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

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 Jammy Duel)
    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
    I was saying I didn't believe fewer foxes are killed when fox hunting is banned.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    there is no such thing as common sense. It's a loaded term, massively over used and doesn't exist.

    Okay so citation?
    It's only one of the leading methods of small animal euthanasia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervic...on?wprov=sfla1
    http://www.nature.com/news/best-way-...sought-1.13509

    You also get that severe pain is associated with, for the type of injury, minor injury, and the more severe injury regularly manifests as mild neck pain in humans
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1264065-overview

    All you actually have to do is do your research on non botched hanging. The mode of death of a hanging, unless it's short drop which is intended to slowly asphyxiate, is cervical dislocation severing the base of the brain from the cervical column causing immediately lethal brain damage and dislocating all pain receptors from the brain.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I will be voting nay on this bill and I encourage others to do the same. Legalising the cruel, barbaric and bloodthirsty activity of fox hunting is simply undefendable. Saying there are more painful ways for a fox to die is no valid justification. I'm normally open to persuasion but I'm afraid there is nothing anyone can to say to persuade me to vote anything other than nay.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's only one of the leading methods of small animal euthanasia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervic...on?wprov=sfla1
    http://www.nature.com/news/best-way-...sought-1.13509
    appeal to tradition which is a logical phallacy.

    You also get that severe pain is associated with, for the type of injury, minor injury, and the more severe injury regularly manifests as mild neck pain in humans
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1264065-overview
    Human and fox physiology is rather different. We can accurately be used for pigs but not foxes. But I still maintain that poison is better.
    All you actually have to do is do your research on non botched hanging. The mode of death of a hanging, unless it's short drop which is intended to slowly asphyxiate, is cervical dislocation severing the base of the brain from the cervical column causing immediately lethal brain damage and dislocating all pain receptors from the brain.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The burden of evidence is on you and not me. As such you are expected to provide the evidence as you are making the claims. Not me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    appeal to tradition which is a logical phallacy.


    Human and fox physiology is rather different. We can accurately be used for pigs but not foxes. But I still maintain that poison is better.
    The burden of evidence is on you and not me. As such you are expected to provide the evidence as you are making the claims. Not me.
    I thought you liked what the scientific community said, I guess we should denounce gravity because that's merely an appeal to tradition, right...

    I'm not asking you to give evidence, I'm asking you to be a little bit less dense than usual, but then again you have always denounced science on this matter, we had the exact same debate before with you in effect saying "all the physiological research we have ever done is wrong."

    The detaching of the body from the brain means no pain, to suggest otherwise is so outlandish that anybody with a brain (still attached to the rest of their body or otherwise) would be wanting some proof. If I cut off my hand and start stabbing it do I still feel the pain too?

    I am starting to see though even clearer than ever why you don't believe in common sense...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I was saying I didn't believe fewer foxes are killed when fox hunting is banned.
    So if we are on the same page that it's not like the ban even prevents death then I'm failing to see where the issue is, when it cokes down to welfare does the painlessness not become the most important factor when numbers are otherwise equal?

    Oh yeah, I forgot, you think nobody every uses traps and the only people who ever kill foxes are sharpshooters that could shoot off a fly's wings at a hundred paces with a shotgun.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    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.

    This is how to logic.
    Except foxes aren't raised for meat. You can't apply the same argument to cats as you would to cows.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Except foxes aren't raised for meat. You can't apply the same argument to cats as you would to cows.
    So because we unnecessary raise them specifically to be eaten their life is worthless, whereas a wild animal must be preserved?

    When the objections are based on a misguided moral belief then the argument holds perfectly, or can you somehow justify that killing animals just to eat them when you don't have to is fine, but killing animals for other reasons is not?

    Either killing animals that don't "need" to die is okay, or it is not, you're trying to have it both ways.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So if we are on the same page that it's not like the ban even prevents death then I'm failing to see where the issue is, when it cokes down to welfare does the painlessness not become the most important factor when numbers are otherwise equal?

    Oh yeah, I forgot, you think nobody every uses traps and the only people who ever kill foxes are sharpshooters that could shoot off a fly's wings at a hundred paces with a shotgun.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How is running for life, chased by hounds a completely humane way to die. The answer - it isn't.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I thought you liked what the scientific community said, I guess we should denounce gravity because that's merely an appeal to tradition, right...
    great strawman.

    I'm not asking you to give evidence, I'm asking you to be a little bit less dense than usual, but then again you have always denounced science on this matter, we had the exact same debate before with you in effect saying "all the physiological research we have ever done is wrong."

    The detaching of the body from the brain means no pain, to suggest otherwise is so outlandish that anybody with a brain (still attached to the rest of their body or otherwise) would be wanting some proof. If I cut off my hand and start stabbing it do I still feel the pain too?
    there is no need for ad hominems. And actually yes you could still feel the pain because your body recognises it as your hand. You are aware of the thing about hitting a rubber hand with a mallet and feeling really pain because you belive it is your hand and phantom pains. It isn't outlandish at all. There being no physical pain and the brain not detecting pain are completely different.

    I am starting to see though even clearer than ever why you don't believe in common sense...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    again we don't need ad hominems and common sense is a loaded term which is very subjective thus doesn't exist. In the same way that terrorists don't exist.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    How is running for life, chased by hounds a completely humane way to die. The answer - it isn't.
    So is this admitting that you would rather die of blood loss, dehydration, or infection rather than cervical dislocation? I find it interesting how the one method out of those that is accepted by the scientific community as a humane way to kill small and medium mammals is the least humane to you.

    (Original post by Aph)
    great strawman.

    there is no need for ad hominems. And actually yes you could still feel the pain because your body recognises it as your hand. You are aware of the thing about hitting a rubber hand with a mallet and feeling really pain because you belive it is your hand and phantom pains. It isn't outlandish at all. There being no physical pain and the brain not detecting pain are completely different.

    again we don't need ad hominems and common sense is a loaded term which is very subjective thus doesn't exist. In the same way that terrorists don't exist.
    I thought you said that humans and animals weren't comparable? So just like the established consensus of the scientific community only matters to you sometimes, the rejection of physiological and psychological research only applies sometimes. The perception of pain in such cases in adult humans is down to actually being self aware, doing the same thing to a six month old child would ordinarily lead to no reaction. Given there is currently very few animals we are confident are self aware you start running into issues here, further, it's very hard to feel pain when the ability to process such stimuli is no longer there, I.e. when dead.

    In fact, you denounce argument by analogy but it is actually the only way to argue any animal feels pain I.e. to conform to conventional logic necessarily requires acceptance of minimal, if any, pain. Either argument by analogy is rejected, in which case we cannot make the claim at all convincingly that any pain could be felt in the first place, or we accept argument by analogy at which point we are forced to accept minimal pain. But again, its somewhat mooted by the fact that there is no evidence even humans feel pain when brain dead.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I thought you said that humans and animals weren't comparable? So just like the established consensus of the scientific community only matters to you sometimes, the rejection of physiological and psychological research only applies sometimes. The perception of pain in such cases in adult humans is down to actually being self aware, doing the same thing to a six month old child would ordinarily lead to no reaction. Given there is currently very few animals we are confident are self aware you start running into issues here, further, it's very hard to feel pain when the ability to process such stimuli is no longer there, I.e. when dead.
    again nice strawman.
    There is no proof that the fox dies out right (it should also be noted that this act would legalise the hunting of dear and other animals with dogs too) as no one has ever strapped monsters to a fox whist it is being hunted. And citation about phantom limbs? I can't find anything suggesting what you are.

    In fact, you denounce argument by analogy but it is actually the only way to argue any animal feels pain I.e. to conform to conventional logic necessarily requires acceptance of minimal, if any, pain. Either argument by analogy is rejected, in which case we cannot make the claim at all convincingly that any pain could be felt in the first place, or we accept argument by analogy at which point we are forced to accept minimal pain. But again, its somewhat mooted by the fact that there is no evidence even humans feel pain when brain dead.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    pain is a reasonable assumption based on the need of pain for reflex actions and survival. An animal which does not feel pain at all is more likely to die.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain. Considering I mentioned in the original thread that I was torn between abstain and aye, I am disappointed at the lack of effort made to convince me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Abstain. Considering I mentioned in the original thread that I was torn between abstain and aye, I am disappointed at the lack of effort made to convince me.
    respond to my posts on here?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    lol "logical phallacy"

    sounds like something a postmodernist feminist would say
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    and no harm otherwise.

    logically equivalent counter argument:

    allowing chess to be non banned won't do any good except for the hobby of a few.
    I'm pretty sure that foxes are being harmed, unless your definition of harm does not extend to unnecessary murder perhaps?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I'm pretty sure that foxes are being harmed, unless your definition of harm does not extend to unnecessary murder perhaps?
    but the only alternatives are them being killed by more painful means
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    but the only alternatives are them being killed by more painful means
    Not always. If that were true, then foxes would be extinct. And we cannot forge that as cruel as it may be, the food chain is a natural process...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Not always. If that were true, then foxes would be extinct. And we cannot forge that as cruel as it may be, the food chain is a natural process...
    not all of them have to be killed but some of them do.

    natural =/= good
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    not all of them have to be killed but some of them do.

    natural =/= good
    It still doesn't explain or justify why humans should be allowed to enter the process and hunt foxes for leisure.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.