Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    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.
    How about you read what the BBC had to say in 1999: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/418681.stm
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    How about you read what the BBC had to say in 1999: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/418681.stm
    My opinion won't change I'm afraid, I have read numerous articles on this and still find it a disgusting, repulsive and rather immature act of 'pleasure'.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    My opinion won't change I'm afraid, I have read numerous articles on this and still find it a disgusting, repulsive and rather immature act of 'pleasure'.
    All that says is that you have wasted both our times by going from a position of "I will reject any argument" to..."I will reject any argument"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    All that says is that you have wasted both our times by going from a position of "I will reject any argument" to..."I will reject any argument"
    Not really, I have done a lot of research into this in the past and as someone who comes from a family who are mostly members of the Countryside alliance, I still reject it........
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Not really, I have done a lot of research into this in the past and as someone who comes from a family who are mostly members of the Countryside alliance, I still reject it........
    Exactly, you entered into the debate well, I can only guess to waste our time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Exactly, you entered into the debate well, I can only guess to waste our time.
    Nope. I joined because hunting animals for pleasure is ridicolous.

    Edit: My spell checker is clearly not working ;L
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Nope. I joined because hunting animals for pleasure is ridicolous.
    With the intention from the start to reject any and all arguments made, not even to argue against them, but to simply state falsehood.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With the intention from the start to reject any and all arguments made, not even to argue against them, but to simply state falsehood.
    You are wrong. Your argument is terrible, and I am not alone in stating that. You know, I see very little people supporting you or your claims.....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, nature is cruel, we cannot stop nature, hounds hunting foxes appears cruel but in nature lots of animals hunts lots of animals, I do not see why humans should not join in with the hunting.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    You are wrong. Your argument is terrible, and I am not alone in stating that. You know, I see very little people supporting you or your claims.....
    the ENTIRE argument so far being made by the antis is to live in a dream world where not a single fox is killed by anybody, in an imaginary world where the day after the hunting act came into force the number of foxes killed dropped to zero, rather than the real world where the figure dipped a bit and then picked up again when trappings and shootings increased.

    And I'll say it again, HANSARD is a thing, this is your first time round, somebody not saying anything does not mean they do not exist, if that were the case turnout on most items would be absurdly low.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    the ENTIRE argument so far being made by the antis is to live in a dream world where not a single fox is killed by anybody, in an imaginary world where the day after the hunting act came into force the number of foxes killed dropped to zero, rather than the real world where the figure dipped a bit and then picked up again when trappings and shootings increased.

    And I'll say it again, HANSARD is a thing, this is your first time round, somebody not saying anything does not mean they do not exist, if that were the case turnout on most items would be absurdly low.
    Your use of capitals implies that you are getting frustrated? I would if I suggested something absurd with no good evidence. Nevertheless, I won't support this bill (and I guess a minority will).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Your use of capitals implies that you are getting frustrated? I would if I suggested something absurd with no good evidence. Nevertheless, I won't support this bill (and I guess a minority will).
    It's a matter of emphasis, and given that you seem to reluctant to look at Hansard you could easily be surprised by the outcome.

    At the end of the day though there are two main sides: numbers and humanity. Numbers is easy enough, if the ban didn't decrease the number of kills it would be reasonable to assume that repeal won't increase (yeah, the little ideal world you all seem to live in isn't reality). On the humanity side I imagine the reluctance of people to say "I would rather have my neck broken" and instead electing to stay silent would imply that they know what honesty entails.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's a matter of emphasis, and given that you seem to reluctant to look at Hansard you could easily be surprised by the outcome.

    At the end of the day though there are two main sides: numbers and humanity. Numbers is easy enough, if the ban didn't decrease the number of kills it would be reasonable to assume that repeal won't increase (yeah, the little ideal world you all seem to live in isn't reality). On the humanity side I imagine the reluctance of people to say "I would rather have my neck broken" and instead electing to stay silent would imply that they know what honesty entails.
    The little world of basic humanity and decency? The "little world" where I (or we as you say, who is we exactly?) believe hunting animals for fun is wrong?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    The little world of basic humanity and decency? The "little world" where I (or we as you say, who is we exactly?) believe hunting animals for fun is wrong?
    Simple question: do you believe that no foxes are killed by any means other than hunting? I guess you will have difficulty answering that, why break the habit of the evening?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Simple question: do you believe that no foxes are killed by any means other than hunting? I guess you will have difficulty answering that, why break the habit of the evening?
    So you're saying this bill is purely to keep fox numbers down, not to re-introduce a vicious activity which the upper class have enjoyed participating in in the past?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Simple question: do you believe that no foxes are killed by any means other than hunting? I guess you will have difficulty answering that, why break the habit of the evening?
    Of course not, but why make it legal to hunt them? I'm really struggling to see your justification. Animals kill animals? Yes, it's called a food chain you see, humans should be able to hunt foxes? You put 1 + 1 and found 4. Your logic is deeply flawed here.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain. Animals don't have rights but there are far more productive uses of them than hunting.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon if you want to hunt so much, you should do it on foot, with a rifle or shotgun, and by inflicting as little pain and distress to the animal as possible
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, Jammy couldn't even be bothered to put the effort in to change to the correct year.

    Nay, fox hunting is cruel and unnatural and serves no purpose that could not be served by something else.
 
 
 
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 16, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.