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

B1006 – Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016 watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    Ok. I see you refuse to offer any more arguments, most likely as you may not have any.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No you don't, you want something to scoff at

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The trouble is, this is such a disgusting bill that most things contained within it are easy to pick holes in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I would at least want to hear some reasons as to why fox hunting should be allowed.
    It's less to do with fox hunting in particular, and more to do with the role of the state. For me, approaching it as "why should it be allowed?" is wrong, and represents a dangerous view of our liberties as only being what is allowed by the government rather than general rights which can only be restricted when truly necessary. I believe that unless there is a good reason to ban something, the decision of whether to engage with it or not should be left to private citizens rather than a moralistic view imposed on them - and I see no particularly good or logical reason to ban fox hunting.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Ok. I see you refuse to offer any more arguments, most likely as you may not have any.
    When a point is merely dismissed there is no point in making it

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    The trouble is, this is such a disgusting bill that most things contained within it are easy to pick holes in.
    I would say the same to most of your content, care to "pick a hole" in any of it before you chose being filled with holes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It's less to do with fox hunting in particular, and more to do with the role of the state. For me, approaching it as "why should it be allowed?" is wrong, and represents a dangerous view of our liberties as only being what is allowed by the government rather than general rights which can only be restricted when truly necessary. I believe that unless there is a good reason to ban something, the decision of whether to engage with it or not should be left to private citizens rather than a moralistic view imposed on them - and I see no particularly good or logical reason to ban fox hunting.
    You make a very good argument here. A strong one (the strongest I have seen in favour), my only qualm is to argue that ultimately the rights of animals if you like can never be argued unless done my mankind.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When a point is merely dismissed there is no point in making it



    I would say the same to most of your content, care to "pick a hole" in any of it before you chose being filled with holes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is politics my friend, as someone told me when I first started here, you need a thick skin and determination.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    This is politics my friend, as someone told me when I first started here, you need a thick skin and determination.
    It also comes with allocating resources effectively, trying to convert the inconvertible doesn't tick that box.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    You make a very good argument here. A strong one (the strongest I have seen in favour), my only qualm is to argue that ultimately the rights of animals if you like can never be argued unless done my mankind.
    Why do you think animals have rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why do you think animals have rights?
    They don't, and thats the problems. An animal doesn't deserve to be treated poorly simply because it is not human, how can we justify abuse or poor treatment towards animals and claim to be morally good?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    They don't, and thats the problems. An animal doesn't deserve to be treated poorly simply because it is not human, how can we justify abuse or poor treatment towards animals and claim to be morally good?
    We don't need to justify it until we first show that animals are morally considerable, and I don't believe that can be done. Humans are entitled to treat animals as mere objects/playthings.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    We don't need to justify it until we first show that animals are morally considerable, and I don't believe that can be done. Humans are entitled to treat animals as mere objects/playthings.
    No they are not. Such arrogance is shocking, do you believe it is fair that animals endure abuse or violation?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    No they are not. Such arrogance is shocking, do you believe it is fair that animals endure abuse or violation?
    Convincing...they are not, because are not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    No they are not. Such arrogance is shocking, do you believe it is fair that animals endure abuse or violation?
    'Fair' is ultimately just a proxy for 'moral' here - you are assuming your conclusion rather than making an argument. Why do you believe animals are morally considerable?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    You make a very good argument here. A strong one (the strongest I have seen in favour), my only qualm is to argue that ultimately the rights of animals if you like can never be argued unless done my mankind.
    I don't believe any animal has a particular right not to be hunted or killed: whether we consider it moral, fair or otherwise, it is not only natural, not only inevitable, but the basis of our entire ecosystem. We simply cannot 'protect' animals: the fox you save by banning hunting may well simply die by an altogether more gruesome means, or inflict the same fate on countless others. They do not deserve to die any more or less than the fox, but it is just a part of the cycle of life. We should look after our own species - as is our natural inclination - and of course the planet we live on, and there is a pragmatic case for biodiversity, but certainly not for each individual animal life.

    What's more, those in favour of the ban are in most cases not primarily concerned with animal welfare. Most happily eat animals born for the very purpose and systematicly slaughtered. The opposition to hunting is moreover borne either of an emotional response to the creatures, or in some cases class snobbery.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'Fair' is ultimately just a proxy for 'moral' here - you are assuming your conclusion rather than making an argument. Why do you believe animals are morally considerable?
    Well, heres a flip of the coin...

    Why aren't they morally considerable?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TitanCream)
    Well, heres a flip of the coin...

    Why aren't they morally considerable?
    Things not being morally considerable is the default position. Humans are morally considerable because there is no rational distinction between those who nearly all would axiomatically take as morally considerable (and of course, for moral considerability to be a concept, at least some must be) - namely, themselves, possibly their family. However, there are rational distinctions from animals (understanding of perception, certainty about capability of suffering, capability of moral reasoning etc etc).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't believe any animal has a particular right not to be hunted or killed: whether we consider it moral, fair or otherwise, it is not only natural, not only inevitable, but the basis of our entire ecosystem. We simply cannot 'protect' animals: the fox you save by banning hunting may well simply die by an altogether more gruesome means, or inflict the same fate on countless others. They do not deserve to die any more or less than the fox, but it is just a part of the cycle of life. We should look after our own species - as is our natural inclination - and of course the planet we live on, and there is a pragmatic case for biodiversity, but certainly not for each individual animal life.

    What's more, those in favour of the ban are in most cases not primarily concerned with animal welfare. Most happily eat animals born for the very purpose and systematicly slaughtered. The opposition to hunting is moreover borne either of an emotional response to the creatures, or in some cases class snobbery.
    You also get that people see this:
    1468611653701.jpg
    Rather than this
    1468611669138.jpg

    As well as this
    1468611684681.jpg
    Rather than
    1468611701538.jpg

    And
    1468611714867.jpg
    Instead of
    1468611729236.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You also get that people see this:
    1468611653701.jpg
    Rather than this
    1468611669138.jpg

    As well as this
    1468611684681.jpg
    Rather than
    1468611701538.jpg

    And
    1468611714867.jpg
    Instead of
    1468611729236.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is quite sick and unrelated from the bill. This bill isn't about eating meat or stopping fox attacks on other animals - it's simply to legalise a barbaric aristocractic pastime.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This is quite sick and unrelated from the bill. This bill isn't about eating meat or stopping fox attacks on other animals - it's simply to legalise a barbaric aristocractic pastime.
    Except it makes a big difference. Why is it than endangered pandas get a lot of money but the Chinese alligator gets barely any (I guess you didn't even know they were critically endangered)? One is cute and cuddly, the other is ugly and bitey. People form an irrational attachment to things they think are cute and cuddly, it's the reason people don't eat dogs (much) in the west.

    And what is it with you and thinking that it is somehow restricted to the 0.1%, or is that simply how out of touch you are?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hunting for sport is absolutely disgusting I don't see why a persons wish to kill animals for nothing but fun should be protected by law lmao. I'd rather the poor animals are.

    If a fox eats up all of your chicken again and again and you rely on the chickens, then it's a different matter. Hunting them with hounds for the sake of it is, as I said, just purely disgusting and there's absolutely no need for it.
 
 
 
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.