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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I hope we have the opportunity to vote and defeat this Bill
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    We're superior in intelligence, but there are so many animals that have us beat in raw speed, strength, patience, and pretty much any other metric.
    We're superior in intelligence, but we're the only species destroying the Earth; makes me think we could learn a thing or two from other animals.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    We're superior in intelligence, but we're the only species destroying the Earth; makes me think we could learn a thing or two from other animals.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Something tells me Earth is going to outlast us, and if it doesn't we will have abandoned it long before it goes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    you genuinely believe we aren't?
    *We are the most physiologically advanced, but it doesn't mean we're superior to them. Are you superior to a baby?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Something tells me Earth is going to outlast us, and if it doesn't we will have abandoned it long before it goes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, the Earth will outlast us; however, at the rate we are going it will be uninhabitable within a few hundred years. We will reach the point of no return within a hundred years. We will not be capable of going to a habitable planet within that time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Yes, the Earth will outlast us; however, at the rate we are going it will be uninhabitable within a few hundred years. We will reach the point of no return within a hundred years. We will not be capable of going to a habitable planet within that time.
    Try telling that to the species that survived the late Devonian extinction, or the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, or Triassic-Jurassic, Cretaceous-Paleogene, or while we're at it Permian-Triassic, the greatest extinction event we know, 96% of marine species, 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, 57% of families and 83% of genera becoming extinct, and the only mass extinction known to include insects. The marine order that survived the best still had a 59% extinction rate, most were at or just shy of 100%.

    Pretty much the only thing we could do to truly end life on Earth is to literally destroy the planet.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Try telling that to the species that survived the late Devonian extinction, or the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, or Triassic-Jurassic, Cretaceous-Paleogene, or while we're at it Permian-Triassic, the greatest extinction event we know, 96% of marine species, 70% of terrestrial vertebrates, 57% of families and 83% of genera becoming extinct, and the only mass extinction known to include insects. The marine order that survived the best still had a 59% extinction rate, most were at or just shy of 100%.

    Pretty much the only thing we could do to truly end life on Earth is to literally destroy the planet.
    I'm just talking about humanity, we'd have more adapting to do than other species so they would be more likely than us to survive.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    It seems you forgot the exchange, surplus killing is not unique to humans, in fact foxes themselves have been observed surplus killing (and to a really rather extreme level), but not just foxes. Got any pets? If it's a cat or dog it would happily do the same, along with most bears, orcas, honey badgers, even some mites. To declare it should not be allowed because it is unatural is like saying homosexuality should be illegal because it's unatural, are you writing the bill to make homosexuality illegal again or do you want Hazzer1198 to do it for you and you just second it?
    Foxes don't have natural predators, certainly not those who would hunt them in such a way, and that's a rather bizarre analogy to make because homosexuality is natural and has been observed in both non-linked human societies since the beginning of history and in animals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No it isn't



    Give me a gun, combat knife, couple of Claymores (1 mine one sword please) and tell me what I'm killing for you, and a horse if you don't mind, beats walking.
    I'm saying no such thing, and once again you are making classist assumptionsWe come back round to the starting point again, you are to be killed (possibly), you get to choose how:1) run for your life and if I catch you (shouldn't be too hard to get away unless you're more out of shape than I am) I break your neck2) I shoot you, most places won't kill you very quickly3) stick your leg in a bear trap and see how long you last.The flaw in the logic you are creating is to baselessly reject the premise

    It seems you forgot the exchange, surplus killing is not unique to humans, in fact foxes themselves have been observed surplus killing (and to a really rather extreme level), but not just foxes. Got any pets? If it's a cat or dog it would happily do the same, along with most bears, orcas, honey badgers, even some mites. To declare it should not be allowed because it is unatural is like saying homosexuality should be illegal because it's unatural, are you writing the bill to make homosexuality illegal again or do you want Hazzer1198 to do it for you and you just second it?
    Your example is terrible and again, does nothing to change my mind besides making me giggle at your stubborn approach ans failure to offer any sound argument for allowing humans to hunt foxes. You cite the food chain which is rather baseless seeing as it has no relevance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    *We are the most physiologically advanced, but it doesn't mean we're superior to them. Are you superior to a baby?
    due to a baby's potential to gain person hood, no. If babies were babies for the rest of their lives, yes.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Nay.

    Out out of respect for my party colleague i shan't get involved in the public debate against him.

    (Original post by Andy98)
    Yes, the Earth will outlast us; however, at the rate we are going it will be uninhabitable within a few hundred years. We will reach the point of no return within a hundred years. We will not be capable of going to a habitable planet within that time.
    You've gone mad. We may well starve or cook the Africans to extinction however there's nothing to suggest that the human race itself will become extinct.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye. I honestly fail to see the anger over fox hunting. It seems no more inhumane than going for a cheeky Nandos and eating a chicken that actually had no chance at natural life and whose very existence was for the purpose of your meal: and this is undoubtedly also an activity partaken in for enjoyment rather than out of necessity. I believe the opposition to this originally stems primarily from revolt against the upper class and animals rights have just been used as a false justification. All credit to those who are vegetarians/vegans, believe humans have a responsibility to improve the lives of animals and live by that belief - I have massive respect for you and completely see why you'd oppose this - but I feel most are doing so out of instinct more than logic. I would find it hypocritical to eat meat because I enjoy doing so, and then tell others they can't partake in a sport because it's unfair on the animals involved.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Aye. I honestly fail to see the anger over fox hunting. It seems no more inhumane than going for a cheeky Nandos and eating a chicken that actually had no chance at natural life and whose very existence was for the purpose of your meal: and this is undoubtedly also an activity partaken in for enjoyment rather than out of necessity. I believe the opposition to this originally stems primarily from revolt against the upper class and animals rights have just been used as a false justification. All credit to those who are vegetarians/vegans, believe humans have a responsibility to improve the lives of animals and live by that belief - I have massive respect for you and completely see why you'd oppose this - but I feel most are doing so out of instinct more than logic. I would find it hypocritical to eat meat because I enjoy doing so, and then tell others they can't partake in a sport because it's unfair on the animals involved.
    For me it's about how the animals die; it has to be a humane death. Plus I believe the animal must then be used.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I also fail to see how this ultimately benefits animals or human.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    An extra 24 hours of debate please, and then division tomorrow.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why a fox trap is more inhumane than a fox hunt.

    This is classism and urban centrism (the latter to be fair does more good than harm, country folk can be very backwards) in action, not animals rights.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I would at least want to hear some reasons as to why fox hunting should be allowed.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I would at least want to hear some reasons as to why fox hunting should be allowed.
    No you don't, you want something to scoff at

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No you don't, you want something to scoff at

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not at all. Politics is about healthy debate and although we are on the opposing sides, I believe that a full, clear and detailed list of reasons for the ban is beneficial for the argument.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Not at all. Politics is about healthy debate and although we are on the opposing sides, I believe that a full, clear and detailed list of reasons for the ban is beneficial for the argument.
    Well, you've spent the entirety scoffing rather than engaging, if you want "healthy debate" I suggest you try engaging in it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.