose how. No answer is a vote for the status quo, that means a vote for 2 or 3.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Are you suggesting trapping is less horrific than hunting? Where the fox is terrified, forced to run to the point of exhaustion, and then torn apart by dogs?
    The complete opposite. I am suggesting that trapping is far worse, it does not discriminate nor is it quick or pleasant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Don't look at Hansard then



    Let's see how many times this takes. The rate at which foxes are killed is about the same now as it was 10 years ago, as it was 20 years ago, what does this say? Foxes that were hunted before are trapped or shot now. The hunting act does not prevent deaths, it changes the method of death to worse ways.
    In all our time debating you've yet to offer one single, perfect or even decent reason as to why anyone should support this bill. There are and will of course be supporters but your failure to provide any strong reasoning besides saying it is more humane for humans to be responsible for animal deaths shows me that this bill is a ridicolous idea.

    I also beg the question, you raised the problem of animal trapping earlier on and yet your solution is to allow foxes to be hunted?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The complete opposite. I am suggesting that trapping is far worse, it does not discriminate nor is it quick or pleasant
    Hunting is not "quick or pleasant".
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    In all our time debating you've yet to offer one single, perfect or even decent reason as to why anyone should support this bill. There are and will of course be supporters but your failure to provide any strong reasoning besides saying it is more humane for humans to be responsible for animal deaths shows me that this bill is a ridicolous idea.

    I also beg the question, you raised the problem of animal trapping earlier on and yet your solution is to allow foxes to be hunted?
    Your note reading skills are on point.

    Animal rights, liberty, cost. I guess this does reinforce the idea that people don't bother reading notes on bills though.

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Hunting is not "quick or pleasant".
    Damn, how many hunts do you know of with single animals being involved for hours, if not days.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If fox hunting is to be brought back, can we bring back **** fighting and badger baiting too?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Your note reading skills are on point.

    Animal rights, liberty, cost. I guess this does reinforce the idea that people don't bother reading notes on bills though.



    Damn, how many hunts do you know of with single animals being involved for hours, if not days.
    I'm not listening to your petulant and childlike insults, my only concern here is protecting innocent animals from 'pleasure' seeking persons who enjoy killing innocent life for a fun evening.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Damn, how many hunts do you know of with single animals being involved for hours, if not days.
    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that an animal can be hunted for 59 minutes before it becomes inhumane.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    If fox hunting is to be brought back, can we bring back **** fighting and badger baiting too?
    Scratch that, we might as well go the whole hog and bring back arena fighting for people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that an animal can be hunted for 59 minutes before it becomes inhumane.
    Don't be so silly!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Scratch that, we might as well go the whole hog and bring back arena fighting for people.
    I would second this bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I'm not listening to your petulant and childlike insults, my only concern here is protecting innocent animals from 'pleasure' seeking persons who enjoy killing innocent life for a fun evening.
    Can you read the notes: yes or no?
    Did you read the notes: yes or no?
    Something tells me that yes you can, no you didn't and then claimed no argument was given despite being given it at least three times.

    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that an animal can be hunted for 59 minutes before it becomes inhumane.
    I didn't realise an hour was 30 minutes now, nor did I realise that traps were checked so regularly that no more than 17 minutes pass between checks, nor did I know that they became discriminate and were only capable of catching foxes now, nor that death was immediate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you read the notes: yes or no?
    Did you read the notes: yes or no?
    Something tells me that yes you can, no you didn't and then claimed no argument was given despite being given it at least three times.



    I didn't realise an hour was 30 minutes now, nor did I realise that traps were checked so regularly that no more than 17 minutes pass between checks, nor did I know that they became discriminate and were only capable of catching foxes now, nor that death was immediate.
    Your argument is weak and extremely baseless. I am not even convinced one percent that this is a good bill, its probably one of the worst I have come across and its rather laughable you think that hunting animals with the very examples you provided can be justified.
 
 
 
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 16, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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