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%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    respond to my posts on here?
    Start with the assumption that I accept animals are of no moral importance. However, I don't think liberty is either. What instrumental good does fox hunting achieve?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Start with the assumption that I accept animals are of no moral importance. However, I don't think liberty is either. What instrumental good does fox hunting achieve?
    Interesting.

    You don't accept the "it's cruel to the foxes" argument presumably, based on that comment.

    And you would accept that people enjoy fox hunting.

    And surely you would accept that, all things being equal, people enjoying something is at least a neutral, but probably a good, thing.

    Then:

    For no reason stated before in these arguments, is fox hunting a negative.

    People enjoy it.

    So it is either a neutral thing or a good thing.

    Neither of those two categorisations of something warrants a ban.



    Furthermore, farmers are always going to hunt foxes; they have right to. The choice is between trapping them and letting them die of dehydration, them being shot and bleeding to death, and them being hunted and quickly killed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    Interesting.

    You don't accept the "it's cruel to the foxes" argument presumably, based on that comment.

    And you would accept that people enjoy fox hunting.

    And surely you would accept that, all things being equal, people enjoying something is at least a neutral, but probably a good, thing.

    Then:

    For no reason stated before in these arguments, is fox hunting a negative.

    People enjoy it.

    So it is either a neutral thing or a good thing.

    Neither of those two categorisations of something warrants a ban.



    Furthermore, farmers are always going to hunt foxes; they have right to. The choice is between trapping them and letting them die of dehydration, them being shot and bleeding to death, and them being hunted and quickly killed.
    I think it's potentially a waste of human and animal capital and may lead to people developing tendencies which support cruelty, potentially to humans.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Imma keep it real in this MHOC ****.

    Only rich people hunt & to be honest, I hate rich people.
    However, foxes are irrelevant beings.

    As a result, I vote Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Trapping)
    Imma keep it real in this MHOC ****.

    Only rich people hunt & to be honest, I hate rich people.
    However, foxes are irrelevant beings.

    As a result, I vote Aye.
    Individuals who make bold statements about hating rich people tend to be the jealous, poorer individuals in society.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.

    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.
    You really do not seem to understand that your argument is self defeating. Pain reflex as an argument for pain is argument by analogy. If the animal reacts the same way that we do to the same stimulus argument by analogy leads to the conclusion that the same effect is there. I.e. if you prick an animal with a pin and it recoils from it, as a human would do, the conclusion is that it has some form of pain reaction. The question is whether its to the brain as with a human, or just a closed loop restricted to the muscles required to remove the pain (as is the case with humans, if you bothered with GCSE biology, except we know there is also to the brain). In all likelihood it's the former for learning.

    Regardless, the method of argument that you are required to use to justify pain, that is argument by analogy, is the very same argument that you are repudiating. While accepting argument by analogy for pain you are ignoring it for painless death, that is you are denying that severe cervical dislocation is [near] painless.

    And you don't need to hook foxes or other animals up during the chase, it is literally irrelevant to the death, the death can be done in a lab because it is a simple case of the cervical dislocation.

    Your argument is literally self defeating. The line of argument required to justify pain justifies painlessness. You either accept argument by analogy, which you do in the last paragraph, at which point the death becomes painless, or you don't accepted argument by analogy, as is the case in the earlier sections, in which case you cannot say there is pain in the first place. Either way it's a painless death.

    (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?
    Shame, we lasted this long without anybody being moronic enough not to know the definition of murder but you just broke that. If you believe that foxes are human I think you have deeper issues.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Witness me, this is how easy it is to vote against one's own conscience on a ****ing MHoC bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    PetrosAC Airmed joecphillips


    Would any of you be willing to change to an aye given that even our resident green nut (who two of you will remember proposed war to protect fauna) cannot create a liberal argument that is not self defeating, uktimately boiling opposition down to outright illiberalism?
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Peer Support Volunteers
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    PetrosAC Airmed joecphillips


    Would any of you be willing to change to an aye given that even our resident green nut (who two of you will remember proposed war to protect fauna) cannot create a liberal argument that is not self defeating, uktimately boiling opposition down to outright illiberalism?
    JD, why did you have to remind me?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    PetrosAC Airmed joecphillips


    Would any of you be willing to change to an aye given that even our resident green nut (who two of you will remember proposed war to protect fauna) cannot create a liberal argument that is not self defeating, uktimately boiling opposition down to outright illiberalism?
    I'm not sure if it's just me, but I see parallels between this and the argument for decriminalising drugs. It'll happen anyway, so it's better to make sure it's done in the least bad way possible.

    I'll reconsider my position.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You really do not seem to understand that your argument is self defeating. Pain reflex as an argument for pain is argument by analogy. If the animal reacts the same way that we do to the same stimulus argument by analogy leads to the conclusion that the same effect is there. I.e. if you prick an animal with a pin and it recoils from it, as a human would do, the conclusion is that it has some form of pain reaction. The question is whether its to the brain as with a human, or just a closed loop restricted to the muscles required to remove the pain (as is the case with humans, if you bothered with GCSE biology, except we know there is also to the brain). In all likelihood it's the former for learning.

    Regardless, the method of argument that you are required to use to justify pain, that is argument by analogy, is the very same argument that you are repudiating. While accepting argument by analogy for pain you are ignoring it for painless death, that is you are denying that severe cervical dislocation is [near] painless.
    except that isn't what I'm doing. I'm saying that the pain reflex and learning is exhibited in all animals, there have been experiments to prove this in animals and we can identify the parts of the brain involved in prosessing pain so we know that pain is real. We do not know how the fox feels when being chased (although fight or flight would suggest fear) and we do not know if it feel pain during death or even if it dies instantaneously. There have been no studies on this that I am aware of. Argument by analogy only works in biology when the animals are anatomically similar.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not sure if it's just me, but I see parallels between this and the argument for decriminalising drugs. It'll happen anyway, so it's better to make sure it's done in the least bad way possible.

    I'll reconsider my position.
    The least bad way woudl be poisoning. Or for farmers to actually invest in ways to protect their animals better. I'd like to remind you that this would also legalise hare coursing and killing dear with a pack of hounds too.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You really do not seem to understand that your argument is self defeating. Pain reflex as an argument for pain is argument by analogy. If the animal reacts the same way that we do to the same stimulus argument by analogy leads to the conclusion that the same effect is there. I.e. if you prick an animal with a pin and it recoils from it, as a human would do, the conclusion is that it has some form of pain reaction. The question is whether its to the brain as with a human, or just a closed loop restricted to the muscles required to remove the pain (as is the case with humans, if you bothered with GCSE biology, except we know there is also to the brain). In all likelihood it's the former for learning.

    Regardless, the method of argument that you are required to use to justify pain, that is argument by analogy, is the very same argument that you are repudiating. While accepting argument by analogy for pain you are ignoring it for painless death, that is you are denying that severe cervical dislocation is [near] painless.

    And you don't need to hook foxes or other animals up during the chase, it is literally irrelevant to the death, the death can be done in a lab because it is a simple case of the cervical dislocation.

    Your argument is literally self defeating. The line of argument required to justify pain justifies painlessness. You either accept argument by analogy, which you do in the last paragraph, at which point the death becomes painless, or you don't accepted argument by analogy, as is the case in the earlier sections, in which case you cannot say there is pain in the first place. Either way it's a painless death.

    And yet agajn

    Shame, we lasted this long without anybody being moronic enough not to know the definition of murder but you just broke that. If you believe that foxes are human I think you have deeper issues.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yet again you fail to justify why hunting foxes is good for anyone. How does a human benefit from killing and hunting an animal for leisure? Is this going to protect all foxes? You know this is only to serve the interests of a few and does not benefit anyone in a justifiable manner. Its a simple case of wanting to hunt got leisure without no real benefit for anyone.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    except that isn't what I'm doing. I'm saying that the pain reflex and learning is exhibited in all animals, there have been experiments to prove this in animals and we can identify the parts of the brain involved in prosessing pain so we know that pain is real. We do not know how the fox feels when being chased (although fight or flight would suggest fear) and we do not know if it feel pain during death or even if it dies instantaneously. There have been no studies on this that I am aware of. Argument by analogy only works in biology when the animals are anatomically similar.
    Your lack of ability to logic is painful. If you reject argument by analogy where physiology is different you reject that such animals feel pain, what is so hard to understand. Just pick up a ****ing text book on the matter and you will see that the only way we justify pain in animals is argument by analogy, there is literally no other way, whether you accept it or not.

    If argument by analogy does not work unless physiology is similar then how can you justify that similar reaction to things that inflict pain on humans is a sign if pain?

    (Original post by Airmed)
    JD, why did you have to remind me?
    To remind you of the level of naturephilia we're dealing with here

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The least bad way woudl be poisoning. Or for farmers to actually invest in ways to protect their animals better. I'd like to remind you that this would also legalise hare coursing and killing dear with a pack of hounds too.
    Poisoning is probably a lot harder to carry out and could easily go wrong, with other animals being poisoned. As I've said, I'm reconsidering, I could still sway either way
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm not sure if it's just me, but I see parallels between this and the argument for decriminalising drugs. It'll happen anyway, so it's better to make sure it's done in the least bad way possible.

    I'll reconsider my position.
    That suggests that both things are certainly happening anyway. If you need another reason to just nudge you over the mark it would be that it stops this coming up every term

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That suggests that both things are certainly happening anyway. If you need another reason to just nudge you over the mark it would be that it stops this coming up every term

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well they both are happening anyway

    We'll see. I've got a few days anyway.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Your lack of ability to logic is painful. If you reject argument by analogy where physiology is different you reject that such animals feel pain, what is so hard to understand. Just pick up a ****ing text book on the matter and you will see that the only way we justify pain in animals is argument by analogy, there is literally no other way, whether you accept it or not.

    If argument by analogy does not work unless physiology is similar then how can you justify that similar reaction to things that inflict pain on humans is a sign if pain?



    To remind you of the level of naturephilia we're dealing with here

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, pain can be justified by a neurological responce to a physical stimulus along with a physical recoil and a learned avoidance behaviour as a result. No argument by analogy needed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, pain can be justified by a neurological responce to a physical stimulus along with a physical recoil and a learned avoidance behaviour as a result. No argument by analogy needed.
    Can you remind us how much logic you have studied? Once again you are putting your own misguided thought before logic and the scientific community.

    Literally you are using argument from analogy whether you accept it or not. What guides you to thinking that reaction means pain is the fact it is the case for humans...

    If humans did not react in that way to a pain stimulus nobody would assume that animals acting that way are doing so due to pain.

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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can you remind us how much logic you have studied? Once again you are putting your own misguided thought before logic and the scientific community.

    Literally you are using argument from analogy whether you accept it or not. What guides you to thinking that reaction means pain is the fact it is the case for humans...

    If humans did not react in that way to a pain stimulus nobody would assume that animals acting that way are doing so due to pain.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not nessesaraly. Say for death people. In a world of the hearing no one would even assume a death person was death. No one would have ever made that leap in your example. But people did. Because of their physical responses to natural stimuli.

    However again argument by analogy can be used when it can be observed. Using multiple data points and extrapolating. So buy saying that we feel pain and can witness the exact same responces to pain as other animals both in the brain and out of it it is reasonable to assume pain.

    But if we say humans scream when they break their ankle so all animals scream when they break their ankle isn't reasonable because it's only one data point. That is what I have been arguing.
 
 
 
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
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.