Turn on thread page Beta

Fox hunting is barbaric and should be banned. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I know. I'm just pissing around!
    Have you and corey been having behaviour therapy? You seem a lot more mellow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Have you and corey been having behaviour therapy? You seem a lot more mellow.
    I have mellowed tremendously these last few weeks. The fact that this has coincided with me giving up smoking seems to make no sense at all does it?

    Anyway, my formative style was often inerpreted as out and out aggression. In many cases it wasn't. It was merely perceived that way. Regardless I've changed only my style of presentation, not my views so don't drop your guard (cos I'm still a horrible person under the surface!)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if we want to talk about scientific discoveries, or latest research, or post mortems carried out by vets we could do that all day, and some would be in favour of fox hunting, and some would be against fox hunting, we wouldn't get anywhere.
    vienna, i dont understand, you havent answered my question. i asked why fox hunters say that all the dogs will have to be killed if fox hunting is banned, when you said that dogs that are too old aren't killed. all you said was that it's common for hunters to keep kennels of dogs of all ages. that is NOT what i wanted to know, i want to know why you think that the dogs aren't killed once they are useless for hunting, yet the actual hunters say that if hunting is banned all the dogs will be killed. just give an answer PLEASE.
    yes, vienna, the website is probably as biased as the profoxhunting one someone gave earlier... but at least you can tell there is some truth in the claims made on the league against cruel sports website, there are videos of hunts, none that i could ever bring myself to watch, but i'm sure they would not put them on their website unless they supported the claims made that fox hunting is cruel. there is also a lot of interesting information on there, post mortem results carried out by vets stating that foxes aren't killed by one simple bite to the neck...also it states that 76% of the public think hunting with dogs should be illegal, hmm...as opposed to the 41% that was said by someone else...i guess we won't know which one is right. it also states the percentage of farmers that don't allow hunting to take place on their land, surprisingly high.
    oh, and yes, course i have a mother, i think everyone does ;D there ya go, u learn something new everyday, right vienna?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dill)
    if we want to talk about scientific discoveries, or latest research, or post mortems carried out by vets we could do that all day, and some would be in favour of fox hunting, and some would be against fox hunting, we wouldn't get anywhere.
    vienna, i dont understand, you havent answered my question. i asked why fox hunters say that all the dogs will have to be killed if fox hunting is banned, when you said that dogs that are too old aren't killed. all you said was that it's common for hunters to keep kennels of dogs of all ages. that is NOT what i wanted to know, i want to know why you think that the dogs aren't killed once they are useless for hunting, yet the actual hunters say that if hunting is banned all the dogs will be killed. just give an answer PLEASE.
    yes, vienna, the website is probably as biased as the profoxhunting one someone gave earlier... but at least you can tell there is some truth in the claims made on the league against cruel sports website, there are videos of hunts, none that i could ever bring myself to watch, but i'm sure they would not put them on their website unless they supported the claims made that fox hunting is cruel. there is also a lot of interesting information on there, post mortem results carried out by vets stating that foxes aren't killed by one simple bite to the neck...also it states that 76% of the public think hunting with dogs should be illegal, hmm...as opposed to the 41% that was said by someone else...i guess we won't know which one is right. it also states the percentage of farmers that don't allow hunting to take place on their land, surprisingly high.
    oh, and yes, course i have a mother, i think everyone does ;D there ya go, u learn something new everyday, right vienna?
    Since when has what the public thinks had anything to do with the price of tea in China? Last time I checked over 70% of people favored a return of the death penalty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dill)
    if we want to talk about scientific discoveries, or latest research, or post mortems carried out by vets we could do that all day, and some would be in favour of fox hunting, and some would be against fox hunting, we wouldn't get anywhere.
    (Original post by Dill)
    post mortem results carried out by vets stating that foxes aren't killed by one simple bite to the neck
    Hmmm...

    (Original post by Dill)
    also it states that 76% of the public think hunting with dogs should be illegal, hmm...as opposed to the 41% that was said by someone else...
    You can use statistics to prove anything. And if the government used public opinion to guide its actions, we'd probably all have been wiped out years ago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I have mellowed tremendously these last few weeks. The fact that this has coincided with me giving up smoking seems to make no sense at all does it?

    Anyway, my formative style was often inerpreted as out and out aggression. In many cases it wasn't. It was merely perceived that way. Regardless I've changed only my style of presentation, not my views so don't drop your guard (cos I'm still a horrible person under the surface!)
    Did you know, if you keep on smoking (less than 15 a day) until you're 35 - you have a similar epidemiological chance of dying from lung cancer than someone who never smoked at all

    And don't worry, guards won't be dropped.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Did you know, if you keep on smoking (less than 15 a day) until you're 35 - you have a similar epidemiological chance of dying from lung cancer than someone who never smoked at all

    And don't worry, guards won't be dropped.
    Well, I'm under 35 but exceeded the 15 a day (Good God.....I used to get through that many driving to work!) so I guess I'm doomed. Hope not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For those anti-hunting people what would you suggest is the best way to deal with the foxes, given that they are pests and their population needs to be controlled?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    Have you and corey been having behaviour therapy? You seem a lot more mellow.
    Glad I'm not the only one to notice it - I thought they were both just drinking a lot more
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Since when has what the public thinks had anything to do with the price of tea in China? Last time I checked over 70% of people favored a return of the death penalty.
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    You can use statistics to prove anything. And if the government used public opinion to guide its actions, we'd probably all have been wiped out years ago.
    lol that's what i mean...it was in reply to someone who said 59% of the public are in favour of fox hunting. some statistics totally contradict eachother, kinda like the bible, but i wont go into that, so there's really no point in paying attention to whoever says '59% of people are in favour of fox hunting' because there are different statistics saying otherwise, so who really knows the true figure? all i know is that i wasn't asked whether i agree with it or not :0P
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    having a trained gamekeeper would control the size of the fox population by shooting. there would be little risk of him/her missing or only maiming a fox, because the person would be fully educated on the foxs' habits, homes etc. they would also be a trained marksman, and would only fire when within reasonable distance and conditions. this would be far more effective in controlling a fox population then chasing across the countryside with a large team of horses and dogs.

    secondly- if, as you say, fox hunting is not a cruel sport, then where does it differ from other blood sports? pastimes such as **** fighting and bear baiting were banned ages ago because it was felt that those sports were cruel.

    here are speeches for both sides:

    http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/20318-20.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riffraff)
    having a trained gamekeeper would control the size of the fox population by shooting. there would be little risk of him/her missing or only maiming a fox, because the person would be fully educated on the foxs' habits, homes etc. they would also be a trained marksman, and would only fire when within reasonable distance and conditions. this would be far more effective in controlling a fox population then chasing across the countryside with a large team of horses and dogs.
    Foxes are very quick and quite small you know. Even if you had the best sniper in the world they would not kill the fox every time. There would be many cases of foxes being hit but not killed, causing a lot of suffering. Also with a hunt, the weaker/older members of the fox population are more likely to be the ones to be chased. If you just got someone to shoot at a fox when they saw it how are they to know whether it is a healthy vixen that's just given birth to a litter of pups? If you shoot and kill that one it would be more cruel to more foxes.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    If you come back as a fox in another lifetime, you will know how they feel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil)
    If you come back as a fox in another lifetime, you will know how they feel.
    I don't mean to be rude, but what value does that statement give to a discussion?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil)
    If you come back as a fox in another lifetime, you will know how they feel.
    :rolleyes:
    What if you come back as a hunter?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Well, try and imagine how the foxes feel. A life of starving, fear and eventually, being ripped apart. They are living beings, similar to cats and dogs and I think it's cruel to have them suffer such pain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil)
    Well, try and imagine how the foxes feel. A life of starving, fear and eventually, being ripped apart. They are living beings, similar to cats and dogs and I think it's cruel to have them suffer such pain.
    :confused: Why are they starving and afraid for the whole of their life?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    hunters aren't different species you know. women don't give birth to babies and then the doctors hold it up and say 'you have just given birth to a beautiful baby hunter', i mean, come on, they make their decision on their own whether they wish to hunt or not, thats kind of different to being born a fox!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dill)
    hunters aren't different species you know. women don't give birth to babies and then the doctors hold it up and say 'you have just given birth to a beautiful baby hunter', i mean, come on, they make their decision on their own whether they wish to hunt or not, thats kind of different to being born a fox!
    :rolleyes: I know - I was taking the micky. If you are re-incarnated though wouldn't coming back as a fox be a huge step down?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil)
    A life of starving, fear and eventually, being ripped apart.
    The above can be applied to many humans in the world in which we live. Maybe we should deal with that fact (a real, genuine problem clear for all to see) before we start protecting the pests that are foxes.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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.