Turn on thread page Beta

B1006 – Hunting Act Repeal Bill 2016 watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cuppa)
    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.
    You don't see why somebody would want to do something so it must be banned? You seem to be elevating animals to a greater moral position, are you by any chance a vegan?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    So just to check, your logic is that fox hutning is fine because foxes are ugly and bitey?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You don't see why somebody would want to do something so it must be banned? You seem to be elevating animals to a greater moral position, are you by any chance a vegan?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    People want fox hunting to be banned because it is cruel and barbaric; purely designed to entertain the upper class.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So just to check, your logic is that fox hutning is fine because foxes are ugly and bitey?
    Nope, because they're pests, bit people hear fox and think basil brush

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    People want fox hunting to be banned because it is cruel and barbaric; purely designed to entertain the upper class.
    It doesn't matter how many times you say the only people who would do it are members of the aristocracy it doesn't make it true, unless you're genuinely suggesting that up to about 4m people in the UK coming from all walks of life are members of the aristocracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nope, because they're pests, bit people hear fox and think basil brush



    It doesn't matter how many times you say the only people who would do it are members of the aristocracy it doesn't make it true, unless you're genuinely suggesting that up to about 4m people in the UK coming from all walks of life are members of the aristocracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We all know keeping down fox numbers isn't the motive behind this bill. This is simply to restore a vicious pastime which is currently banned.

    Who participates in this brutal activity is irrelevant. The fact is, those who take part in fox hunting do it simply for their own sick and bloodthirsty pleasures and there is no excuse whatsoever that would justify fox hunting.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nope, because they're pests, bit people hear fox and think basil brush



    It doesn't matter how many times you say the only people who would do it are members of the aristocracy it doesn't make it true, unless you're genuinely suggesting that up to about 4m people in the UK coming from all walks of life are members of the aristocracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are the one saying that it's classist to ban fox hunting. And he said upper class which is the same thing you said.

    Also you aren't defending hunting with hounds only a cull.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    We all know keeping down fox numbers isn't the motive behind this bill. This is simply to restore a vicious pastime which is currently banned.

    Who participates in this brutal activity is irrelevant. The fact is, those who take part in fox hunting do it simply for their own sick and bloodthirsty pleasures and there is no excuse whatsoever that would justify fox hunting.
    Let's present you with a simple option, if you could chose your method of execution which would you go for: hanging, being shot randomly, or being locked in a room with no food or water? I'll even let a pleb do it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Let's present you with a simple option, if you could chose your method of execution which would you go for: hanging, being shot randomly, or being locked in a room with no food or water? I'll even let a pleb do it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Don't repeat this nonsense again because as people out previously, this has nothing to do with the bill. Stop straying from the topic at hand.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Andy98)
    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.
    On the contrary, we're more likely to survive, we can adapt incredibly quickly, most other species cannot.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    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.
    So do you or do you not believe that homosexuality is "right" because it is observed in nature? If so, why is surplus killing not "right" despite being seen in nature?

    (Original post by TitanCream)
    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.
    No I don't, try harder.

    (Original post by TitanCream)
    I also fail to see how this ultimately benefits animals or human.
    #Titantheliberal
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Don't repeat this nonsense again because as people out previously, this has nothing to do with the bill. Stop straying from the topic at hand.
    Hanging, blood loss, or dehydration? It's a simple question and a simple answer (anybody with common sense says hanging). Ultimately on the animal rights front the question is the exact same, it's an option between blood loss, dehydration, and a broken neck; an option between pain, pain, and no pain, funnily enough all you that believe that animal rights are sacrosanct seem to like the pain option, it's entirely relevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You don't see why somebody would want to do something so it must be banned? You seem to be elevating animals to a greater moral position, are you by any chance a vegan?Posted from TSR Mobile
    Would me being a vegan put me in an inferior position somehow? Totally irrelevant. But no, I'm not even a vegetarian. I like and need meat because I can't eat some of the other iron sources. But I won't hunt the animal just for fun. Why is killing for fun justifiable?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Hanging, blood loss, or dehydration? It's a simple question and a simple answer (anybody with common sense says hanging). Ultimately on the animal rights front the question is the exact same, it's an option between blood loss, dehydration, and a broken neck; an option between pain, pain, and no pain, funnily enough all you that believe that animal rights are sacrosanct seem to like the pain option, it's entirely relevant.
    So you're now saying being chased by hounds for miles and miles is a more painless way to die than a swift bullet to the head. Anyway, the way the fox dies is irrelevant. As I and others have said again and again and again, this bill aims to provide people with a bloodthirsty form of entertainment so don't pretend its purpose is to simply keep fox numbers down.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cuppa)
    Would me being a vegan put me in an inferior position somehow? Totally irrelevant. But no, I'm not even a vegetarian. I like and need meat because I can't eat some of the other iron sources. But I won't hunt the animal just for fun. Why is killing for fun justifiable?
    No, but being a good vegan prevents hypocrisy; if it's wrong to kill an animal yourself and gain pleasure then why is it right to let somebody else kill an animal and you gain pleasure, you don't eat meat because you have to, you do so because it's easy and enjoyable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So you're now saying being chased by hounds for miles and miles is a more painless way to die than a swift bullet to the head. Anyway, the way the fox dies is irrelevant. As I and others have said again and again and again, this bill aims to provide people with a bloodthirsty form of entertainment so don't pretend its purpose is to simply keep fox numbers down.
    As has already been established, it is ultimately a question of a balance of killing methods, post ban the kill counts didn't drop, instead broken necks and crushed skulls dropped to near zero, trappings and shootings went up. The Act was class warfare (in so much as people think it an upper class thing) disguised as animal welfare. If the intentions in maintaining the act are animal welfare then it fails, most people who do the shooting aren't sharpshooters and don't have high powered scoped rifles, it's people who can hit a target with a shotgun.

    You aren't even pretending it's animal rights anymore, you are openly saying now that your support for the Act is almost entirely on the basis of not liking what other people want to do. I guess you like football, most do, let's ban that too because I can't say I'm much of a fan.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Saracen's Fez can you also update the year on the bill when you put it to division, please.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, but being a good vegan prevents hypocrisy; if it's wrong to kill an animal yourself and gain pleasure then why is it right to let somebody else kill an animal and you gain pleasure, you don't eat meat because you have to, you do so because it's easy and enjoyable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do see what you mean, but this is a different problem I'd think. There's a problem with the meat industry of course, and I'm not particularly proud of funding it. But that's probably for another bill.

    I would justify hunting for survival ie eating or protecting your food sources as I said in my op. Hunting for nothing else than a bit of fun is much more unethical than hunting for eating, even though a person might enjoy eating the said meat.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    On the contrary, we're more likely to survive, we can adapt incredibly quickly, most other species cannot.



    So do you or do you not believe that homosexuality is "right" because it is observed in nature? If so, why is surplus killing not "right" despite being seen in nature?



    No I don't, try harder.



    #Titantheliberal
    Thats actually a pretty decent name...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As has already been established, it is ultimately a question of a balance of killing methods, post ban the kill counts didn't drop, instead broken necks and crushed skulls dropped to near zero, trappings and shootings went up. The Act was class warfare (in so much as people think it an upper class thing) disguised as animal welfare. If the intentions in maintaining the act are animal welfare then it fails, most people who do the shooting aren't sharpshooters and don't have high powered scoped rifles, it's people who can hit a target with a shotgun.

    You aren't even pretending it's animal rights anymore, you are openly saying now that your support for the Act is almost entirely on the basis of not liking what other people want to do. I guess you like football, most do, let's ban that too because I can't say I'm much of a fan.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you think people are criticising this bill because they dislike the upper class, nothing to do with the fact tha basis of animal welfare is being attacked by this bill? Saying we don't support fox hunting is perfectly valid because it is disgustingly vicious and cruel? Can the same be said about football? No. That's just a silly comparison.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cuppa)
    I do see what you mean, but this is a different problem I'd think. There's a problem with the meat industry of course, and I'm not particularly proud of funding it. But that's probably for another bill.

    I would justify hunting for survival ie eating or protecting your food sources as I said in my op. Hunting for nothing else than a bit of fun is much more unethical than hunting for eating, even though a person might enjoy eating the said meat.
    I would say blaming the industry is a way of trying to alleviate the blame for habits one chooses to have. The industry does not force anybody to buy meat, people choose to do so. Both ways round animals are being killed, and people are gaining pleasure from it, whether that be directly or indirectly (indirectly in the vast majority of cases both ways), it's just on one people try to take the moral high ground and with the other they don't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just to add my ten pence here but....

    I come from a very rural countryside area where I knew many people who supported fox hunting.....
 
 
 
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 think parents should charge rent?

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.